CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend

February 28, 2022 — Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
The recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company1 benefits insureds seeking to establish an insurer’s duty to defend. As a matter of first impression, the court clarified that insureds have the burden to prove that an exception to a policy exclusion applies in order to trigger the insured’s duty to defend. However, while the policyholder may use extrinsic evidence to establish the insurer’s duty to defend, the insurer may not use extrinsic evidence to deny that duty. The facts of the underlying claim are set in the 2000s when the insured subcontractors worked to build thousands of homes in Nevada. The subcontractors were insured by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) during that period. After the homes were complete, the subcontractors switched from Zurich to Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”). Between 2010 and 2013, homeowners brought claims against the subcontractors alleging that the properties were damaged due to construction defects. The subcontractors tendered the claims to Zurich as the insurer at the time of construction. Zurich then sought defense and indemnification from Ironshore. Ironshore denied coverage under a “continuing and progressive” policy exclusion, claiming that the property damage occurred due to faulty work that predated the Ironshore policy. Notably, an exception to the exclusion applied if “sudden and accidental” property damage occurred within the Ironshore policy period. Given that the underlying lawsuits did not include specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred, Ironshore and Zurich disagreed on whether the exception to the exclusion was triggered.. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Barrese may be contacted at BBarrese@sdvlaw.com

---

The Best Laid Plans: Contingency in a Construction Contract

September 13, 2021 — Josh Levy, Katesha Long & Samantha Schacht - Construction Executive
This article is the first of a three-part series on contingencies in construction contracts. This series will explain:

• what a construction contingency is;
• the two primary schools of thought regarding how a construction contingency fund should be used and managed; and
• construction contract drafting considerations for contingency clauses.

Armed with this information, owners and contractors will be better equipped to tackle the inevitable project surprises. Life is full of surprises, some good and some not too good. Surprises during construction are seldom welcome events. However, experienced owners and contractors know to expect the unexpected and plan accordingly by including contingency funds in their budgets. For them, the question is not whether or not to include a contingency, but how much to set aside and how to structure and manage the fund. Reprinted courtesy of Josh Levy, Katesha Long & Samantha Schacht, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Ms. Schacht may be contacted at samantha.schacht@huschblackwell.com Ms. Long may be contacted at katesha.long@huschblackwell.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss

March 19, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In North Counties Engineering v. State Farm (No. A133713, filed 3/13/14), State Farm insured an engineering company under CGL insurance that had a professional services exclusion and included products-completed operations (PCO) coverage. The owner of the engineering company, NCE, contracted with a winery to construct a dam and associated works. Also on the project was the owner's son, who had his own construction company, NCD. There were multiple contracts, both oral and written, variously naming one company or the other. The evidence later showed that the father performed hands-on work for the project. After completion, the winery was sued over sediment and erosion caused by the dam. State Farm denied coverage on the ground that the professional services exclusion applied, as well as a mistaken belief that the policy had no PCO coverage. State Farm then changed its position and agreed to defend, but only going forward. The insured sued State Farm over past defense fees, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The case went to trial and after testimony detailing State Farm's claim handling, the trial judge granted a nonsuit, finding that the professional services exclusion barred all coverage: "[I]f you look at the pleadings, the legal pleadings and the contracts, the NCE role is, as the engineering company, the support company, and that company was overseeing the [sic] NCD to make sure that whatever they did was done right.... NCE is the expert on the job, the professional providing professional services, design and construction, and also overseeing the work of NCD, the son’s business, which is doing more of the physical activity.... That takes professional expertise and I think all of what Mr. Akerstrom did was professional.... It was this professional work, and not 'something incidental to their professional involvement' that gave rise to the underlying actions. In this situation, it’s not a malpractice or E and O policy. It’s a business policy, which has good benefits, but is subject to the professional services exclusion." Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Panthers Withdraw City, County Deal Over Abandoned Facility

September 19, 2022 — The Associated Press (Jeffrey Collins) - Bloomberg
Columbia, S.C. (AP) -- Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper’s real estate company wants to revoke a bankruptcy settlement it negotiated with the city and county where its abandoned South Carolina practice facility was supposed to be built because it says the governments are making exorbitant and unreasonable demands. GT Real Estate Holdings had offered $21 million to York County. It suggested giving the proceeds from selling part of its site in Rock Hill so the city would get at least $20 million. But the county and city have filed separate lawsuits and court papers. York County said it is entitled to more than $80 million in part to get back money from a special penny sales tax that was supposed to expand a road but Tepper’s company used for the proposed practice facility. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg

---

Ohio Condo Owners Sue Builder, Alleging Construction Defects

September 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Seventy-four condominium owners that reside in the Villas at Northstar in Westerville, Ohio, have sued Romanelli & Hughes, the builder, for alleged construction issues that led to water intrusion, according to The Columbus Dispatch. “There have been noted deficiencies at every building out there, with both the roofs and wall systems,” Kevin Fields, a partner at Kasman & Cusimano, the firm that is representing the condo owners, told The Columbus Dispatch. “There’s been severe water infiltration through the walls, which has caused underlying damage, and various roof leaks and roofs not properly secured — in essence, sliding off the buildings.” Counsel for the builder, Gabe Roehrenbeck, a partner with Thompson Hines law firm, stated that “he could not comment on the specifics of the case…because he has not had time to analyze it.” But he issued the statement, “Romanelli & Hughes is an award-winning builder that over the course of more than 40 years has built a reputation for client service and satisfaction.” Construction defects listed in the suit include “failure to install or improper installation of flashing, ice shields, roofing paper, shingles, control joints in stucco and weather-resistant barriers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter – A Year in Review

February 27, 2019 — White and Williams LLP
Welcome to CICR’s annual review of insurance cases. Here, we spotlight five (actually, seven) decisions from the last year that you should know about, and five pending cases—all before state high courts—to keep an eye on. The choices were not always easy. That is because 2018 saw a number of notable insurance coverage developments. Among them was the “Restatement of the Law – Liability Insurance,” a nearly five hundred-page document that the American Law Institute (ALI) adopted after eight years and twenty-nine drafts. Already, much has been written about the ALI Restatement, including by us. There will be more to come. Going forward, we will continue to highlight significant examples where courts address its provisions. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

Congratulations to BWB&O’s 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars!

July 05, 2021 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to announce Partners Kyle Carroll, Nicole Nuzzo, and Michael D’Andrea, as well as Associates Andy Arakelian and Andrew Steinberg, have been selected to the 2021 Super Lawyers Southern California Rising Stars for their work in Civil and Family litigation! Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations, and peer evaluations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Insurer’s Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Earth Movement Exclusion Denied

October 28, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

After carefully dissecting the earth movement exclusion, the court denied the insurer’s motion for summary judgment. High Street Lofts Condominium Assoc., Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109043 (D. Colo. Sept. 26, 2011).

The City of Boulder performed road repair work near High Street’s property, some of which involved the use of a vibrating compactor to compact and set the roadbed. High Street noticed damage to its building, such as cracks in walls, sloping of floors and separations of porches from the building itself. High Street contacted the City of Boulder, who forwarded the complaint to its contractor, Concrete Express, Inc.

High Street also filed a claim with its business insurer, American Family, who denied the claim. American Family relied on an opinion letter by High Street’s engineer. The letter indicated that the damage was the result of "soil consolidation/settlement," in response to the construction activities. Based on this letter American Family concluded the claim was excluded under the policy’s earth movement exclusion.

High Street sued American Family, who moved for summary judgment.

Read the full story...

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---