CGL Coverage for Liquidated Damages and the Contractual Liability Exclusion
October 09, 2023 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverLiquidated delay damages are common in construction contracts and are generally imposed when a contractor fails to achieve substantial completion within the time required by the contract. While contracts like the AIA A201-2017 have provisions for extending the time to achieve substantial completion when delays are caused by circumstances beyond the contractor’s control, delays can result from factors other than improper management or planning and the like, for which the owner is not required to give the contractor additional time. Courts are split on whether there is ever coverage under a CGL policy for contractually agreed upon liquidated delay damages.
Liquidated delay damages are often excluded under the contractual liability exclusion of most CGL policies. The contractual liability exclusion excludes coverage for “liability for which the Insured is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.” Courts often find the contractual liability exclusion in a CGL policy precludes coverage for liquidated delay damages, because such damages are contractual in nature and are triggered by the failure to bring the contract to substantial completion by a fixed deadline, regardless of the cause of the delay. However, some courts will look to the cause of the delay and find that there is coverage under a CGL policy for liquidated delay damages that are the result of property damage caused by an accident or occurrence.
In Clark Const. Grp., Inc. v. Eagle Amalgamated Serv., Inc., 01-2478-DV, 2005 WL 2092998, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 24, 2005) a general contractor entered a contract for the renovation of the convention center in Memphis. Part of the project included the demolition of a structure attached to the convention center. The demolition work was improperly performed by a subcontractor and resulted in damage to the convention center.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
ACEC Research Institute Releases New Engineering Industry Forecast
December 13, 2021 —
American Council of Engineering CompaniesWashington, DC, Dec. 09, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today, the ACEC Research Institute released two new reports on the Engineering and Design Services industry: the 2021 Economic Assessment of the Engineering and Design Services Industry and a new Engineering Business Sentiment report for Q4 2021.
The data shows the industry has rebounded from project postponements due to COVID, though firms identify a tight labor market and lack of qualified workers as continued barriers to growth across public and private markets.
This is the second annual release of the Engineering and Design Services industry assessment, which tracks the industry's economic contributions, analyzes key economic drivers, and forecasts industry growth.
Snapshot of the Engineering and Design Services Industry:
1.5 million direct full- and part-time jobs
$97,300 average yearly wages
$338 billion in industry sales
$198 billion direct economic contribution
$105 billion collected in total federal, state & local tax
Both reports, the 2021 Economic Assessment of the Engineering and Design Services Industry and the Engineering Business Sentiment report for Q4 2021, are available for download by clicking
here.
###
The ACEC Research Institute is the research arm of the American Council of Engineering Companies – the business association of the nation's engineering industry. The ACEC Research Institute's mission is to deliver knowledge and business strategies that guide and elevate the engineering industry and to be the leading source of knowledge and thought leadership for creating a more sustainable, safe, secure and technically advanced built environment. For more information, go to www.acecresearchinstitute.org.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“I Didn’t Sign That!” – Applicability of Waivers of Subrogation to Non-Signatory Third Parties
September 30, 2019 —
Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation StrategistIn Gables Construction v. Red Coats, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 419, Maryland’s Court of Special Appeals considered whether a contractual waiver of subrogation in the prime contract for a construction project barred a third party – a fire watch vendor hired to guard the worksite – from pursuing a contribution claim against the general contractor. The court concluded that the general contractor could not rely on the waiver of subrogation clause to defeat the contribution claim of the vendor, who was not a party to the prime contract. As noted by the court, holding that a waiver of subrogation clause bars the contribution claims of an entity that was not a party to the contract would violate the intent of the Maryland Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA).
When dealing with claims involving construction projects, there may exist multiple contracts between various parties that contain waivers of subrogation. The enforceability of such waivers can be limited by several factors, including the jurisdiction of the loss, the language of the waiver and the parties to the contract.
In Gables Construction, Upper Rock, Inc. (Upper Rock), the owner, contracted with a general contractor, Gables Construction (GCI) (hereinafter referred to as the “prime contract”), to construct an apartment complex. After someone stole a bobcat tractor from the jobsite, Gables Residential Services Incorporated (GRSI), GCI’s parent company, signed a vendor services agreement (VSA) with Red Coats to provide a fire watch and other security services for the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLPMr. Gogineni may be contacted at
goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com
Flood Coverage Denied Based on Failure to Submit Proof of Loss
November 26, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted summary judgment to the insurer because the insureds submitted only documentation of damage by flood, not proof of loss forms required by the policy. Alexander v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143284 (E.D. La. Oct. 8, 2014).
Hurricane Isaac caused flood damaged to the insureds' home. A claim was filed for flood damage under their Standard Flood Insurance Policy issued by Allstate. An independent adjuster estimated that building repairs would be $50,025. Allstate also prepared a contents loss estimate of $22,655 based on a personal property list submitted by the insureds. Proof of loss forms for these amounts were sent to the insureds and returned to Allstate. Consequently, these claims were paid.
The insureds submitted a new proof of loss for additional lost contents, and another payment was made. Additional building damages were found. Again, the proof of loss was resubmitted and an additional payment was made by Allstate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “How Bad Is It?”
September 25, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyHow bad is it?
“Not that bad,” said an Illinois federal court to a surety which was complaining that its subcontract performance bond terms had not been satisfied by the obligees on the bonds (the general contractor and the building owner).
In response to $3.6 million demand by the obligees on the performance bond, the surety filed an action in federal court in Illinois seeking to have the court declare that the surety had no further obligation on its performance bond. The surety urged that the obligees had not fulfilled the prerequisite requirements in the bond to make a claim on the bond (which, although the court never identified the bond form, was a bond form that closely resembled the AIA A312-2010 performance bond).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas
March 02, 2020 —
Karen Campbell & Kristen Perkins - Lewis BrisboisNew York Partner Karen L. Campbell and Fort Lauderdale Partner Kristen D. Perkins will both speak at the upcoming CLM 2020 Annual Conference taking place March 18 to 20 at the Gaylord Texan Resort outside Dallas, Texas.
On March 19 at 2:00 p.m., Ms. Perkins will join a panel discussion titled “Predictive Analytics – You Don’t Need a Crystal Ball to Predict the Future,” exploring how predictive analytics affects litigation management programs, including case budgets, case cycle times, and claims outcomes. The panelists will also look at how machine learning picks up on nuances or anomalies that can affect analytics and give attendees a clearer picture on expected case parameters, and how that information can empower claims professionals during firm selection.
Then, on March 20 at 10:40 a.m., Ms. Campbell will join a roundtable discussion titled “How to Calculate Damages and Defend in Serious Injury Cases,” covering the calculation of both economic and non-economic damages, as well as trends and recent verdicts involving punitive damages and assessing the various types of third-party liability.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karen Campbell, Lewis Brisbois and
Kristen Perkins, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Campbell may be contacted at Karen.Campbell@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Perkins may be contacted at Kristen.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components
October 11, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo Meta - White and WilliamsIn Florida, damage caused by faulty workmanship constitutes “property damage;” however, the cost of repairing or removing defective work does not. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Auchter Company, 673 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (Auchter). But what happens when the cost of repairing or removing defective work results in loss of use of the tangible property which is not physically injured?
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was recently faced with this question in Tricon Development of Brevard, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Company, No. 21-11199, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27317 (11th Cir. Sep. 10, 2021). Tricon arose out of the construction of a condominium. Tricon was hired to serve as general contractor for the project and hired a subcontractor to fabricate and install metal railings. The railings installed by the subcontractor were defective and damaged, improperly installed, and failed to meet the project’s specifications. Tricon filed an insurance claim with Nautilus Insurance Company, the subcontractor’s commercial general liability insurer, for the cost to remove and replace the railings.[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Margo Meta, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Delaware Settlements with Minors and the Uniform Transfer to Minor Act
October 15, 2014 —
Stephen J. Milewski – White and Williams LLPAs a Delaware lawyer, one of the most frequently asked questions I get from insurance clients is: “Do all personal injury settlements with minors need to be approved by the Court?” The answer is and always has been yes. This is true regardless of the amount of the settlement. There have, however, been some recent changes under Delaware law which may help facilitate the process and even reduce the costs associated with settling small tort cases with minors. Traditionally, when settling cases with a minor, a Petition would be filed with the trial court (Superior Court) and then a hearing would be scheduled for the parties to present to the Court the terms of the settlement, explain the plaintiff’s injuries and itemize the fee breakdown. This would be the settlement approval process. After that, the plaintiff would be required to have a guardian appointed over the proceeds, which had to be approved by Chancery Court (Delaware’s Court of Equity). The purpose of this process was to ensure the settlement money going to the minor was managed properly; the net proceeds were generally placed into a bank account not to be used by the guardian or the minor until the minor reached the age of majority. To both the plaintiff, and the insurance carrier paying out the settlement, this process was burdensome and added disproportionate costs to small settlements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Milewski, White and Williams LLPMr. Milewski may be contacted at
milewskis@whiteandwiliams.com
