Vertical vs. Horizontal Exhaustion – California Supreme Court Issues Ruling Favorable to Policyholders
May 11, 2020 —
Alan Packer & James Hultz - Newmeyer DillionFor years, when faced with damage or injury spanning several policy periods, excess general liability insurers have argued that all potentially applicable underlying policies must be exhausted before the excess drops down to provide coverage (“horizontal exhaustion”). Insureds, on the other hand, insist that they are entitled to immediately access an excess policy for any given policy year, if that year’s underlying policy has exhausted (“vertical exhaustion”). Vertical exhaustion not only enables insureds to directly tap into the excess insurance for which they paid substantial premiums, but also enables the insured to moderate risk given that different lower level policies might (1) be needed for other claims, (2) have larger self-insured retentions, or (3) have other less favorable coverage provisions. Allowing an insured to proceed via vertical exhaustion would also eliminate the heavy administrative and logistical burden that could result from having to pursue and exhaust all underlying coverage on multi-year claims.
In Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Superior Court, 2020 WL 1671560 (April 6, 2020), the California Supreme Court has come down in favor of policyholders and vertical exhaustion. The Montrose case involved contamination that allegedly occurred between 1947 and 1982 and different liability insurance towers (comprised of primary and excess layers) for each year. The insured, Montrose, maintained a tower of insurance coverage, year by year, and faced claims asserting damage that spanned several decades. Montrose sought coverage from excess insurers under a vertical exhaustion approach. Not surprisingly, Montrose’s excess insurers insisted that horizontal exclusion was required and that Montrose was required to exhausted all other policies with lower attachment points in every single involved policy period. The California Supreme Court ruled in Montrose’s favor, holding that the insured may insist upon full coverage from an excess insurer once the layer directly below it has exhausted. The Court reasoned that the burden of spreading the loss among insurers is one that is appropriately borne by insurers, not insureds.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alan H. Packer, Newmeyer Dillion and
James S. Hultz, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Packer may be contacted at alan.packer@ndlf.com
Mr. Hultz may be contacted at james.hultz@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rio de Janeiro's Bursting Real-Estate Bubble
September 17, 2015 —
Juan Pablo Spinetto & Peter Millard – BloombergAt opposite ends of downtown Rio de Janeiro, projects tied to Donald Trump and Eike Batista-- one a billionaire-turned-politician, the other Brazil’s most famous ex-billionaire -- have come to represent the city’s real estate bust.
The 23-story Serrador building, a granite-and-glass art deco tower near Rio’s Santos Dumont airport, has sat empty since Batista’s failed empire of commodities companies abandoned it last year. Four miles away, in the city’s gritty port district, an ambitious office project that Trump lent his name to is still nothing more than a weed-filled lot about a year after construction was slated to begin.
Reprinted courtesy of
Juan Pablo Spinetto, Bloomberg and
Peter Millard, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Saylin Expands Employment Litigation and Insurance Litigation Team at Payne & Fears
September 23, 2024 —
Payne & Fears LLPScott Saylin has joined Payne & Fears LLP as a Law Clerk in the firm’s Employment Litigation Group and Insurance Litigation Group. Before his time at Payne & Fears, Scott served as a law clerk for Cascadia Healthcare in Boise, Idaho.
“We are pleased to welcome Scott Saylin back to the firm. He was with us as a summer associate before completing his final year of law school at George Washington University,” said Amy Patton, the group’s co-chair. “Scott has fantastic potential to develop into an excellent litigator and will be an asset to our team.”
Get to Know Scott
What activities do you enjoy outside of work?
Pickle ball, long walks, beach trips, cooking, watching the Lakers games, and playing the guitar & piano.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
Steel-Fiber Concrete Link Beams Perform Well in Tests
December 21, 2016 —
Nadine M. Post – Engineering News-RecordA recent series of dynamic tests demonstrates that there are several types and doses of steel-fiber reinforcement that can be used in performance-based seismic design of coupling beams—headers that link openings in concrete shear walls—to reduce rebar congestion. The tests, performed at the University of Wisconsin, are called “a step in the right direction” by the structural engineer who pioneered the use of SFR concrete.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-RecordMs. Post may be contacted at
postn@enr.com
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting
September 09, 2019 —
Norman F. Carlin & Eric Moorman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn June 21, 2019, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued draft guidance clarifying the treatment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in environmental impact reviews of federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Those wishing to comment on the draft must submit comments within 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
The draft guidance is part of the Trump Administration’s continuing efforts to streamline the permitting and environmental review process for infrastructure and energy projects. It replaces NEPA guidance on climate impacts issued in 2016 by the Obama administration, which was rescinded by President Trump’s Executive Order 13783 early in 2017. Although some initial reports suggest that the new draft guidance significantly pulls back from the Obama administration’s approach, on closer comparison it does not depart that much from the major recommendations of the rescinded guidance.
In general, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing to undertake, approve or fund a major federal action to evaluate its environmental impacts, including both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects; to consider alternatives and mitigation; and to discuss cumulative impacts resulting from the incremental effects of the project when added to those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The new draft and the rescinded 2016 guidance contain similar recommendations regarding an agency’s obligations to consider indirect and cumulative GHG impacts, as well as on the use of cost-benefit analysis and the contentious Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) metric.
Reprinted courtesy of
Norman F. Carlin, Pillsbury and
Eric Moorman, Pillsbury
Mr. Carlin may be contacted at norman.carlin@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Moorman may be contacted at eric.moorman@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
An Insurance Policy Isn’t Ambiguous Just Because You Want It to Be
December 20, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to insurance contracts, there is a rule of law that states, “where interpretation is required by ambiguity in insurance contracts[,] the insured will be favored.” Pride Clean Restoration, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2584a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated another way: ambiguities in insurance contracts will be interpreted in favor of the insured and against the insurer.
With this rule of law in mind, insureds oftentimes try to argue ambiguity even when there is not one. This was the situation in Pride Clean Construction. In this case, the property insurance policy contained a mold exclusion that stated the policy did NOT insure for “a. loss caused by mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism of any type, nature, or description including but not limited to any substance whose presence poses an actual or potential threat to human health; or b. the cost or expense of monitoring, testing, removal, encapsulation, abatement, treatment or handling of mold, mildew, fungus, spores or other microorganism as referred to in a) above.” Not only did the policy not insure for loss caused by mold, it went further to state it was NOT insuring for any mold testing or abatement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Tort Claims Against an Alter Ego May Be Considered an Action “On a Contract” for the Purposes of an Attorneys’ Fees Award under California Civil Code section 1717
April 12, 2021 —
Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogCalifornia Civil Code section 1717 entitles the prevailing party to attorneys’ fees “[i]n any action on a contract,” where the contract provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party, regardless of whether the prevailing party is the party specified in the contract or not. But what about an action that alleges tort causes of action against an alter ego of a contracting party but that does not include a breach of contract claim against the alter ego? This was the question facing the California Court of Appeal in 347 Group, Inc. v. Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 209.
In that case, the plaintiff 347 Group sued and obtained a default judgment for breach of contract against defendant Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. Id. at 211–12. 347 Group had also sued Philip Hawkins individually as well as Design-Build, Inc., the company Hawkins founded after putting Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc. into bankruptcy. Id. at 212. 347 Group originally alleged claims for breach of contract, fraudulent conveyance, and conspiracy against Hawkins and Design-Build, seeking to establish that Hawkins and Design-Build were the alter egos of the contracting party, Philip Hawkins Architect, Inc., but later dismissed the breach of contract claim. Id. Hawkins and Design-Build eventually prevailed on the tort causes of action, and moved for attorneys’ fees. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
