How Mansions Can Intensify Wildfires
May 30, 2022 —
Todd Woody - BloombergA neighborhood of $4 million homes that burned Wednesday in a Southern California wildfire highlights the vulnerability of large suburban dwellings to climate-driven blazes, according to fire experts.
The Coastal Fire destroyed at least 20 homes in a gated community in Laguna Niguel, a wealthy Orange County enclave near Laguna Beach. Houses in the Coronado Pointe development line a ridge overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Homes in the neighborhood are palatial, ranging in size from about 4,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet, and sit on large lots with room for swimming pools with coastal views. But the mansions are wedged together with relatively little space between buildings.
When a fire broke out near a wastewater treatment plant on Wednesday, it raced up a chaparral-covered hillside until it encountered an explosive source of fuel – Coronado Pointe.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd Woody, Bloomberg
General Release of Contractor Upheld Despite Knowledge of Construction Defects
February 27, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAh, the elusive Lepus Cornutus, commonly known as the Jackalope. Rarely seen, we may have one in SI 59 LLC v. Variel Warner Ventures, LLC, Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B285086 (November 15, 2018), an interesting case involving a developer, a contractor, a general release, and Civil Code section 1688.
SI 59 LLC v. Variel Warner Ventures, LLC
In 2005, Variel Warner Ventures, LLC (Variel Warner) entered into a construction contract with Verdugo Management & Investment, Inc. (Verdugo) to construct improvements at an 85 unit apartment complex. Under the terms of the contract, Verdugo agreed to construction the improvements in a good and workmanlike manner in strict compliance with all drawings and specifications and to comply with all laws. It didn’t. The work was defectively flashed, counterflashed, and waterproofed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel RosenMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act
August 29, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn federal contracting, contractors are sometimes torn about submitting a request for equitable adjustment (known as an “REA” under 48 C.F.R. 252.243-7002) or submitting a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. s. 7103), the latter requiring a final decision by the contracting officer and starts the clock with respect to interest and preserving rights. It is also sometimes not easy for the contracting officer receiving an REA to determine whether the REA is actually a claim under the Contract Disputes Act requiring more immediate action. This recent take by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hits the nail on the head:
We recognize that contracting officers will sometimes face the difficult challenge of determining whether a request for equitable adjustment is also a claim. Contractors must choose between submitting a claim—which starts the interest clock but requires the contracting officer to issue a final decision within 60 days—and submitting a mere request for equitable adjustment—which does not start the interest clock but gives the contractor more time to negotiate a settlement and possibly avoid hefty legal fees. The overlap between these two types of documents might create room for gamesmanship. For example, a contractor could submit a document that is a claim—starting the interest clock—but appears to be a mere request for equitable adjustment—causing the contracting officer to not issue a final decision within the 60-day deadline and allowing interest to accrue for months or years. But the government has tools to address this challenge: The contracting officer can communicate to the contractor that she is going to treat the document as a claim and issue a final decision within 60 days. Or the government can explicitly require the contractor to propose settlement terms and attempt to settle disputes before submitting a claim to the contracting officer for a final decision.
Zafer Construction Company v. U.S., 2022 WL 2793596, *5 (Fed.Cir. 2022).
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
Florida Condos Bet on Americans Making 50% Down Payments
October 29, 2014 —
John Gittelsohn – BloombergJorge Perez crashed along with the real estate market, then regained his crown as Florida’s “Condo King” by building new projects with 50 percent deposits from foreign buyers. Now, for his next development, he’s looking to wealthy Americans.
In December, he’ll begin marketing the Auberge Beach Residences and Spa Fort Lauderdale, a $500 million oceanfront project 35 miles (56 kilometers) north of Miami. He expects as many as two-thirds of the buyers to come from the U.S. or Canada. All future owners must pay hefty deposits to finance construction by Perez’s Related Group, Fortune International Group and Fairwinds Group in a partnership that the companies plan to announce tomorrow.
“The U.S. buyers have made up an increasing share of luxury beachfront condominiums and, like our foreign buyers, they have shown little resistance to larger deposits,” Perez said in an e-mail. “Most feel that if they can’t put a 50 percent down payment, they probably should not be buying.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Gittelsohn, BloombergMr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at
johngitt@bloomberg.net
Policy Language Matters: New Jersey Court Bars Cleanup Coverage Under Broad Policy Terms
May 15, 2023 —
Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. The New Jersey Appellate Division in
Handy & Harman v. Beazley USA Services, Inc., provided clarity regarding the interpretation of the Prior or Pending Litigation Exclusion in a site-specific environmental liability insurance policy.
In Handy & Harman, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s determination that the insurer was not required to defend or indemnify its policyholder, a metal etching company. The court held that the Prior or Pending Litigation Exclusion (which applied to prior litigation and prior claims) barred coverage for natural resource damages sought in the current litigation because (1) an Administrative Consent Order (“ACO”) is a claim; and (2) the underlying lawsuit was based on the same environmental contamination as addressed in the ACO.1
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at
SManobianca@sdvlaw.com
Contractor’s Coverage For Additional Insured Established by Unilateral Contract
November 18, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe contractor was covered as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy even though the parties had never actually signed an agreement to add the contractor to the policy. Evanston Ins. Co. v. Westchester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20081 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011).
The policies held by Bellevue Master, the general contractor, required it to be an additional insured under any subcontractor’s liability policy. Northwest Tower Crane Services was a subcontractor. Bellevue Master LLC, faxed a message that Northwest could continue to be a subcontractor on the project if it complied with Bellevue Master’s insurance requirements. Northwest contacted its insurance broker and requested an insurance certificate be issued to Bellevue Master so that it would be an additional insured under Northwest’s policy.
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 decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”
While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”
Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”
In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.
The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”
The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.
The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”
The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”
The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”
The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Will Not Address Trigger for DEP Environmental Cleanup Action at This Time
August 14, 2018 —
Gregory Capps - White and Williams LLPOn July 18, 2018, in Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association Insurance Company v. Johnson Matthey, Inc., et al., No. 24 MAP 2017 (Pa. July 18, 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court quashed the Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association’s (PMA) appeal seeking review of a ruling denying its motion for summary judgment for an order that coverage for the cleanup of a toxic waste site is limited to the policy in effect when property damage was first discovered. In short, the court found the lower court’s ruling only narrowed the dispute between the parties and is, therefore, interlocutory and not appealable at this time.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory Capps, White & Williams LLPMr. Capps may be contacted at
cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com
