Is Your Business Insured for the Coronavirus?
March 16, 2020 —
J. Kelby Van Patten & Jared De Jong - Payne & FearsHow bad will the pandemic get? How much will it spread in the United States? Will we develop a vaccine in time to do any good?
As insurance lawyers, we have no idea. But we can help you figure out whether your business is insured for the coronavirus risks that keep business owners up at night.
Risk 1: An outbreak forces my business to close until the outbreak ends. Are my financial business losses covered?
Maybe. Many commercial property policies provide “business interruption coverage” which may apply.
This coverage typically requires that:
(i) Your business is shut down. If your business actually closes for a period of time, you may meet this requirement. However, you wouldn’t meet it if your business slows because half of your staff is home sick.
(ii) The shutdown is necessary. “Necessary” means something different than “desirable” or “prudent.” Whether a shutdown is necessary depends on the facts. If it is physically or legally impossible to enter your building, then closure is necessary. But if the government issues a public advisory recommending that businesses close, and you voluntarily comply, that’s a different story.
(iii) The shutdown is caused by physical damage to your property. Is a viral outbreak “damage” to your property? There’s not a clear answer. On the one hand, courts have found that hazardous contamination of a building constitutes property damage to the building. For example, asbestos incorporated into a building constitutes property damage to the building under a commercial general liability policy. Environmental contamination can also constitute property damage to the contaminated property. Policyholders whose businesses close during an outbreak will argue that property contaminated by the virus satisfies the “physical damage to property” requirement. On the other hand, insurers may argue that the real cause of the shutdown is not the contaminated building surfaces, but the need for social distancing in a neighborhood with many contagious people. Coverage will depend on the policy language and the details of the shutdown.
Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kelby Van Patten, Payne & Fears and
Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears
Mr. Van may be contacted at kvp@paynefears.com
Mr. Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Weslaco, Texas Investigating Possible Fraudulent Contractor Invoices
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe city of Weslaco in Texas fears that they have received “fraudulent invoices from the contractor of the…Valley Nature Center facility,” according to the Mid-Valley Town Crier. The project had been stalled due to “problems with numerous subcontractors claiming they hadn’t received payment.” Furthermore, “[c]onstruction is more than 14 months delayed and now halted as contractor GAS Enterprises demands more money from the city.”
City Manager Leo Olivares informed GAS President Rene Salinas “that the city was aware of ‘forged requests for payments,’ ‘padding invoices’ and ‘requests for reimbursement for items, materials and labor that you did not pay,’” reported the Mid-Valley Town Crier. While Salinas did not respond to the Mid-Valley Town Crier when asked for a comment, he did send a letter to the city “arguing that none of the subcontractors had questioned the documents to him.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.
In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”
Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.
The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”
The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”
The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFJudge Gleuda E. Edmonds, a magistrate judge in the United States District Court of Arizona issued a ruling in Guadiana v. State Farm on January 25, 2012. Judge Edmonds recommended a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Ms. Guandiana’s home had water damage due to pluming leaks in September 2004. She was informed that polybutylene pluming in her house could not be repaired in parts “it must be completely replaced.” She had had the plumbing replaced. State Farm denied her claim, arguing that “the tear-out provision did not cover the cost of accessing and replacing those pipes that were not leaking.”
In September 2007, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss. The court rejected this motion, stating that “If Guadiana can establish as a matter of fact that the system that caused the covered loss included all the pipes in her house and it was necessary to replace all the pipes to repair that system, State Farm is obligated to pay the tear-out costs necessary to replace all the pipes, even those not leaking.”
In March 2009, State Farm filed for summary judgment, which the court granted. State Farm argued that “the tear-out provision only applied to ‘repair’ and not ‘replace’ the system that caused the covered leak.” As for the rest of the piping, State Farm argued that “the policy does not cover defective materials.”
In December 2011, Ms. Guadiana filed for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that “the policy ‘covers tear-out costs necessary to adequately repair the plumbing system, even if an adequate repair requires replacing all or part of the system.”
In her ruling, Judge Edmonds noted that Ms. Guadiana’s claim is that “the water damage is a covered loss and she is entitled to tear-out costs necessary to repair the pluming system that caused that covered loss.” She rejected State Farm’s claim that it was not obligated to replace presumably defective pipes. Further, she rejected State Farm’s argument that they were only responsible for the leaking portion, noting “Guadiana intends to prove at trial that this is an unusual case where repair of her plumbing system requires replacement of all the PB plumbing.”
Judge Edmonds concluded by directing the District Court to interpret the tear out issue as “the tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay all tear-out costs necessary to repair the plumbing system (that caused the covered loss) even if repair of the system requires accessing more than the leaking portion of the system.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses
September 28, 2017 —
C. Lily Schurra & K. Alexandra Byrd – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Second Circuit recently affirmed a district court decision that an insured bears the burden of establishing what portion of a jury verdict constitutes covered damages1.
The case arose out of claims for property damage resulting from construction defects in a homebuilding project. The homeowners fired the construction manager, J. Barrows, Inc. (“JBI”), who then sued the homeowners in state court for unpaid fees (the “Underlying Action”). The homeowners counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and negligence. JBI’s commercial general liability insurer, Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company (“Harleysville”), agreed to defend JBI under a reservation of rights.
Reprinted courtesy of
C. Lily Schurra, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Schurra may be contacted at cls@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense
January 31, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe doctrine of avoidable consequences is an affirmative defense that can be used in certain property damage lawsuits. This is a defense that does not go to liability, but it goes to damages. This doctrine of avoidable consequences defense holds that a plaintiff cannot recover damages caused by a defendant that the plaintiff could have reasonably avoided . See Media Holdings, LLC v. Orange County, Florida, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D237c (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Stated differently, if the plaintiff could have reasonably avoided the consequences of the damages caused by the defendant then the plaintiff cannot recover those damages. However, the defendant needs to prove this defense — the burden is on the defendant to establish this defense (ideally through expert testimony).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
No Duty to Defend under Homeowner's Policy Where No Occurrence, No Property Damage
October 10, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court for the district of Hawaii granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment determining there was not duty to defend and no duty to indemnify the insured under a homeowner's policy. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Rosfeld, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139123 (D. Haw. Aug. 4, 2022).
The insured homeowners were sued in the underlying case for alleged failure to disclose poor flooding and plumbing issues during a December 2016 sale of the residence on Kauai. The disclosure statement purportedly made false representations and omitted material facts regarding various issues with the residence. The disclosure statement noted no sewage, drainage, water-related, or grading problems on the property, no damage to structures from flooding or leaks, no defects in the foundations or slabs, and no defects in the interior walls, baseboards or trim despite the insureds having experienced such issues during their ownership. The underlying complaint further alleged that the property had a history of drainage problems dating to 2006 and 2007, which the insureds knew about, or should have known about, when completing the disclosure statement. The insureds made a claim with Allstate in 2014 under their flood and homeowners policies for flooding or seepage into the basement of the house.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation
November 05, 2024 —
Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute ResolverIn the September 26, 2024 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series,
Clifford Shapiro presented on Guided Choice Mediation (“GCM”) and how it can lead to better outcomes in construction disputes.
GCM is an approach to mediation that focuses on early and efficient dispute resolution, which prominent mediators created as a public interest project.
Shapiro described his particular variant of GCM based on his experience while acknowledging that other Guided Choice Mediators’ processes may differ from his in various ways. Shapiro’s brand of GCM focuses on ensuring that parties have reasonable expectations and appropriate settlement authority prior to arriving at a mediation. Some of the strategies to help accomplish these noble goals are (i) early mediator engagement, (ii) mediator facilitation of information exchange, (iii) mediator involvement with insurance issues (particularly important in construction defect cases, especially those with multiple defendants), (iii) pre-mediation ex parte meetings, and (iv) mediator participation in risk analysis. These strategies are not typical in the more traditional/historic approach to mediation in which mediation is scheduled based on a scheduling order, mediation statements are sent to the mediator roughly a week before the scheduled mediation (and sometimes not even shared with anyone other than the mediator), and the parties speak with the mediator for the first time on the day of the mediation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’ConnorMr. Mackin may be contacted at
dmackin@cozen.com
