Appeals Court Rules that CGL Policy Doesn’t Cover Subcontractors’ Faulty Work
August 06, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Business Insurance, in J-McDaniel Construction Co. Inc. v. Mid-Continental Casualty Co. et al., an appeals court upheld a lower court ruling that a “construction company's commercial general liability insurance policy does not provide coverage for faulty workmanship or subcontractor negligence.”
“We are not at liberty to disregard the binding law of the state, nor may we substitute our judgment for that of the Arkansas Supreme Court,” said the panel, in affirming the lower court ruling, as quoted in Business Insurance.
Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance pointed out that “[l]ast year, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati held that a subcontractor's allegedly faulty preparation of a building pad, which resulted in subsequent settling and structural damage to the building constructed on top of it, was not an occurrence within the standard coverage language of a CGL policy.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action
August 03, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer.
After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions.
The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends
August 24, 2020 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo E. Meta - White and WilliamsThere are certain generally held principles regarding an insurer’s duty to defend. One of these principles is that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured if the complaint states a claim that potentially falls within the policy’s coverage. However, there is a lack of consistency regarding the point at which the insurers’ duty to defend ends. When the only potentially covered claim has been dismissed, must the insurer continue to defend?
Certain jurisdictions, such as Hawaii and Minnesota, have held that an insurer’s duty to defend continues through an appeals process, or until a final judgment has been entered, disposing of the entire case. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. Bank of Hawaii, 832 P.2d 733 (Haw. 1992); Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Company, 559 N.W. 2d 411 (Minn. 1997).
Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania took a different approach to this question in Westminster American Insurance Company v. Spruce 1530, No. 19-539, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106534 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2020) – holding that the trial court’s dismissal of the only potentially covered claim was sufficient to terminate Westminster’s duty to defend.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Margo E. 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
Trump Soho May Abandon Condos to Operate Mainly as Hotel
January 28, 2015 —
Nadja Brandt – BloombergLower Manhattan’s Trump Soho, the five-year-old tower that was seized in a foreclosure amid slow sales of its condominiums, may drop its focus on part-time residences and operate most of the property solely as a hotel.
The building’s new owner, Los Angeles-based CIM Group, is “stepping away” from marketing the roughly two-thirds of condos that remain unsold, said Gary Schweikert, the building’s managing director. The company is considering converting the unsold units at the tower permanently into hotel rooms, he said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadja Brandt, BloombergMs. Brandt may be contacted at
nbrandt@bloomberg.net
Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection
September 29, 2021 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case
September 03, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to an article in JD Supra Business Advisor (written by Mark S. DePillis, Carl G. Roberts, Benjamin M. Schmidt, and Matthew White of Ballard Spahr LLP), “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a builder’s implied warranty of habitability extends only to the initial buyer of a home, and not to subsequent purchasers.” This reversed an earlier ruling in Conway v. The Cutler Group, Inc. “that created more expansive liability for home builders.”
DePillis, Roberts, Schmidt, and White suggested that “builders should monitor possible future legislation addressing the public policy issues that the Supreme Court identified as falling squarely within the legislature’s domain.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Handshake Deals Gone Wrong
May 22, 2023 —
Jessica Allain - ConsensusDocsThe construction industry has it fair share of “handshake deals”, oral agreements relying on the integrity of the people involved. But when it comes to protecting and enforcing legal rights, it is always a better idea to properly paper the deal and get it in writing. Otherwise, contractors relying on verbal promises may find themselves without any legal remedy should the deal go south. After all, it is not just a matter of trust, but also a way to document that everybody agrees on what the terms of the deal actually are.
For example, a recent case out of New York highlights the dangers of unwritten promises. In Castle Restoration, LLC v. Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., No. 16349-15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2/9/22), 2022 NY Slip Op 50082(U), 2022 WL 402882, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 485, Castle Inc. and Castle LLC entered into a deal for an asset sale to transfer equipment and a client list from Castle Inc. to Castle LLC. While that initial asset sale was properly papered with sale documents and a promissory note, the parties entered into a subsequent handshake/oral agreement where Castle LLC agreed to provide Castle Inc. with labor and materials on construction projects, and those goods and services would offset the payment obligation under the promissory note. But the problem was that the contract for the asset sale had a provision that the agreement could not be changed by oral agreement; rather, any changes had to be made in writing.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Allain, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Allain may be contacted at jallain@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine
June 21, 2024 —
Christian Romaguera - Traub LiebermanIn a lawsuit filed in Orange County, Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera achieved a voluntary dismissal in favor of their Client, a construction company. The Plaintiff claimed that he was seriously and permanently injured, and demanded $1,000,000.00. The Plaintiff turned out to be an employee of our Client’s subcontractor, and the Plaintiff received worker’s compensation benefits from his employer, the subcontractor. Under Florida Statute § 440.11(1), “The liability of an employer . . . shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee . . .” When a subcontractor provides workers’ compensation benefits to its injured employee, workers’ compensation immunity would not only apply to the subcontractor but to the general contractor as well. This is also known as “vertical immunity.” The Traub Lieberman team filed a detailed motion and memorandum of law to argue its case, and the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the claim against the Client just before that motion was set to be argued before the Judge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christian Romaguera, Traub LiebermanMr. Romaguera may be contacted at
cromaguera@tlsslaw.com
