Improperly Installed Flanges Are Impaired Property
February 16, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiAnswering certified questions from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court found there was no coverage for flanges that leaked after installation. U. S. Metals, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., 2015 Texas LEXIS 1081 (Dec. 4, 2015).
U. S. Metals sold Exxon 350 custom-made, stainless steel, weld-neck flanges for use in refineries. Testing after installation showed the flanges leaked and did not meet industry standards. Exxon decided to replace the flanges to avoid risk of fire and explosion. For each flange, this involved stripping the temperature coating and insulation, cutting the flange out of the pipe, removing the gaskets, grinding the pipe surfaces smooth for re-welding, replacing the flange and gaskets, welding the new flange to the pipes, and replacing the temperature coating and insulation. The replacement process delayed operation of the diesel units for several weeks.
Exxon sued U.S. Metal for over $6 million as the cost of replacing the flanges and $16 million as damages for lost use of the diesel units during the process. U.S. Metals settled with Exxon for $2.2 million and then sought indemnification from its liability insurer, Liberty Mutual.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Sinking Buildings on the Rise?
July 01, 2019 —
Jason M. Adams - Gibbs GidenBy now everyone in the construction and insurance industries is familiar with the 58-story Millennium Tower building in San Francisco that has sunk 17 inches and tilted another 14 inches to the northwest. Another recent New York lawsuit alleges that a 58-story luxury Manhattan condo high-rise is also sinking and causing significant damage. With construction booming in the Southeast and other areas with questionable soils, sinking building cases may be on the rise. Given this reality, the issue of subsidence should be of paramount importance to every construction and insurance professional when insuring a project.
Most insurance carriers will include a subsidence and/or other earth movement exclusion on a commercial general liability ("CGL") quote for insurance as a matter of course. Construction professionals (owners/developers, general contractors, and subcontractors) or their brokers may be under the mistaken impression that they have no choice but to accept these subsidence exclusions as part of a standard construction policy. This is not the case. To the contrary, most insurance carriers are willing to remove subsidence exclusions if the underwriters are provided with acceptable geotechnical/soils reports when considering the project.
The insured construction professional often pushes back on the insurance carrier's request for soils reports because the insured sees the request as an unnecessary hassle, expense or unwelcome interference in the job. However, the carrier's soils review is designed to benefit everyone. If potential soils issues are discovered during the underwriting process they can be addressed at the outset of the project rather than after the project is built, which will typically cost substantially more to remedy. Moreover, a thorough analysis of the condition of the soils at the outset of the project allows the risk management team to recognize any potential issues and ensure that the proper coverage is obtained in order to provide protection down the road. Even if the insurance carrier charges more money to sign off on questionable soils after a review of the reports, the slight increase in premium is likely a worthwhile investment in the event of a subsidence loss.
The lesson is that the insured should not blindly accept a subsidence exclusion and should negotiate its removal. The insured should provide its broker and the insurance carrier the information they need in order to make a fully-informed decision as it pertains to the soils. Once the insurance carrier has had the opportunity to review and sign off on the condition of the soil, the carrier should feel comfortable enough to remove any subsidence exclusions or other similar earth movement limitations.
Subsidence is a relatively straightforward issue to deal with as long as the project team’s lawyers, brokers, risk managers and insurance company underwriters are working together toward the common goal of properly evaluating the risk and adequately insuring the project. This simple cooperative process between the entire risk management team could mean the difference between being covered or not covered in the event of a loss related to earth movement.
Jason M. Adams, Esq. is Senior Counsel at Gibbs Giden representing construction professionals (owners/developers, contractors, architects, etc.) in the areas of Construction Law, Insurance Law and Risk Management, Common Interest Community Law (HOA) and Civil Litigation. Adams is also a licensed property and casualty insurance broker and certified Construction Risk & Insurance Specialist (CRIS). Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. Mr. Adams can be reached at jadams@gibbsgiden.com.
The content contained herein is published online for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel. The transmission of information by email, or any transmission or exchange of information over the Internet, or by any of the included links is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. This publication may not be reproduced or used in whole or in part without written consent of the author. Copyright 2019 ©
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Unpaid Subcontractor Walks Off the Job and Wins
September 01, 2016 —
John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMake the following inquiry of your constructional lawyer, watch him/her sit up in his/her chair and give your question immediate attention: “I haven’t been paid, can I walk off the job?” The answer to this question is a strong “maybe, but it’s risky.” Walking off the project has a significant downside. The risk is that the judge who reviews your decision, sometimes years after the event, may not agree that the non-payment was a material breach and, thus, suspension of performance (walking off) is not justified.
A breach of contract occurs where, without legal justification, a party fails to perform any promise that forms a whole or part of the contract. Not all breaches are equal. Some failures to perform a promise are “nominal,” “trifling” or “technical.” These breaches do not excuse performance under the contract by the non-breaching party. If the breach is “material,” that is, goes to the essential purpose of the agreement, is a question that only a judge decides, and only after the decision was made as to whether to walk off the job or not. Therefore, before deciding whether to walk off the job, you have to second guess what a judge may decide under the circumstances. Since not all judges see things the same way, the decision is fraught with uncertainty and risk.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
Arbitrator May Use Own Discretion in Consolidating Construction Defect Cases
September 01, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Mississippi Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC v. Sea Breeze I, LLC. Sea Breeze contracted with Harry Baker Smith Architects II, PLLC (HBSA) to design a condominium complex, which would be built by Roy Anderson Corporation. All parties agreed to arbitration.
Subsequently, Sea Breeze alleged defects and sought arbitration against the architectural firm and started a separate arbitration proceeding against the contractor. The special arbitrator appointed by the American Arbitrators Association determined that it would be proper to consolidate the two actions “since they arose from a common question of fact or law.” HBSA filed in chancery court seeking injunctive relief and a reversal of the decision. Sea Breeze and Roy Anderson filed a motion to compel the consolidated arbitration.
The court noted that the special arbitrator “established that the contract between Sea Breeze and Roy Anderson expressly allowed for consolidation of the two cases.” Further, the arbitrator “concluded that HBSA expressly agreed to consolidation by written consent through its 2008 letter, through which it insisted upon Roy Anderson’s involvement ‘in any mediation and/or arbitration.’”
The court concluded that the chancery court “did not have the power to fulfill HBSA’s request.” The court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion
May 20, 2019 —
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Southern District of Georgia recently ruled that Evanston Insurance Company is not entitled to summary judgment on whether its policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse. The case stems from an incident at Xytex Tissue Services, LLC’s warehouse, where Xytex stored biological material at low temperatures. Xytex used an on-site “liquid nitrogen delivery system” to keep the material properly cooled. This system releases liquid nitrogen, which would vaporize into nitrogen gas and cool the biological material. On February 5, 2017, a Xytex employee, Deputy Greg Meagher, entered the warehouse to investigate activated motion detectors and burglar alarms. Deputy Meagher was overcome by nitrogen gas and died as a result. Following Deputy Meagher’s death, his heirs filed suit against Xytex and other defendants. Evanston denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion in its policy. Evanston then brought a declaratory judgment action to confirm its coverage position.
In denying Evanston’s summary judgment motion, the Southern District of Georgia reasoned that the type of injury sustained is essential in analyzing whether the pollution exclusion applies. Specifically, Xytex argued, and the court agreed, that the underlying lawsuit alleged that the bodily injury was caused by a lack of oxygen, not exposure to nitrogen. The court also distinguished prior decisions, explaining that injury caused by a lack of oxygen is not a contamination or irritation of the body in the same way as injury resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide or lead. The court also found that Xytex “reasonably expected that liability related to a nitrogen leak would be insured.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Lawrence J. Bracken II,
Michael S. Levine and
Alexander D. Russo
Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Buyers Are Flocking to NYC’s Suburbs. Too Bad There Aren’t Many Homes to Sell.
February 20, 2023 —
Jennifer Epstein & Prashant Gopal - BloombergIn the midst of the worst US housing slump in a decade, a wave of finance and tech layoffs and drumbeats of a potential recession, open houses in affluent New York suburbs are packed.
Offers come in fast — sometimes for hundreds of thousands over asking.
A typical scene played out on a cloudy Sunday last month in Scarsdale, a suburb about 20 miles (32 kilometers) north of Manhattan known for its bucolic setting and high-rated schools. At the tail end of an open house, a dozen people were still wandering in and around a 1926 Tudor-style house listed for about $1.93 million.
An older couple took video on their iPhone for their offspring too busy to attend, while a younger man walked around with his infant in a chest carrier. The house was in need of some touch-ups. Somebody whispered that the hardwood floors were scratched, another said that the refrigerator looked warped, and a pair of kitchen cabinet doors was missing. It hardly mattered.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Epstein, Bloomberg and
Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor
February 10, 2020 —
Kevin Sullivan - Traub LiebermanNationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable.
In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Sullivan, Traub LiebermanMr. Sullivan may be contacted at
ksullivan@tlsslaw.com
The Double-Breasted Dilemma
July 18, 2022 —
Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocsWhat Is A Double-Breasted Operation?
A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Rankins may be contacted at
lrankins@watttieder.com
