Business Risk Exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 Found Ambiguous
April 22, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiReversing the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer, the Tenth Circuit found that exclusions (j) 5 and (j) 6 were ambiguous as applied to the facts of the case. MTI, Inc. v. Emplrs. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 2543 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019).
Western Farmers Electrical Cooperative (WFEC) owned cooling towers which were serviced by MTI, Inc. Wausau provided a CGL policy to MTI.
In 2011, MTI found that anchor bolts in Cooling Tower 1 were corroded. WFEC hired MTI to make repairs by installing new anchor castings with anchor bolts and anchor adhesive.
On May 23, 2011, MTI employees removed all of the corroded anchor bolts in Tower 1. Because the adhesive applicator had not yet arrived, MTI did not immediately install new anchor bolts. On the night of May 24, strong winds struck the tower, causing it to lean and several structural components broke. Due to the extent of the structural damage, removal and replacement of the tower was determined to be the only viable option.
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
Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law
September 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to The Denver Post, the Lakewood City Council “introduced an ordinance that would make it more difficult for homeowners associations to sue developers for construction defects and give builders more opportunity to fix problems before litigation begins.” A hearing and final vote is scheduled for October 13th.
"If there are defects, we want to get them fixed rather than dragging this through the courts for years," Lakewood Mayor Bob Murphy told The Denver Post. Murphy believes the ordinance will bring “more diverse housing options to Lakewood, especially around stations along the Regional Transportation District’s West Rail Line.” Lakewood’s City Planner Travis Parker also declared that the defects law is to blame for the lack of condos in the area.
However, some believe that “Lakewood is overstepping its bounds as a home-rule city,” according to The Denver Post. "What they're trying to do is use an ordinance to circumvent state law in order to make it impossible for homeowners to seek redress against builders for defects," Molly Foley-Healy an attorney who serves as legislative liaison for the Community Associations Institute's Legislative Action Committee told the Post. “Mayor Murphy needs to incentivize quality construction in Lakewood instead.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Loose Bolts Led to Sagging Roof in Construction Defect Claim
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThough the sagging roof is neither leaking nor a safety hazard, the town of Waynesville, North Carolina is suing the builder of its new fire station, as reported in the Smoky Mountain News. The engineers who examined the roof found a substantial number of loose bolts in the roof trusses. Additionally, the trusses themselves have become bent.
Tom Galloway, Waynesville’s Town Manager said “it needs to be remedied and fixed.” He said that the builder, Construction Logic, “never indicated a willingness to fix the roof.” The town is seeking the cost of repair, which Galloway estimated could be $400,000, and an additional $30,000 in damages. The suit states that Construction Logic failed to follow the plan specifications for the roof.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Address 'Your Work' Exposure Within CPrL Policies With Faulty Workmanship Coverage
December 29, 2020 —
Joseph Reynolds - Construction ExecutiveNew faulty workmanship coverage forms have emerged to potentially address the “your work” exposure found in most contractors professional liability (CPrL) policies. Once offered by only a single carrier, several insurers have recently entered the marketplace to cover the cost to repair or replace faulty work or the related material costs associated with the “self-performed work” of general and trade contractors.
Commonly serving as a separate insuring agreement and offered in carrier-specific CPrL policies, faulty workmanship coverage forms are designed to protect contractors from the “your work” claims triggered by project owners and other third parties. This includes the contractor’s workmanship as well as the equipment, parts and materials such as steel beams, epoxy activators and anchor bolts used to perform construction work.
Insureds should be aware that exclusions and strict conditions apply. For instance, faulty workmanship policies typically do not cover resulting bodily injury and property damage and some policies even exclude project delays and other business risks that can arise from the claims of unhappy customers. Another potentially confusing issue is the scope of coverage offered under a ‘faulty work’ endorsement. While some faulty workmanship enhancements are specifically-designed to cover “your work,” claims, others may only cover the products manufactured or fabricated by the insured and not the work they perform or install.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph Reynolds, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at
joseph.reynolds@rtspecialty.com
Court Rules in Favor of Treasure Island Developers in Environmental Case
July 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA California court ruled that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that had been approved by the city of San Francisco was adequate for the proposed 8,000-home development on Treasure Island, according to the San Francisco Business Times.
The suit had been brought by Citizens for a Sustainable Treasure Island back in 2011. However, in December of 2012, “a lower court affirmed the EIR and the citizens’ group appealed that decision.”
The project was proposed by partners Lennar Corp. and Wilson Meany. The development would “add thousands of new housing units along with retail, hotel and office space in addition to renovating historic buildings and creating 300 acres of open space.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Industry Practices Questioned After Girder Fractures at Salesforce Transit Center
April 10, 2019 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordAttendees of a recent presentation on the earthquake-resistant structure of San Francisco’s Salesforce Transit Center—intended to provide a safe haven when the Big One hits—lauded the engineering of the 4.5-block-long hollow tube that supports the 1.2-million-sq-ft “groundscraper.” But there also was much talk of the project’s black eye, as a consequence of brittle fractures of the bottom flanges of two bridge-like built-up plate girders that span 87 ft over Fremont Street.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, ENRMs. Post may be contacted at
postn@enr.com
11th Circuit Affirms Bad Faith Judgement Against Primary Insurer
July 24, 2023 —
Ashley Kellgren - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn American Builders Insurance Co. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15386, No. 21-13496 (11th Cir. June 20, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a bad faith judgment against a primary insurer.
On April 1, 2019, Ernest Guthrie fell from a roof, causing him to became paralyzed from the waist down. At the time of the accident, Guthrie was employed by his own subcontracting company and was performing work for Beck Construction. Beck Construction was insured under a general liability policy issued by American Builders and an excess policy issued by Evanston. Each of those policies provided $1 million in liability limits. Guthrie’s company was insured under a policy issued by Southern-Owners, which provided a per occurrence limit of $1 million. Under the Southern-Owners policy, Beck Construction was an additional insured and coverage was provided to Beck Construction on a primary basis.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley Kellgren, Traub LiebermanMs. Kellgren may be contacted at
akellgren@tlsslaw.com
