Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Kaboom! Illinois Applies the Anti-Subrogation Rule to Require a Landlord’s Subrogating Property Insurer to Defend a Third-Party Complaint Against Tenants
December 13, 2021 —
Ryan Bennett - White and Williams LLPIn Sheckler v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co, 2021 IL App (3d) 190500, 2021 Ill. App. LEXIS 593, Auto-Owners Insurance Company (Insurer) paid its insured, Ronald McIntosh (McIntosh), for property damage following a fire in an apartment he rented to Monroe and Dorothy Sheckler (the Shecklers). Insurer filed suit against Wayne Workman (Workman), who performed service work on an oven in the Shecklers’ apartment that leaked gas and resulted in a fire. Workman filed a third-party complaint against the Shecklers for contribution and the Shecklers tendered the defense of the claim to Insurer. Insurer refused the tender and the Shecklers filed a declaratory judgment action. In the court below, the Shecklers argued that, as tenants, they were co-insureds on McIntosh’s property insurance policy. Following a liberal interpretation of precedent from the Supreme Court of Illinois in Dix Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaFramboise, 597 N.E. 2d 622 (Ill. 1992), an Illinois appellate court ruled that Insurer – who provided property insurance – must defend the tenants of a rental property from contribution claims if the tenants are co-insureds under the landlord’s policy.
In Sheckler, the Shecklers hired Workman to fix a broken burner on a gas stove. Finding that additional parts were needed, Workman left while the Shecklers waited inside. While waiting—and despite the smell of gas filling the kitchen—Mr. Sheckler lit the stove. “Kaboom!” wrote the appellate court when describing the scene. A fire erupted and caused substantial damage to the apartment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan Bennett, White and Williams LLPMr. Bennett may be contacted at
bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com
Eight Things You Need to Know About the AAA’s New Construction Arbitration Rules
August 19, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogI just finished a construction arbitration this past week, which also explains my sporadic posts as of late, sorry.
Coincidentally, on July 1, 2015, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) implemented their newly revised Construction Industry Arbitration and Mediation Procedures.
For those of you who follow our blog, you know I’m not a big fan of arbitration, which, from my experience, doesn’t deliver on its promise of better, faster, or cheaper, and ends up being pretty much the same thing as trial without the benefit of discovery, the rules of evidence, or appealability.
The AAA is trying to change all of that though and in a news release announced that its new “Rules” “directly address preferences of users for a more streamlined, cost-effective, and tightly managed arbitration process that avoids the high costs of litigation.” Which makes you wonder whether they had to survey their “users” to come to this realization. But I digress.
With the AAA’s new Rules come eight new changes, as follows:
1.Fast Track Procedures: Newly revised Rule F-1 now applies to two-party cases where no party’s claim or counterclaim exceeds $100,000. Under old Rule F-1 the monetary cap was $75,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Construction Defect Coverage Barred Under Business Risk Exclusion in Colorado
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA federal court in Colorado recently applied the business risk exclusion to a construction defect case. Aaron Mandel and Stevi Raab of Sedgwick Law discuss this in Construction Defect Coverage Quarterly. The court found that the business risk exclusion barred coverage for an underlying construction defect. In the construction defect case, the Creek Side at Parker homeowners association sued the developer and builder. One such alleged defect was that “the plumbing contractor’s faulty installation of sewer and water lines damaged the lines themselves, caused surrounding asphalt and concrete to crack and deteriorate, and resulted in water intrusion.”
The court concluded that this damage to non-defective work was an occurrence, but the exclusion in the contract covered only property damage that occurred “while the work is ongoing.” The court concluded that the business risk exclusion barred coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Miller Act CLAIMS: Finding Protections and Preserving Your Rights
November 29, 2021 —
Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw - ConsensusDocsThe Miller Act (the “Act”), which requires the prime contractor to furnish a performance bond and a payment bond to the government, protects “all persons supplying labor and materials carrying out the work provided for in the contract.”[1] Despite its broad language, courts have limited the parties who may actually assert a claim under the Act. This article introduces general background of the Act, identifies subcontractors who may qualify for protections under the Act, and suggests ways to preserve the rights as prime contractors.
Brief Background of the Miller Act
Under the Miller Act, there are two types of bonds the prime contractor furnishes to the government in a federal construction contract of more than $100,000[2]
1. Performance Bond
A performance bond protects the United States and guarantees the completion of the project in accordance with the contract’s terms and conditions.[3] This bond must be with a surety that is satisfactory to the officer awarding the contract and in the amount the officer considers adequate for government protection.[4] If a contractor abandons a project or fails to perform, the bond itself will cover the government’s cost of substitute performance. Thus, the performance bond disincentivizes contractors from abandoning projects and provides the government with reassurance that an abandonment will not create delays or additional expenses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Diana Lyn Curtis McGraw, Fox Rothschild LLPMs. McGraw may be contacted at
dmcgraw@foxrothschild.com
School Board Sues Multiple Firms over Site Excavation Problem
February 12, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA West Virginia school board has filed a lawsuit against four companies over the construction of the Lewisburg Elementary School. The main allegation is that Carpenter Reclamation Inc. excavated the site deeper than was called for, which then incurred greater expenses for the subsequent contractors, and further that the liner installed by Carpenter Reclamation was defective. The suit also names Western Surety, which issued a performance bond for Carpenter Reclamation.
The school board claims that Carpenter’s failure to fix the problem, required $5,800 in evaluation, review, and testing. Further, the plumbing and lead contractors had additional expenses of $10,587 and $212,645 because of the deeper foundation. The school board has also named these firms, Dougherty Company, Inc. and Swope Construction, in the lawsuit. Ron Mallory, the president of Swope Construction said that the school board’s dispute was “with the site contractor, not with us,” noting that they did corrective work under a change order.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion Announces Three New Partners
March 16, 2017 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – FEBRUARY 7, 2017 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that three of the firm’s attorneys – Ben Ammerman, Anne Kelley and Rondi Walsh – have been elected to partnership. Their promotions are effective immediately.
“The elevation of these three attorneys is a testament to their leadership, hard work, and unwavering commitment to superior service for our clients and the firm,” proclaimed Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner. “This is an exciting time for the firm as we look forward to their continued success and contributions.”
Ammerman (based in Newport Beach, CA) focuses his practice in the areas of business, real estate, and tort litigation. In addition to his private practice, Ammerman presently serves as a Commander in the Navy Reserve Judge Advocate General’s Corps. He's also an active alumnus, currently named co-chair of the University of Southern California’s 20th Reunion Committee.
Kelley (based in Walnut Creek, CA) concentrates primarily in construction litigation and insurance coverage matters. She has over 12 years of experience working closely with builders, developers, contractors and subcontractors throughout Northern California developing legal strategies specific to the needs of each matter and the client’s business and goals. Kelley has litigated a wide variety of complex insurance coverage disputes.
Walsh (based in Newport Beach, CA) has incorporated into her practice the representation of policyholders in first and third-party insurance coverage, and business lawsuits involving contracts, property disputes, products liability and construction defect issues. She also has litigated numerous political and election law matters and has worked both professionally and as a volunteer on numerous political campaigns. Walsh is also an active member with the National Charity League.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Manhattan Home Sales Rise at Slower Pace as Prices Jump
July 02, 2014 —
Prashant Gopal – BloombergManhattan apartment sales rose at the slowest pace in more than a year, indicating a surge in demand is easing as prices jump and inventory climbs from record lows.
Purchases of co-ops and condominiums increased 6.3 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, the smallest gain since the start of 2013, according to a report today from appraiser Miller Samuel Inc. and brokerage Douglas Elliman Real Estate. The median price rose 5.2 percent to $910,000, and the average price per square foot surged 10 percent to $1,268.
Higher prices are encouraging more sellers to list properties and softening competition among buyers. The market is taking a “breather” after sales rose by an average of 28 percent in each of the previous four quarters, said Jonathan Miller, president of New York-based Miller Samuel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal, BloombergMr. Gopal may be contacted at
pgopal2@bloomberg.net
