CDJ’s #5 Topic of the Year: Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al.
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSteven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko of Haight Brown & Bonesteel analyzed the Beacon decision, and discussed how it affects developers and general contractors: “On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) came out with its decision in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al. The Beacon decision settled a long-standing dispute in California about whether design professionals such as architects and engineers owe a duty to non-client third parties. In finding that the plaintiffs in Beacon could state a claim against the architects of the Beacon project, the Court also sowed the seeds of change in the way contracts are structured between developers, architects, engineers, and even general contractors.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.
February 14, 2023 —
David Humphreys - Carson Law Group, PLLCThis article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog
One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance.
A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage.
When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases.
Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense.
A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage.
Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed.
However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is
included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added).
It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
“Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS
F. Symbols
1. Plus Sign
A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that:
“Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion.
Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it
and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck.
This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . .
“Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.”
To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.”
David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast.
*See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Risky Business: Contractual Protections in the 'New Normal'
January 04, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - Construction ExecutiveThe point of contracts is to create certainty to avoid litigated or arbitrated disputes. Still, the various parties in the construction process may have different risk tolerances. For example, general contractors are often characterized as “risk-tolerant.” That risk, though, is usually calculated by the contractor internally, outside the terms of the written contract, based on an assumption that the contractor can get the work done more cheaply and more quickly than the owner anticipated. Project owners typically want and expect close-to-absolute certitude—absolutely as to cost—in their construction contracts. The standard fixed-price or lump-sum construction contract is geared toward protecting that interest.
Post-COVID-19, however, the discussion in the industry suggests that all bets are off when pricing and agreeing to construction work. Labor and materials shortages have sent owners and their design consultants backpedaling when general contractors pursuing a fixed-price contract seek contractual concessions that “un-fix” the price.
Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III , Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
In Matter of First Impression, California Appellate Court Finds a Claim for a Real Estate Professional’s Breach of Fiduciary Duty is Assignable
January 28, 2025 —
Briane Slome & Pamela Albanese - Lewis Brisbois NewsroomSan Diego, Calif. (January 17, 2025) - The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a judgment entered in favor of real estate brokers who were sued for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with the sale of residential real estate in Malibu. The Court of Appeal found the trial court erred when it rendered judgment in favor of the brokers on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims that had been assigned to her. The trial court reasoned that claims for breach of fiduciary duty against real estate brokers are highly personalized tort causes of action, which cannot be assigned. The Court of Appeal disagreed. In a case of first impression, it held that a cause of action for breach of a real estate broker’s fiduciary duties, which seeks damages related to property rights and pecuniary interests, is assignable.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Lazar v. Bishop, issued December 19, 2024, involved a unique set of facts. The seller bought the property in 2006. His daughter, Laura Lazar, lived at the property. The seller hired a real estate broker to sell the home. The broker listed the property for $4.2 million. Thereafter, she persuaded the seller to drop the listing price to $3.15 million, the price at which it was ultimately sold.
Reprinted courtesy of
Briane Slome, Lewis Brisbois and
Pamela Albanese, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Slome may be contacted at Brian.Slome@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Albanese may be contacted at Pamela.Albanese@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star
July 06, 2020 —
Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe law firm of Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is pleased to announce that Shareholders
Thomas A. Balestreri, Jr. and
Joseph P. Potocki have been selected as 2020 Super Lawyers and Associate
Robin H. Smith has been named a 2020 Rising Star.
Each year no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected to receive the honor of being included in the Super Lawyers list and no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers are selected to the Rising Stars list.
Balestreri has been selected to the Super Lawyers list in the areas of Construction Litigation. Balestreri has dedicated most of his 30 plus years in practice to the representation of developers, property owners, and general contractors in litigation, negotiations, and risk management. A seasoned trial lawyer, he has tried a number of high exposure cases with great success.
Selected as a Super Lawyer in the area of Construction Litigation, Potocki’s practice concentrates on litigation, transactional matters and construction contract drafting and negotiation. His extensive litigation experience involves high-value disputes relating to a wide variety of issues in the real estate, business and construction arenas.
Smith has been named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers in the area of Civil Litigation. In her varied litigation practice, Smith represents individuals and business entities in complex catastrophic personal injury matters. She also represents employers in labor and employment matters and a variety of businesses, including automobile dealers, in breach of contract, unfair competition, unfair business practices, defamation, and consumer claims.
Super Lawyers, a Thompson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is headquartered in San Diego, California. The firm provides comprehensive counsel to large and small companies across a wide range of established and emerging industries. Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is located in downtown San Diego at 401 B Street, Suite 1470. More information about the firm can be found at: www.bph-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
Additional Insured Not Entitled to Coverage for Post-Completion Defects
December 21, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe general contractor, an additional insured on the subcontractor's policy, was not entitled to coverage for construction defect claims that arose after completion of the project. Weitz Co. v. Acuity, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150433 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 31, 2016).
Weitz was the general contractor hired by Twin Lakes for construction of a residential community. One of the subcontractors, Miter Masonry, was insured by Acuity under a CGL policy. Work on the project began in 2002 and was substantially completed in 2005. In 2011, Twin Lakes notified Weitz that there were moisture infiltration issues at the project that may be related to work during the project.
Twin Lakes filed a Demand for Arbitration against Weitz on November 30, 2012. Twin Lakes alleged that the defects included the building wrap, windows, doors, wood trim, aluminum wrap, vinyl siding, flashing and brick veneer not being installed in accordance with contract documents and/or industry standards. The arbitration panel awarded damages to Twin Lakes in the amount of $2,775,771.86. The panel found that Weitz breached sections of the contract which caused moisture intrusion and damage to all the units. The panel ultimately held that Weitz could recover from the subcontractors 100% of the $2,775,771.86 awarded. Acuity's insured, Miter Masonry, was determined to be 4% at fault for the damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Georgia Update: Automatic Renewals in Consumer Service Contracts
August 31, 2020 —
David R. Cook - AHC BlogGeorgia HB 1039 amends O.C.G.A. § 13-12-3 to provide additional protections for consumers who enter into service contracts containing lengthy automatic renewal provisions.
Pre-Existing Requirement: For service contracts with an initial term of twelve months or longer and an automatic renewal provision for more than one month, unless the consumer terminates the agreement, sellers must provide written or electronic notification of the automatic renewal provision to the consumer. The notification must be provided to the consumer between 30 and 60 days before the cancellation deadline under such renewal provision. The notice must also “clearly and conspicuously” disclose that unless the consumer cancels, the agreement will automatically renew and disclose how the consumer may obtain details about the automatic renewal provision and cancellation procedure. The process by which a consumer may obtain such information must include the seller’s contact information (e.g., specific phone number or address), reference to the contract, or any other method provided.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Left Out a Key Ingredient!”
September 12, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - Lexology“Baking is as much of a science as it is an art. It’s important to take the time to understand what you’re doing and why. Skipping steps can make or break your cupcakes, and there are a lot of things that can go wrong when baking from scratch.”
And so it is with construction contract drafting.
Defendants on a Miller Act claim filed by a second-tier subcontractor in federal court in Pensacola, Florida, sought to have the case transferred to Virginia, based upon a forum selection clause in the first-tier subcontract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
