Dorian’s Wrath: How Event Cancellation Insurance Helps Businesses Recoup Losses from Severe Weather
December 16, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger, Andrea DeField & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAs the 2019 hurricane season peaks, the Bahamas and the Southeast United States have already endured a catastrophic storm. Hurricane Dorian not only tragically caused loss of life and substantial property damage, but it also led to the cancellation or postponement of major events, resulting in considerable economic losses for affected companies.
For instance, Hurricane Dorian forced the cancellation of one of the Rolling Stones’ concerts at Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, as well as the cancellation of R&B singer Chris Brown’s concert in Fort Lauderdale. Dorian also affected the college football game between Florida State University and Boise State University in Jacksonville. Having sold 45,000 tickets to the game, officials were forced to move the game inland to Tallahassee at great expense and effort.
The planners, headliners, teams and fans of these and similar events were not the only ones affected by the cancellations and schedule changes. Hotels, restaurants and businesses relying on tourism also were severely impacted by the schedule changes resulting from Hurricane Dorian over Labor Day weekend. Other programming that may have been affected includes conventions and meetings, fairs and festivals, trade shows and exhibitions, or any other corporate events planned to take place outdoors, requiring travel or with ticket-paying audiences.
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys
Sergio F. Oehninger,
Andrea DeField and
Daniel Hentschel
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage For Wind And Flood Damage Suffered From Superstorm Sandy
July 27, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the policy's anti-sequential clause barred coverage for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Estate of Doerfler v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2020 N.J. Sup. Unpub. LEXIS 920 (May 14, 2020).
The insureds held identical homeowners policies from Chubb and Federal Insurance Company. Damage resulting from flood was not covered. The policies' "surface water exclusion" stated,
[W]e do not cover any loss caused by: flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of water from a body of water . . . or spray from any of these even if driven by wind.
The insureds also had separate flood insurance policies, insuring the structure of each home for $250,000.
Superstorm Sandy created wind gusts as high as eighty miles per hour. A severe storm surge caused tides to rise between nine and eleven feet. The storm surge caused surface water to flood onto plaintiffs' properties and their homes ultimately collapsed.
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
Public Projects in the Pandemic Pandemonium
September 07, 2020 —
Ashlynn E. Hutton, Michael J. Crook & Christian F. Torgrimson - Construction ExecutiveDespite the ongoing pandemic, states are opening up for business and establishing a new normal. This determination to move forward includes pushing public transportation projects full steam ahead. While this may be good news for certain industries, it may not be for commercial property owners hoping to see a slow down to public projects and avoid a taking of private property. As many grapple with new economic realities, we examine the approaches employed by states in the southeast to manage construction of public projects in this unprecedented time.
GEORGIA
The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is moving forward with all of its previously funded public projects, including the massive I-285 Top-End Project, designated as a “Major Mobility Project” for the Atlanta metro region. Affecting approximately 260 property owners along I-285 and Georgia Highway 400, environmental review of the project continues. GDOT anticipates a contract let date in 2022 and construction start in 2023. Like ocean liners, these projects don’t turn on a dime. Under the 2015 Transportation Funding Act, the budgeted funds cannot be shifted to other needs or projects due to economic shutdown. Once environmental review is complete, GDOT will approve the final design and move toward acquiring right-of-way from affected property owners.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashlynn E. Hutton, Michael J. Crook & Christian F. Torgrimson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage Denied for Insured's Defective Product
October 15, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found there was no coverage obligations for the insured's defective product. Titanium Indus., Inc. v. Federal. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 4428324 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Sept. 10, 2014).
The insured, Titanium Industries, supplied titanium bar materials to Biomet Manufacturing Corporation. Biomet manufactured orthopedic implants and devises. The titanium was used to manufacture screws to incorporate into Biomet's products.
Biomet notified the insured of a potential defect in some of the titanium material, described as "alloy segregation," i.e., the failure of alloys in a metal to completely melt, causing the alloy to separate and undermine the strength of the finished product. The insured and Biomet negotiated a settlement, which included lost profits and the cost of returning the titanium.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks
July 27, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationIn the 12 months from October 2018 through September 2019, the most recent period reported by OSHA,[1] the workplace safety agency cited the following standards[2] more than any other in the 28 states which do not have OSHA-approved state plans, including Colorado:
- 1926.501 – Duty to have fall protection – included in 459 citations, resulting in $2,475,596 in penalties ($5,393/citation);
- 1926.451 – General requirements for scaffolds – included in 265 citations, resulting in $834,324 in penalties ($3,148/citation);
- 1926.1053 – Requirements for ladders including job-made ladders – included in 164 citations, resulting in $354,853 in penalties ($2,163/citation);
- 1926.503 – Training requirements related to fall protection - included in 114 citations, resulting in $156,076 in penalties ($1,369/citation);
- 1926.405 - Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use – included in 93 citations, resulting in $150,821 in penalties ($1,621/citation);
- 1926.20 - General safety and health provisions – included in 85 citations, resulting in $328,491 in penalties ($3,864/citation);
- 1926.1052 – Requirements for stairways – included in 79 citations, resulting in $155,651 in penalties ($1,970/citation);
- 1926.102 – Requirements for eye and face protection - included in 67 citations, resulting in $165,595 in penalties ($2,471/citation);
- 1926.403 – General requirements for electrical conductors and equipment – included in 63 citations, resulting in $146,050 in penalties ($2,318/citation), and;
- 1926.100 – Requirements for head protection – included in 55 citations, resulting in $127,274 in penalties ($2,314/citation).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
How is Negotiating a Construction Contract Like Buying a Car?
January 04, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsOriginally Published by CDJ on March 1, 2017
I know, you’re probably looking for a punchline, and likely thinking something along the lines of “only a construction attorney would be sitting in his office and come up with such an analogy,” but I really do think it’s a good one.
When you are buying a car, you look for priorities. Is the color what you want? Is the motor a hybrid or a v-6? Does it have Android Auto? What is the fuel mileage? All of these things may be more or less important to you. If you can get your priorities for a price that is attractive, you will likely let some other less important items, e. g. trunk space or rear seat leg room, slide and purchase the car anyway. Furthermore, you may use these minor items as negotiating points to either get one of the priorities or a lower price. Of course the dealership will want to get its priorities, likely a sale and a profit, when negotiating and will have certain items that it won’t move on just as you have terms that you won’t move on.
Much like when you walk onto the car lot, and particularly as a subcontractor looking at a contract from a general contractor, or a GC looking at the contract from the owner of a project, a construction contract presented to you is the starting point. When looking at the contract, be sure to have some non-negotiable items in mind when taking a critical eye to the terms of that contract. Some of these terms may be more or less negotiable depending on your experience with the other party to the construction contract. For instance, striking a pay if paid clause may be less important with a paying party with whom you have a 10 year history without payment problems. On the other hand, if it is your first contract with the other party, a stricter list may be required. So, much like a dealer that you know will stand behind its cars, you may be more willing to take more “risk” in entering a construction contract with a trusted/known owner or GC.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Commerce City Enacts Reform to Increase For-Sale Multifamily Housing
August 19, 2015 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LigitationMany cities in Denver’s metropolitan areas are experiencing tremendous growth. For more than a year, Colorado has been reported to be in a building boom. However even with the noticeable expansion, some areas still suffer from a lack of housing options specific to multifamily developments. Sean Ford, Mayor of Commerce City, stated that “[the city] has not approved a new condominium or multi-family project since 2008.”[1] Those of us in the construction industry attribute this shortage, at least in part, to construction defect litigation, which is often drawn-out, complicated, and very costly to builders.
Predicting that light rail service will intensify the need for owner-occupied units among Commerce City residents, the city council enacted legislation to address this scarcity. Ordinance No. 2060 which took effect August 1, 2015 provides “reasonable steps to encourage prompt and voluntary correction of construction defects … in order to enhance the health and safety of residents of Commerce City.”
The ordinance requires a homeowner who discovers a defect to provide written notice via certified mail or personal delivery to the responsible builder, contractor, engineer, or design professional. The notice may include requests for relevant construction documentation, maintenance recommendations, and warranty information. The builder must acknowledge receipt of notice and provide requested documents within 14 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions
November 21, 2018 —
CDJ STAFFIn a good, recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit in International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Americabe-Moriarity, JV, 2018 WL 5306683 (11th Cir. 2018), held that Florida Statute s. 57.105(7) cannot be used to shift attorney’s fees in a contractual indemnification clause in a dispute between a general contractor and subcontractor’s performance bond surety, when the dispute does not involve an actual indemnification claim stemming from a third-party.
In this case, a prime contractor terminated a subcontractor and looked to the subcontractor’s performance bond surety to pay for the completion work. The subcontractor had a standard AIA A312 performance bond that requires the prime contractor to comply with the terms of the bond, as well as the incorporated subcontract, in order to trigger the surety’s obligations under the bond. The surety filed an action for declaratory relief against the prime contractor arguing that the prime contractor breached the terms of the performance bond through non-compliance thereby discharging the surety’s obligations. The trial court agreed and the surety moved for attorney’s fees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
