Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiAn issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation.
Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions.
Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses
April 05, 2021 —
Neal I. Sklar & Joshua A. Morehouse - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.A recent case from the Central District of California reminds us that not all insurance policies are alike. Depending on the particular policy, losses from the COVID-19 outbreak could qualify as property damage and therefore could be recoverable under an all-risk insurance policy.
COVID-19 has in many cases imposed significant costs on contractors, and in a host of ways. Contractors’ attempts to recover these costs from owners or insurers have at times been frustrated by contractual or policy language written after a lengthy time, during which the risk of a pandemic on the scale of COVID-19 was not as much of a concern as it is now. This has led contractors to explore new, often creative legal theories in their attempts to recover costs flowing from COVID-19.
A recent Complaint filed in the Central District of California focuses on all-risk property insurance policies and the potential for contractors who have purchased such policies to classify contamination from COVID-19 as an insurable property loss.
In AECOM v. Zurich Insurance Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00237-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal), a contractor purchased “all-risk” property insurance from Zurich. This policy covered “economic losses from all risks not expressly excluded.” According to the Complaint, the presence of COVID-19 on its properties “physically alter[ed] air, airspace, and surfaces preventing… (the contractor) from using its properties for their intended purpose and function.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Neal I. Sklar, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Sklar may be contacted at nsklar@pecklaw.com
Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at jmorehouse@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?
April 20, 2020 —
Robert Devine, James Burger & Douglas Weck - White and WilliamsThinking about ignoring your state or local COVID-19 shutdown orders? Think again. Social-distance measures may create a new source of liability for businesses operating during the COVID-19 pandemic. Infection-based litigation is normally limited to businesses operating in the healthcare sector. But, social-distancing measures to stop the spread of infection may expand that litigation to other sectors.
State and local governments across the country are taking extraordinary measures to combat the spread of COVID-19, a novel coronavirus that can cause life-threatening respiratory illness. Those measures encourage and even mandate “social distance” between people to limit physical transmission of the virus.
Hard-hit states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California have been aggressive in their responses, shuttering businesses, confining people to their homes, and requiring people to stay six feet apart. Common mandates include: quarantines, business and school closures, stay-home orders, curfews, travel restrictions, occupancy limits and physical-distance mandates, among other things.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Robert Devine,
James Burger and
Douglas Weck
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix
January 25, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have stated on numerous occasions here at Musings that in Virginia, contract claims and tort claims (read fraud) don’t mix. A recent case from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia presents another example of this principle. In Itility LLC v. The Staffing Resource Group, Judge Ellis of the Alexandria Division, considered ITility’s claims of fraud and breach of contract against SRG and one of its officers based upon SRG’s alleged violation of its duties under a teaming agreement. The claim by ITility was that TSRG provided false and misleading resumes and thus damaged ITility. SRG filed a Motion to Dismiss and the Court was therefore required to resolve the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff’s fraud claim is barred by Virginia’s “source of duty” rule; (2) whether plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy is barred by SRG’s participation in the business expectancy, and (3) whether the teaming agreement between the parties bars plaintiff’s claims for consequential and punitive damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error
July 30, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co. (No. A136280; filed 6/18/15), a California Court of Appeal held that it was error for an appraisal panel to assign loss values to items simply because they were listed in the insured’s scope of loss, and regardless of whether inspection revealed they were undamaged or never existed.
California Capital insured a twelve unit apartment building owned by Ms. Lee in Oakland, California. When a fire damaged one unit, the insurer prepared an estimate of $69,255 and paid an undisputed amount of $46,755, which was the amount of the estimate less depreciation and the deductible.
But Ms. Lee claimed that six of the units had been damaged, and she retained a public adjuster who submitted a claim exceeding $800,000. This included cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of the affected apartments, and loss of rent. She claimed burn damage to one unit and smoke damage requiring complete replacement of all the interior rooms of five apartments, along with removal of a portion of the stucco exterior and iron balcony railings and repainting of the entire building.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Court of Appeals holds that insurance companies owe duty of prompt and effective communication to claimants and repair subcontractors
March 01, 2011 —
Colorado Construction LitigationIn Dunn v. American Family Insurance, 09CA2173, 2010 WL 4791948 (Colo. App. Nov. 24, 2010), the Dunns reported a claim to American Family on their homeowners insurance policy after sewer and water backup caused sewage to flood their basement. American Family gave the Dunns contact information for a contractor (ICA) to remediate the flooding. However, ICA was unsuccessful and sewage began to infiltrate the Dunns’ HVAC system. Subsequently, black mold was detected in the HVAC system, the Dunns suffered health and respiratory problems, and they soon after vacated the home. The Dunns hired and fired two more contractors for unsatisfactory work throughout the winter before hiring a fourth to finish the job. Because the home remained vacant and unheated throughout the winter, the water pipes ruptured. The mold spread throughout the entire home and all of the contents needed to be replaced, which amounted to a claim of $340,000 on the policy.
American Family agreed to pay the full $340,000. However, the Dunns brought suit claiming that American Family breached the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing by: 1) failing to screen ICA for expertise; 2) failing to screen ICA for liability insurance coverage; 3) failing to monitor ICA’s work; 4) failing to advise them that flooding can cause further damage, including freezing pipes and mold; and, 5) failing to adequately and promptly communicate with them and remediation subcontractors in the course of investigating and handling their claim. The trial court found no duty owed by American Family beyond adjustment and timely payment of claims. Because American Family paid timely and in full, they dismissed all of the Dunns’ claims. However, the Court of Appeals reversed in part.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chad Johnson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Johnson can be contacted at johnson@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Manager’s Win in Michigan after Michigan Supreme Court Finds a Subcontractor’s Unintended Faulty Work is an ‘Occurrence’ Under CGL
August 03, 2020 —
Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn - Newmeyer DillionOn June 29, 2020, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned a longstanding precedent that commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurers have historically relied upon to deny insurance coverage for claims involving pre-1986 CGL policies. See Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Const. Co., 185 Mich. App. 369, 372, 460 N.W.2d 329, 331 (1990). In its recent ruling, the state Supreme Court unanimously agreed that an Insurance Services Office, Inc. (“ISO”) 1986 standard CGL policy, which is sold to construction contractors across the United States, provides coverage for property damage to a policyholder’s work product that resulted from a subcontractor’s unintended faulty workmanship. Skanska USA Bldg. Inc. v. M.A.P. Mech. Contractors, Inc., No. 159510, 2020 WL 3527909 (Mich. June 29, 2020).
In 2008, Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction manager on a renovation project for Mid-Michigan Medical Center, signed a subcontract with defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors (“MAP”) to install a new heating and cooling (“HVAC”) system. Id. During the renovation, MAP installed some of the expansion joints in the new HVAC system backwards. Id. The defective installation caused approximately $1.4 million in property damage to concrete, steel and the heating system, which Skanska discovered nearly two years after MAP completed the project. Id. After performing the repairs and replacing the damaged property, Skanska sought repayment for the repair costs from MAP and also submitted a claim to Amerisure seeking coverage as an insured under the CGL policy. Id. When Amerisure rejected Skanska’s claim, Skanska sued both parties. Id. Amerisure relied on the holding in Hawkeye and argued that MAP’s defective workmanship was not a covered “occurrence” under the CGL policy, which the policy defined as an accident. Id. at *4.
The Michigan Court of Appeals ignored the express language contained in the CGL policy and applied a prior appellate court precedent from Hawkeye, finding that MAP’s faulty work was not an “occurrence” and thus, did not trigger CGL coverage. Id. at *4. The Court of Appeals further reasoned that Skanska was an Amerisure policyholder and that the only property damage was to Skanska’s own work, which was not covered under the CGL policy. Id. at *5.
In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding unanimously that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the holding of Hawkeye because it failed to consider the impact of the 1986 revisions to standard CGL insurance policies. Id. at *10. Chief Justice Bridget M. McCormack explained that the Hawkeye decision rested on the 1973 version of the ISO form insurance policy, which specifically excluded certain business risks from coverage such as property damage to a policyholder’s own work. Id. The Supreme Court agreed that while Hawkeye was correctly decided, it did not apply here because the 1986 revised ISO policy includes an exception for property damage caused by a subcontractor’s unintentional faulty work. Id.
The Supreme Court said that under the plain reading of the current CGL policy language, an “accident” could include a subcontractor’s unintentional defective work that damaged a policyholder’s work product and thus, may qualify as an “occurrence” covered under the policy. Id. at *9. The Supreme Court defined an “accident” (which was not defined in the Amerisure policy) as “an undefined contingency, a casualty, a happening by chance, something out of the usual course of things, unusual, fortuitous, not anticipated, and not naturally to be expected.” Id. at *5; see Allstate Ins. Co. v. McCarn, 466 Mich. 277, 281, 645 N.W.2d 20, 23 (2002). The Supreme Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting that MAP purposefully installed the expansion joints backwards, nor was there evidence indicating that the parties affected by MAP’s negligence anticipated, foresaw, or expected MAP’s defective installation or property damage. Skanska, 2020 WL 3527909, at *4. Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that an “occurrence” may have happened, which would trigger coverage under the CGL policy. Id. at *10.
Although this landmark decision changes Michigan law, the decision is limited to cases involving the 1986 ISO policy language revisions to CGL insurance policies. Id. The Supreme Court's decision does not overturn Hawkeye, but rather limits Hawkeye’s authority to cases involving the 1973 ISO form. Id.
Gabrielle Szlachta-McGinn was a summer associate at Newmeyer Dillion as part of the firm's 2020 summer class. You may learn more about Newmeyer Dillion's construction litigation services and find the group's key contacts at https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/construction-litigation/.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
