Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage
March 14, 2018 —
Alan Packer and Graham Mills - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPUnfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in
Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense.
In
Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage.
After the
Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense.
The key issue before the
Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued.
In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the
Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may
potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid.
While
Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs.
Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under
Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later.
Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com.
Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com.
ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP
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
Sweet News for Yum Yum Donuts: Lost Goodwill is Not an All or Nothing Proposition
October 07, 2019 —
Josh Cohen - California Construction Law BlogLast month a California Court of Appeals clarified that a property owner facing eminent domain is only required to prove partial loss of goodwill, not total loss of goodwill, to be entitled to a trial on the amount of goodwill lost.
Yum Yum Donuts operated a shop in Los Angeles that was subject to eminent domain by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to make way for light railway track. At trial, Yum Yum sought loss of goodwill as part of its condemnation damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510.
At trial the MTA’s expert testified that Yum Yum could have reduced its goodwill loss if it relocated to one of three alternative locations rather than simply closing the shop. But the expert conceded that even if Yum Yum had relocated, it would have lost some goodwill. Yum Yum refused to relocate, arguing that its relocation costs would render the move unprofitable. The trial court found that Yum Yum’s failure to mitigate its damages barred Yum Yum from having a jury trial to recover any goodwill damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Josh Cohen, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Cohen may be contacted at
jcohen@wendel.com
New York Team Secures Appellate Win on Behalf of National Home Improvement Chain
September 26, 2022 —
Lewis BrisboisNew York, N.Y. (August 12, 2022) - New York Appellate Partner Nicholas P. Hurzeler, with New York Partners John J. Doody and David M. Pollack, obtained a significant appellate victory on behalf of a national home improvement chain when a New York Appellate Division panel for the Second Department reduced a jury verdict by more than half.
In this matter, which was
covered by Law360, the plaintiff was a customer at one of the chain's stores when he was involved in a confrontation with a man and his wife as they exited the store. The chain's loss prevention official told police that the plaintiff had assaulted the female customer. As a result of the incident, the plaintiff was arrested, spent the night in jail, and was arraigned at the same courthouse where he worked as a staff attorney while wearing only an undershirt and jogging shorts. He also had to disclose his arrest on his judgeship nomination application. The charges against him were ultimately dropped after the chain's loss prevention official told prosecutors that surveillance video showed that the female customer’s assault claims were false.
The plaintiff subsequently sued the home improvement chain and its loss prevention official for allegedly causing his false arrest and interfering with his career goal of securing a New York state court judgeship. At the close of the trial in this case, the jury determined that the defendant was liable for battery and false imprisonment, and awarded the plaintiff $1.8 million for pain and suffering.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Workplace Safety–the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense
October 02, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorI just attended an Associated Builders and Contractors meeting during which Lueder Construction discussed a fatality on one of its worksite. OSHA fully investigated the incident and did not issue a single citation. This is a testament to the safety plan and training Lueder had in place well before this incident. One defense to an OSHA citation is unpreventable employee misconduct. However, proving this defense requires substantial planning, well before an incident or investigation.
Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense
OSHA requires that an employer do everything reasonably within its power to ensure that its personnel do not violate safety standards. But if an employer lives up to that billing and an employee nonetheless fails to use proper equipment or otherwise ignores firmly established safety measures, it seems unfair to hold the employer liable. To address this dilemma, both the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission and courts have recognized the availability of the unforeseeable employee misconduct defense.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions
July 11, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogEven when claims are within the scope of coverage, insurers often rely on exclusions in an attempt to avoid coverage for wildfire claims. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the interplay between coverage grants and exclusions, and the “anti-concurrent cause” provision.
Insurers may cite exclusions in an attempt to reduce or avoid liability. The insurance industry has long relied on the Insurance Services Office (ISO) to draft standard form policy language and secure approval as required by state regulatory agencies. ISO Form HO 00 03 10 00 (Section I—Exclusions, Part B) provides the following form exclusionary language:
We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Filing Lien Foreclosure Lawsuit After Serving Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit
June 06, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are an unpaid contractor in direct contract with the owner of real property, you should be serving a Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit prior to foreclosing on your construction lien. This should extend to any trade contractor hired directly by the owner. As a matter of course, I recommend any lienor hired directly by the owner that wants to foreclose its lien to serve a Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit. For example, if you are a plumbing contractor hired by the owner and want to foreclose your lien, serve the Affidavit. If you are a swimming pool contractor hired by the owner and want to foreclose your lien, serve the Affidavit. You get the point. (If you are not in direct contract with the owner, you do not need to serve the Affidavit, but you need to make sure you timely served your Notice to Owner; when you are in direct contract with the owner, you do not need to serve the Notice to Owner because the owner already knows you exist.)
The Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit is a statutory form. I suggest working with counsel to help execute to avoid any doubts with the information to include. The unpaid amount listed should correspond with the amount in your lien and you want to identify all unpaid lienors (your subcontractors and suppliers) and amounts you believe they are owed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Glendale City Council Approves Tohono O’odham Nation Casino
August 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFWith a 4-3 vote, the Glendale, Arizona city council “approved an agreement with the Tohono O’odham Nation to build a casino adjacent to the city,” according to the Arizona Public Media. The tribe, under the agreement, “will commit more than $25 million over the next 20 years to the city.”
The agreement also stipulates that Glendale “will try to convince state and federal officials to end their opposition to the casino plans.” City Councilman Gary Sherwood stated that he “he doesn't believe the tribe has firm plans for construction yet, but he said he wouldn't be surprised if there was gaming on the site by next fall.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Super Lawyers Recognized Two Lawyers from Hunton’s Insurance Recovery Group
March 06, 2023 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogHunton insurance recovery group partner Larry Bracken and associate Rachel Hudgins were each recognized in Georgia Super Lawyers 2023’s most recent publication. Larry Bracken was recognized as a Super Lawyer, and Rachel Hudgins was selected as a Rising Star for Insurance Coverage.
Super Lawyers, a subsidiary of Thomson Reuters, 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 patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Ultimately, no more than 5% of lawyers in a state are selected as Super Lawyers, and less than 2.5% are recognized as Rising Stars. Congratulations to Larry and Rachel on this achievement!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
