Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)
June 10, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Baldo, No. 09-338 (D. Del. June 2, 2011), claimants condominium association and unit owners sued project developer Rehoboth and general contractor Capano seeking damages because of moisture penetration property damage to common elements and individual units resulting from construction defects. Rehoboth and Capano filed a third party complaint against insured property manager Baldo alleging that, if Rehoboth and Capano were liable to claimants, Baldo was also liable because of Baldo’s failure to properly manage, maintain, and repair the property
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Policy Language Really Does Matter
August 19, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThe debate continues on whether a subcontractor’s faulty work constitutes property damage and an occurrence such that the insurer must cover the claim. The most recent court to weigh in on this issue is the New Jersey appellate court (one step down from the New Jersey Supreme Court) in Cypress Point Condominium Association, Inc. v. Adria Towers, LLC.
In this case, the condominium association sued the general contractor, who also acted as the developer, and subcontractors for faulty workmanship. The condominium association also sued the insurer for the general contractor, demanding payment of consequential damages caused by a subcontractor’s faulty work. The trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer, holding that the subcontractor’s faulty work was not property damage and thus not an occurrence under the Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy, so no coverage.
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the claims for consequential damages caused by faulty workmanship constituted property damage and an occurrence as defined in the policy. This was a shift from earlier opinions in New Jersey.
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
Locating Construction Equipment with IoT and Mobile Technology
May 13, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessIt can take hours, or even days, to find a specific scissor lift on a large construction site – multiply that with hundreds of machines on the site and, then, you grasp the scale of the dilemma. Three companies joined forces to test an IoT solution that could fix the problem, cost-efficiently.
Ramirent is a construction equipment rental and service firm that operates in nine European countries. It uses digital tools and services to add value to its customers and improve the efficiency of construction operations. In November 2018, Ramirent, SRV, and Kaltiot completed a test on promising technology that is used to locate construction equipment indoors. The experiment took place in Helsinki and was partly funded by the national KIRA-digi digitalization project.
Setting up the Test
Tomi Anttila, Development Manager at Ramirent Finland Oy, explained that they chose scissor lifts as a test subject for a particular reason: “They are an essential tool in construction. Whenever you have to work flexibly above the floor level – doing HVACE installations, for example – you need a movable lift. On our test site, REDI, there were over 150 lifts at any moment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Alabama Still “An Outlier” on Construction Defects
October 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFWhile many state Supreme Courts have determined that faulty construction work can be an occurrence under a standard commercial liability policy, the Alabama Supreme Court has taken the contrary view. Writing on the Kilpatrick Townsend blog, Carl A. Salisbury and Edmund M. Kneisel point out that the decision makes Alabama “an outlier,” and they ask, “how much longer will the outliers hold out?”
They note that in the underlying construction defect case, “the arbitrator awarded $3 million in compensatory damages to the homeowners because of improperly installed flashing; improperly installed brick; the lack of weep holes in the brick; improperly installed doors and windows; improper construction of the upper porches; faulty construction of the roof; improper installation of a bathtub.” They summarize: “the house must have leaked like a colander.”
When the insurer denied coverage, the contractor sued. The insurer argued that “the CGL policy form does not cover construction-related acts or omissions because such acts are not an insured ‘occurrence.’” Mr. Salisbury and Mr. Kneisel point out that “the Alabama Supreme Court agreed.”
The problem they see is that “if there is no insurance for any intentional act, then insurance is simply a rip-off — it covers nothing.” They quote Justice Benjamin Cardozo to this effect: “To restrict insurance to cases where liability is incurred without fault of the insured would reduce indemnity to a shadow.” Their argument is that the Alabama decision was not the “correct position,” as exemplified by recent decisions from West Virginia, North Dakota, Connecticut and Georgia. The case “was a prime opportunity for the Alabama Supreme Court to leave the ranks of the outliers and join the majority view.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Finally Corrects Thirty-Year Old Flaw in Construction Defect Statute of Repose
March 29, 2017 —
Jesse Howard Witt - The Witt Law FirmThe Colorado Supreme Court has finally settled a decades-old conundrum surrounding the state’s construction defect statute of repose.
A statute of repose is similar to a statute of limitations insofar as both restrict the time a party can bring a claim. A statute of repose period begins on a fixed date (such as the day someone finishes work on a project), while a statute of limitations period begins when someone discovers an injury (such as a defectively installed window).
In 1986, at the height of the so-called “tort reform” movement, the Colorado General Assembly voted to shorten both the statute of repose and the statute of limitations for construction defect claims. Historically, Colorado’s statute of repose had given a homeowner ten years following construction to file an action, and its statute of limitations had required that any such action be filed within three years of the date that the claimant discovered a defect. After 1986, however, these time periods changed; the new statute of repose required suits to be filed within six years of the end of construction, and the new statute of limitations gave claimants only two years following discovery of the physical manifestation of a defect to seek legal relief.[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive
March 19, 2014 —
David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLPThe California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair.
Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case.
But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy.
The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes.
Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com.
Published courtesy of
David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners
June 25, 2019 —
John Bolesta & Keahn Morris - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogIt is unlawful for unions to secondarily picket construction sites or to coercively enmesh neutral parties in the disputes that a union may have with another employer. This area of the law is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the federal law that regulates union-management relations and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the federal administrative agency that is tasked with enforcing the NLRA. But NLRB decisions issued during the Obama administration have allowed a union to secondarily demonstrate at job sites and to publicize their beefs over the use of non-union contractors there, provided the union does not actually “picket” the site. In those decisions, the NLRB narrowed its definition of unlawful “picketing,” thereby, limiting the scope of unlawful activity prohibited by law. Included in such permissible nonpicketing secondary activity is the use of stationary banners or signs and the use of inflatable effigies, typically blow-up rats or cats, designed to capture the public’s attention at an offending employer’s job site or facilities.
A recently released NLRB advice memo, however, signals the likely reversal of those earlier decisions and that contractors and owners may now be able to stop such harassing union job site tactics simply by filing a secondary boycott unfair labor practice change with the NLRB. The 18 page memo, dated December 20, 2018 (and released to the public on May 14, 2019), directs the NLRB’s Region 13 to issue a complaint against the Electrician’s Union in a dispute coming out of Chicago where the union erected a large, inflatable effigy, a cat clutching a construction worker by the neck, and posted a large stationary banner proclaiming its dispute to be with the job’s general contractor over the use of a non-union electrical sub at the job site’s entrance. Though not an official Board decision, the memo suggests the NLRB General Counsel’s (GC) belief that the earlier Obama era decisions may have been wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by the NLRB on the theories that the Union’s nonpicketing conduct was tantamount to unlawful secondary picketing, that it constituted “signal” picketing that unlawfully induced or encouraged the employees of others to cease working with the subs or that it constituted unlawful coercion.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Bolesta, Sheppard Mullin and
Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin
Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Needs Collaborative Planning
January 20, 2020 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessWhat makes construction different from manufacturing is its dynamic nature. Unlike a systemized production plant, a construction site is a mesh of interconnected processes that are far from optimized. The traditional top-down planning practice does not solve problems on the construction site, as recent research reveals. Making planning collaborative is a necessary step in making construction less wasteful.
Everybody in the industry has felt frustration with inefficiencies in construction, but seeing the data is still disconcerting. I’ve had the pleasure of attending several workshops organized by the Finnish Aalto University’s research teams. These eye-opening events both revealed how much waste we have in construction today and suggested solutions to this problem.
Four Aalto University graduate students shared insights from their research at a workshop of the Waste Workgroup of the Building 2030 consortium. They focused on projects where takt production, a lean construction method, had been used. Takt production breaks the work down into equally timed work batches and typically shortens project lead time considerably—up to 50%. However, even these well-planned projects included waste and unnecessary movement, as the researchers found out.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
