Denver Passed the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFABC 7 reported that Denver, Colorado has passed a city ordinance that will require “developers building 30 or more units to offer 10 percent of them at a cheaper rate.” The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is meant to increase the number of homes for “middle income earners.”
"This city is really facing a housing crisis when it comes to affordability," Samaria Crews, deputy director of the Front Range Economic Strategy Center, told ABC 7.
Builders can opt out of the ordinance by paying a fee, and a “new amendment would allow builders to build the low-income inventory off-site.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that claims of defective construction or workmanship are not an occurrence under a general liability policy. The court looked at appellate decisions and concluded that CGL policies are not intended to insure against risks under the control and management of the insured. These risks should instead be mitigated with performance bonds.
The question was raised in the case Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. The Sixth District Court of Ohio concluded it was an “open question under Ohio law whether a CGL policy covers defective construction claims.” Westfield filed a motion, granted by the Sixth Circuit, to certify the question to the state Supreme Court. The Sixth Court additionally found that the contractual liability exclusion barred coverage in the case, issues a summary judgment to Westfield.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Golden State Commits to Going Green – Why Contractors Will be in High Demand to Build the State’s Infrastructure
November 28, 2018 —
Karla Pascarella & Alexa Magrath - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On September 10, 2018 California’s Governor took an ambitious stance on environmental policy and signed Senate Bill 100 (“SB100”). The bill accelerates several Renewables Portfolio Standards (“RPS”) deadlines previously established by former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The bill’s most notable effect—it requires that 100 percent of California’s electricity come from renewable and zero-carbon sources by 2045. California is the second state in the nation to pass such legislation; Hawaii passed a similar bill in 2015.
The passage of this bill could not be timelier as wildfires, drought, and record high temperatures continue to make national headlines. California, as it often does, has taken a contrarian position as the federal government attempts to reinvigorate the coal mining industry in America. Coal and other fossil fuels used to produce energy increase air pollution and deplete necessary ozone. California has been experimenting and utilizing renewable energy technology since as early as 1997. According to the California Energy Commission, by the end of 2017 California generated approximately 32 percent of its energy from renewable sources.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karla Pascarella, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Alexa Magrath, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Pascarella may be contacted at kpascarella@pecklaw.com
Ms. Magrath may be contacted at amagrath@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Who Would Face Liability For Oroville Dam Management: Brett Moore Authors Law360 Article
February 23, 2017 —
Brett G. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn February 12, 2017, the Butte County Sheriff ordered the evacuation of more than 180,000 people in the communities surrounding California’s Oroville Dam after officials spotted severe erosion in the dam’s emergency spillway. The Oroville Dam facilities are managed on by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which licenses the project to California’s Department of Water Resources (DWR). In his Law360 article “Who Would Face Liability For Oroville Dam Management,” Attorney Brett Moore discusses the liability of the agencies involved in managing the Oroville facilities should the dam fail again.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett G. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Moore may be contacted at
bmoore@hbblaw.com
Ambiguous Application Questions Preclude Summary Judgment on Rescission Claim
July 19, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Duarte v. Pacific Specialty Ins. (No. A143828; filed 6/12/17, ord. pub. 6/29/17) a California appeals court held that an insurer was not entitled to summary judgment on its rescission claim because the disputed questions in the insurance application were ambiguous.
In Duarte, the insured/owner purchased a tenant-occupied property in Oakland. Several years later the tenant’s daughter moved in, and continued living there after the tenant died. The insured/owner served the daughter with an eviction notice and shortly thereafter applied for Owners, Landlords & Tenants (“OLT”) liability coverage. The tenant/daughter responded to the eviction notice by filing a habitability lawsuit, claiming emotional distress and physical injury, among other things.
The insurer denied coverage and a defense, drawing a bad faith lawsuit for failure to defend and “wrongful cancellation” of the policy. The insurer answered and raised rescission as an affirmative defense, based on alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the OLT policy application.
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
Court Finds that Subcontractor Lacks Standing to Appeal Summary Judgment Order Simply Because Subcontractor “Might” Lose at Trial Due to Order
May 03, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogCases sometimes take unanticipated twists and turns. Atlas Construction Supply, Inc. v. Swinerton Builders, Case No. D076426 (January 26,2021), involving a tragic construction accident, a motion for summary judgment, a motion for good faith settlement, and a stipulated dismissal, is one of those cases.
The Accident
Swinerton Builders was the general contractor on a residential construction project in San Diego, California. Swinerton contracted with J.R. Construction, Inc. to perform concrete work and with Brewer Crane & Rigging, Inc. to perform crane work on the project. J.R. Construction in turn rented a concrete column formwork approximately 10 feet tall and weighing 300 to 400 pounds from Atlas Construction Supply, Inc.
One day on the construction project, Marcus Develasco, Sr. and another co-worker, employees of J.R. Construction, climbed to the top of the formwork to adjust its size. The formwork, which had been positioned on the site by Brewer, was upright but unsupported by braces. When the co-worker stepped off the formwork, Develasco’s weight caused the unsecured formwork to topple over, killing Develasco in the process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer
June 26, 2023 —
Jeremy S. Macklin & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Jeremy Macklin and Associate Danielle Kegley obtained judgment on the pleadings in favor of Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”), in a matter brought before the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In the underlying case, an injured employee sued various companies, and their agents, for injuries he sustained on a construction project. The insureds, one of the defendant companies and its employee, sought coverage for the underlying lawsuit under a professional liability policy issued to that company by Admiral. The policy at issue provided coverage for the company and its employees, for negligent acts or omissions committed in the rendering of “professional services,” defined as services “involving specialized training and skill while in the pursuit of” mechanical and process engineering.
After initially defending the insureds, Admiral filed a declaratory judgment action asking the Court to declare that the company has no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds in the underlying lawsuit and to allow Admiral to immediately withdraw its defense of the insureds. Admiral argued there is no coverage under the professional liability policy, as the underlying lawsuit does not contain allegations that the underlying plaintiff’s injuries arose from the rendering of or failure to render “professional services.” The insureds argued that since they were hired as mechanical and process engineers for the project, that any lawsuits against them must necessarily arise from their “professional services.” Further, the insureds asked the Court to disregard the express allegations in the underlying lawsuit concerning their role on the project as a general contractor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and
Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
