The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage
March 09, 2020 —
Sally Kim & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019).
In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract.
However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and
Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com
Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled in Creswell v. Estate of Howe, a case in which a woman bought a home and then sued the seller’s estate, both sets of real estate agents, and the homeowner’s association over construction defects. A district court ruled against her, granting summary judgment to the other parties.
After buying a townhome “as is,” Catherine Creswell claims to have shared a thought with her agent that the homeowners association was, in the words of her agent, “trying to hide something.” Later, Creswell found that a few days before her closing, the board had discussed problems with “roofs, siding and soundproofing of the townhomes.” The court noted that “it was clear from the documents that appellant [Creswell] received that the association had known about various construction defects for many years, some of which affected [her] unit.”
Creswell initially sued the estate, the man who negotiated the sale for his mother’s estate, the real estate companies and the agents involved, the homeowners association, and four board members. Later she sued for punitive damages, dropped a claim for interference with contractual relations, and dismissed her claims against the individual board members. The court dismissed all of Creswell’s claims awarding costs to those she sued.
The appeals court has affirmed the decision of lower court, noting that Creswell “did not provide us with any argument why the district court erred in dismissing her unjust-enrichment, breach of contract, or rescission claims against the various respondents.” Nor did she provide evidence to support her claims of “breach of duty, fraud, and violation of consumer protection statutes.”
The court noted that Creswell could not sue the homeowners association over the construction defects because she “failed to prove that she was damaged by the association’s nondisclosure.” The court noted that “there are no damages in this case,” as Creswell “was never assessed for any repairs, she had not paid anything out-of-pocket for repairs, and she has presented no evidence that the value of her individual unit has declined because of the alleged undisclosed construction defects.”
The court granted the other parties motion to dismiss and denied Creswell’s motion to supplement the record. Costs were awarded to the respondents.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Los Angeles Construction Sites May Be on Fault Lines
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFCalifornia law prohibits building near or on top of earthquake fault lines, but Los Angeles County building officials may have used outdated information that misreported the location of certain faults. The Los Angeles Times reports that after their earlier articles on fault lines, the officials have started using newer maps.
According to the older maps, an apartment building under construction on Brockton Avenue in Los Angeles is 1.9 miles away from the Santa Monica fault. But a more recent map, created by the state in 2010, shows that the fault line could potentially be right under the building site.
The builders of another apartment building potentially located on the Santa Monica fault said that the city did not ask for a fault investigation. The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety said that there was no official zone designation for the Santa Monica fault, and so did not require seismic studies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Building Materials Price Increase Clause for Contractors and Subcontractors – Three Options
June 21, 2021 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupWith the arrival of inflation come concerns regarding increases in the price of building materials within the construction industry. Contractors, subcontractors and others who contract to perform construction work can suffer significant losses when the prices they must pay for materials rises significantly between the time they sign the contract and actually purchase the materials. The general rule is that, unless there exists a contract clause allowing contractors or subcontractors to pass significant price increases for materials on to others, contractors and subcontractors are stuck with the price stated in the contract or subcontract. When prices rise, the contractor or subcontractor eats the difference. Rising prices can thus turn a profitable project into a catastrophic failure. How are contractors and subcontractors to protect themselves?
Once a contract is executed, there is usually little that can be done to change the document to address rising prices. Effort must therefore turn to future protection. The best technique for dealing with increasing future prices for building materials is by adding a price escalation clause to contracts and subcontracts. While this will not help for past contracts or subcontracts, it can certainly offer significant protection going forward.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Parties to an Agreement to Arbitrate May be Compelled to Arbitrate with Non-Parties
February 28, 2022 —
Paul R. Cressman Jr. - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn a recent case decided by Division III of the Washington Court of Appeals, David Terry Investments, LLC – PRC v. Headwaters Development Group LLC,[1] the court held that parties to an arbitration agreement can be compelled to arbitrate related claims with non-parties to the agreement based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
The case involved six joint venture agreements to develop three separate properties in Spokane, two joint venture agreements per property. One entity, David Terry Investments, LLC – PRC (“DTI”), owned by David Terry, was a partner in each of the six joint venture agreements. DTI joint ventured with S.G. Spady Consulting (“SGSC”) and with Headwaters Development Group LLC (“HDG”) separately for each of the three properties. HDG owned the three properties, and SGSC was to provide construction management advice. Steve Spady was the principal of both HDG and SGSC. Stoneridge was a licensed general contractor, the principal of which was also Steve Spady.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Cressman may be contacted at
paul.cressman@acslawyers.com
Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says
March 19, 2014 —
Tom Schoenberg and Phil Mattingly – BloombergThe U.S. Justice Department failed to pursue mortgage fraud in the years following the 2008 financial crisis with the same level of commitment that it publicly touted, an internal watchdog said.
While Attorney General Eric Holder said mortgage-fraud cases were among the department’s top priorities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation internally ranked them the lowest of six criminal threats, according to a report released today by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The FBI devoted fewer resources to such cases even though Congress allocated $196 million for fiscal years 2009 to 2011 to pursue such conduct.
The Justice Department has been criticized by lawmakers and judges for not bringing more criminal cases against individuals following the collapse in housing prices and ensuing market turmoil. In August, Holder retracted a public statement after Bloomberg News reported that the department had inflated its track record of mortgage-fraud prosecutions.
Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Mattingly may be contacted at pmattingly@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Schoenberg and Phil Mattingly, Bloomberg
Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend
January 13, 2017 —
Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. BlogThe Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Guertin may be contacted at
tag@sdvlaw.com
COVID-19 Business Closure and Continuity Compliance Resource
March 30, 2020 —
Adam Chelminiak, Joshua Mooney & Ryan Udell - White and Williams LLPIn less than a few weeks’ time, COVID-19 has changed the way we live and work. Businesses, large and small, have had to grapple with unprecedented challenges, including orders to close or significantly curtail operations in order to stem the transmission of the coronavirus. Often, these orders have not been clear or businesses are unsure whether they fit in a category that is deemed essential, life sustaining or other similar category that permits them to continue to operate. Or, the business believes that it is necessary for it to continue to operate for reasons that may not have been apparent to the governmental authority issuing the order.
White and Williams has been busy assisting our clients in Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and other states in understanding these orders. Below are government orders, and related resources, that have been announced and/or are currently in effect. White and Williams will continue to monitor these orders and add additional orders and resources as they are announced.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Adam Chelminiak,
Joshua Mooney and
Ryan Udell
Mr. Chelminiak may be contacted at chelminiaka@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Mooney may be contacted at mooneyj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Udell may be contacted at udellr@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the full story for government orders, and related resources, that have been announced and/or are currently in effect.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
