First Circuit: No Coverage, No Duty to Investigate Alleged Loss Prior to Policy Period
May 18, 2020 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and WilliamsOn April 1, 2020, the First Circuit, applying Massachusetts law, issued a potentially useful decision addressing the Montrose “known loss” language in ISO Form CGL policies. In Clarendon National Insurance Company v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,[1] the court applied this language to allow denial of defense for claims of recurring water infiltration that began before the insurer’s policy period, and it found an insurer had no duty to investigate whether the course of property damage might have been interrupted, or whether other property damage might have occurred during the policy period, so as to trigger coverage during a later policy.
In the underlying dispute, a condominium owner (Doherty) asserted negligence claims against her association’s property management company (Lundgren) stemming from alleged water infiltration into her condominium. The complaint said leaks developed in 2004 in the roof above Doherty’s unit, and repairs were not made in a timely or appropriate manner. The following year, the complaint said, a Lundgren employee notified Doherty that the threshold leading to her condominium's deck was rotting. In February 2006, Doherty discovered a mushroom and water infiltration on the threshold and notified Lundgren. At that time, Lundgren asked its maintenance and repair contractor (CBD) to replace the rotting threshold. According to the complaint, CBD did not do this repair in a timely manner and left debris exposed in Doherty’s bedroom.
In March 2006, the complaint said, a mold testing company hired by Lundgren found hazardous mold in Doherty's unit, caused by water intrusions and chronic dampness. Lundgren’s attempts at remediation were ineffectual. In September 2008, Doherty's doctor ordered her to leave the condominium and not to return until the leaks were repaired and mold was eliminated.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and
Austin D. Moody, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How to Drop a New Building on Top of an Old One
December 05, 2022 —
Kriston Capps - BloombergFaçadectomy. That’s the tongue-in-cheek term for a widely unloved architectural compromise that developers sometimes strike: saving the historic veneer of an existing building while demolishing and replacing its internal structure. Façade preservation is especially popular in Washington, DC, where a federal cap on the height of buildings and the strength of the preservationist cause locally makes the case for adapting existing structures, even at great expense.
Façadism is rarer where cheaper tear-downs are possible, but over the last 40 years, this trend hit its stride on the East Coast. Prominent examples include the Spanish Embassy in DC and the Penn Mutual tower in Philadelphia.
A new condo tower in Boston’s South End isn’t a typical façadectomy. The development at 100 Shawmut Avenue looks as if a glassy modern building had been plopped down on top of an old warehouse. According to Tom Schultz, associate for The Architectural Team, the Boston-area firm behind the project, the case for incorporating a six-story warehouse into a new residential project wasn’t merely aesthetic. The site and structure lent itself to building up.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kriston Capps, Bloomberg
Commercial Construction Heating Up
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Motley Fool suggests that commercial construction is the next hot sector. Their analysis is that lag time between a rise in residential construction and commercial construction is just about over. “Industry surveys and construction data are suggestion that commercial construction could be about to turn.”
Among the indicators are increased billing by architects for commercial projects. With the exception of December 2012, with a strong slump in residential work, commercial projects lagged below residential projects from June 2012 until June 2013.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work
September 24, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit determined there was no coverage for faulty workmanship causing property damage to the insured's project. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Board of Directors of Regal Lofts Condominium Ass'n, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16250 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2014).
The developer converted a vacant building into a condominium. The construction was completed in 2000. The Condominium Board took control of the condo association on July 27, 2000. As early as May 2000, one homeowner was aware of water damage problems in the building. Other complaints surfaced. An investigation found that the exterior brick masonry walls were not fully waterproofed, which caused leaks. The investigation further showed that deteriorated conditions had likely developed over many years, even prior to the condominium conversion, but the present water penetration was caused by the inadequate restoration of the walls to a water-tight condition.
The underlying action was filed against the developer for failure to properly construct the exterior walls. The developer's carrier, Nautilus, denied coverage. In an amended complaint, the Board added a count of negligence. Again, Nautilus denied coverage. The Board's second amended complaint alleged that the developer's negligence had caused damage to personal property within the building, in addition to the interior of the building and the building itself. For the third time, Nautilus denied coverage and filed for declaratory relief.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse
August 20, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiFaced with a series of policies, earlier ones which did not define collapse, newer policies which did, the court determined there was a possibility of coverage under the older policies which did not define collapse. Vera v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100548 (D. Conn. June 15, 2018).
Connecticut courts have faced a rash of collapse cases as a result of cement provided to build house foundations by J.J. Mottes Concrete Co. Many basement foundations built with the concrete have shown cracking and other signs of premature deterioration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Court Confirms No Duty to Reimburse for Prophylactic Repairs Prior to Actual Collapse
October 28, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Grebow v. Mercury Insurance Company (No. B261172, filed 10/21/15), a California appeals court held that coverage for collapse in a homeowners policy does not extend to prophylactic repairs undertaken to mitigate damage before actual collapse of the structure.
In Grebow, the insureds had a general contractor inspect the rear deck of their house because of recurring watermarks. The contractor discovered severe decay in the steel beams and poles supporting the second floor of the house. He opined that they could not support the upper portion of the house, and that a large portion of the house would fall. A structural engineer agreed, blaming decay and corrosion. The insureds were advised not to enter the top part of the house, and they contracted for repairs. They also made a claim to Mercury, which denied coverage. The insureds ultimately spent $91,000 out of pocket having the home remediated.
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
Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions
June 12, 2023 —
Kathryn Keller & Steven A. Hollis - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida. The underlying claim involved a water loss in the kitchen of the Plaintiff’s property allegedly resulting in substantial damage to the home necessitating renovations throughout the residence. The claim was reported seventeen days after the reported date of loss by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff had retained counsel and two vendors before giving notice to the insurer. In addition, the insurer’s field adjuster was not provided the opportunity to inspect the plumbing materials which had been allegedly damaged. Specifically, the bottom panel of the sink kitchen cabinet box had been removed. The insurer retained an engineer, who concluded that the removal of the damaged property hindered the ability of the engineer to determine their conditions prior to removal or whether exposure from waste arm leakage occurred. It was later learned that the damaged plumbing fixtures and the bottom of the cabinets had been thrown out by the contractors, which all happened before the claim was reported to the insurer. The insured also failed to provide a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days after the loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman and
Steven A. Hollis, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Hollis may be contacted at shollis@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
