Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other
November 02, 2020 —
Hugh D. Hughes - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe Hartford’s so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss.1 The exclusion applies to “presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of ’fungi’, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.”2 The Court held that the parties did not necessarily intend to exclude a pandemic.
In Urogynecology, the plaintiff sought coverage for the loss of the usefulness and functionality of its business location due to the Florida Governor’s shutdown order. The policy contained a 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, or virus” exclusion.3 The carrier moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff argued that the exclusion only applied if COVID-19 was present on-site, which was not the case.
The Court addressed none of the issues regarding direct physical loss and instead decided the motion on the fungi exclusion. The Court held the exclusion ambiguous because the exclusion of virus “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”5 In addition, the Court stated that pollution case law was not on point because “none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society – a distinction this Court considers significant.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Hughes may be contacted at
hdh@sdvlaw.com
Georgia Federal Court Holds That Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage Under Liability Policy for Claims Arising From Discharge of PFAS Into Waterways
December 18, 2022 —
Paul Briganti - White and WilliamsOn December 5, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia held that a total pollution exclusion (TPE) in a CGL policy relieved the insurer of any obligation to defend or indemnify a recycling company in a putative class action alleging PFAS contamination of Georgia waterways. See Grange Ins. Co. v. Cycle-Tex Inc., et al., Order, Civ. A. No. 4:21-cv-00147-AT (N.D. Ga. Dec. 5, 2022). The decision adds to a slowly-developing body of case law addressing coverage issues arising out of PFAS-related claims.
In Grange, the insured, Cycle-Tex, Inc., was the operator of a thermoplastics recycling facility in Dalton, Georgia. Cycle-Tex and other defendants – which included chemical suppliers, carpet manufacturers, intermediaries, the City of Dalton and the Dalton-Whitfield Solid Waste Authority – were named in a putative class action complaint alleging that residents of Dalton had been injured as a result of the defendants’ discharge of PFAS into local waterways. The complaint sought damages for: (1) alleged harm to the residents’ health by virtue of ingesting contaminated water; (2) alleged property damage resulting from the contamination of the public water supply; and (3) the payment of surcharges and heightened water rates as a result of the alleged contamination.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul Briganti, White and WilliamsMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
What the FIU Bridge Collapse Says About Peer Review
September 23, 2019 —
Richard Korman & Scott Judy - Engineering News-RecordAttorneys for families of the six people who were killed and for survivors of 2018’s Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse say Louis Berger Group is the last defendant that has not yet agreed to settle lawsuits in state court in Miami. The legal actions target companies that designed and built the bridge.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record and
Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
DoD Testing New Roofing System that Saves Energy and Water
October 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBuilder reported that the Department of Defense (DoD) is hosting a new “dynamic roofing system, installed at the Security Forces Building at Goodfellow Air Force Base in San Angelo, Texas,” which “uses a combination of technologies that heat and cool air and water, produce electricity, and collect rainwater.” If the project is successful, it “could be replicated at thousands of DoD buildings throughout the country in the near future.”
Builder described the process: “A retrofitted metal roof is installed over the existing roof, which creates a cavity between the existing and new roofs. Within that cavity insulation, solar thermal heating systems and cooling of air and water for the building can be installed. The roofing, insulation, hydronic solar thermal systems, engineered air pathways, and photovoltaic cells are designed to work symbiotically.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What You Need to Know to Protect the Project Against Defect Claims
October 28, 2024 —
Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation BlogIf a property owner claims there is a construction defect, that not only brings the project’s integrity into question but also your business’s reputation. So, how can you take steps to prevent these claims from causing such damage?
Here are three things to know before beginning a project to effectively protect it and
manage construction defect claims.
1. Documentation is key
California and Los Angeles County require certain permits and documents in order for a construction project to move forward. Los Angeles County
will also conduct plan checks to ensure everything is up to code. Detailed documentation will be important while making your plans.
However, keeping notes throughout every step of the project will also be essential. Documenting all aspects of the project helps you:
- Stay updated and aware of the project’s progress
- Proactively catch and handle issues that could result in disputes
- Create a record of evidence that can help manage defect claims
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott L. Baker, Baker & AssociatesMr. Baker may be contacted at
slb@bakerslaw.com
Mediation Confidentiality Bars Malpractice Claim but for How Long?
April 01, 2015 —
Jennifer K. Saunders – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe California Court of Appeal yesterday upheld application of the mediation confidentiality statutes to bar a malpractice action which was based on the attorneys’ actions during mediation. John Amis vs. Greenberg Traurig LLP, et al. (3/18/15) Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, No. B248447. Inferences about the attorneys’ conduct during mediation were also determined to be unusable in an attempt to circumvent the privilege.
Plaintiff, John Amis, filed an action against his former attorneys, Greenberg Traurig, alleging they were negligent by “causing” him to execute a settlement agreement during a two-day mediation which converted a corporate obligation into a personal obligation. The causes of action included breach of fiduciary duty, malpractice and breach of a conflict waiver, in support of which Amis alleged that the attorneys failed to advise him of the risk involved in entering into the settlement agreement, “drafted, structured and caused it to be executed” during mediation and breached a conflict waiver by failing to negotiate a settlement that provided him with financial security. During plaintiff’s deposition he admitted that all of the advice he had received in connection with the settlement agreement occurred during mediation and that all the damages incurred were from his execution of that agreement during mediation. Greenberg Traurig filed a motion for summary judgment based upon plaintiff’s deposition admissions and argued that since the mediation confidentiality statutes barred each side from presenting testimony as to what occurred during mediation, the plaintiff could not establish the elements of his claims and they could not defend against those allegations. The trial court agreed with the defense, granting summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer K. Saunders, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMs. Saunders may be contacted at
jsaunders@hbblaw.com
Accounting for Payments on Projects Became Even More Crucial This Year
September 21, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI discussed
several of the statutory changes affecting the construction industry here at Construction Law Musings in the run-up to July 1, 2020. One of those changes, an amendment to
Virginia Code Section 43-13, may add another arrow to the collection quiver of subcontractors and suppliers. As part of the previously-linked rundown, I highlighted one of the big additions in 2020, namely the amendment making those pesky clauses that let those up the payment chain from you hold money on “this or any other project” void as against public policy.
The other big addition to 43-13 is the change that adds a possible civil cause of action for downstream and unpaid subcontractors and suppliers in the event that funds paid to a general contractor or subcontractor are not first used to pay their downstream contractors and suppliers. Prior to July 1, 2020, this statute provided criminal penalties for such behavior but did not contain the possibility of a civil penalty. The operative language for the change is as follows:
The use by any such contractor or subcontractor or any officer, director, or employee of such contractor or subcontractor of any moneys paid under the contract before paying all amounts due or to become due for labor performed or material furnished for such building or structure for any other purpose than paying such amounts due on the project shall be prima facie evidence of intent to defraud. Any breach or violation of this section may give rise to a civil cause of action for a party in contract with the general contractor or subcontractor, as appropriate; however, this right does not affect a contractor’s or subcontractor’s right to withhold payment for failure to properly perform labor or furnish materials on the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Texas Mechanic’s Lien Law Update: New Law Brings a Little Relief for Subcontractors and a Lot of Relief for Design Professionals
June 07, 2021 —
Tracey L. Williams - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.After several recent failed attempts to amend Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code (the “Texas Mechanic’s Lien Statute”), it appears that long awaited relief may, at least in part, be on the horizon for subcontractors in Texas. Additionally, architects, engineers, and surveyors also appear to be significant benefactors of House Bill 2237 (“HB 2237”). Under existing law, many subcontractors often fail to perfect their mechanic’s liens under the Texas Mechanic’s Lien Statute because of complex notice requirements which must be sent for every month in which labor or material are furnished. And architects, engineers and surveyors currently have no lien rights unless they have a direct contractual relationship with the owner of the project. Effective January 1, 2022, HB 2237 amends the Texas Mechanic’s Lien Statute in several significant respects.
Subcontractor Impacts
HB 2237 impacts subcontractors in the following ways:
- Establishes uniformity in the notice requirements by imposing the same notice obligation on all subcontractors regardless of with whom they have contracted. Rather than sending one notice to the owner and one to the general contractor, the single notice now required must be sent to both simultaneously. Additionally, HB 2237 prescribes the form of the notice to be given under both Section 53.056 (notice of derivative claimant) and 53.057 (notice of contractual retainage).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tracey L. Williams, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Williams may be contacted at
twilliams@pecklaw.com
