“Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay
August 20, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPOn May 28, 2019, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division examined the phrase “based on” in an assault-and-battery exclusion, finding that the phrase means “to make, form, or serve as the foundation of any claim, demand or suit.” C.M.S. Investment Ventures, Inc. v. American European Insurance Company, No. A-2056-17T3, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1215, at *8-9 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 28, 2019) (CMS). The CMS case is also notable because the Appellate Division held that a 20-month delay in disclaiming coverage was unreasonable and therefore warranted estoppel.
In CMS, the insured was allegedly warned by its tenant about a faulty ground-floor window that failed to lock properly. Afterward, an intruder broke into the tenant’s apartment and sexually assaulted the tenant, who sued the insured on a premises liability claim. Before she filed suit, the tenant sought payment from the insured’s CGL insurer directly. The insurer denied coverage based on the assault-and-battery exclusion and closed the file, but never informed the insured. Later, the tenant sued the insured, which sought a defense and indemnity from its insurer, which again denied coverage based on the exclusion. The insured then sought a declaration of coverage on grounds that the exclusion was ambiguous, and the insurer “was estopped from denying coverage, because it waited [20] months to inform CMS of its coverage decision.” The trial court ruled in the insured’s favor which led to the appeal in CMS.
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Protect Your Right To Payment By Following Nedd
August 03, 2022 —
Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogIn order to preserve your right to payment, you must satisfy the contractual requirements supporting a change order for the increased costs or time due to the delay. The key to the successful presentation of change order claims is educating your team on the following:
1. NOTICE
- Review the change order and notice provisions of your contracts. Make your contract searchable and insert the term “Noti” and look for the items listed below.
- Who: Check the designated representative for notice.
- It may not be the project manager.
- Confirm who can authorize the change order.
- Is owner approval required?
- Ensure that the party approving the change order has authority to do so.
- What: Check for specific information required by the contract.
- Provide ALL information available.
- If certain information is not yet available, state that the information will be provided when available.
- Reserve all rights to amend and submit additional information.
- Request both an increase to the Contract Sum and Contract Time.
- Make the request even if you do not believe the delay or time necessary will cause a significant impact.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMs. Motta may be contacted at
dmotta@grsm.com
Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on January 9 in Burrow v. JTL Dev. Corp., a construction defect case in which houses suffered damage due to improperly compacted soil, upholding the decision of the lower court.
Turf Construction entered into a deal with JTL to develop a parcel they acquired. A third firm, Griffin Homes, withdrew from the agreement “when a geotechnical and soils engineering firm reported significant problems with soil stability on 14 of the lots.” Turf Construction then took over compacting and grading the lots. Turf “had never compacted or graded a residential tract before.” Robert Taylor, the owner of Turf, “testified he knew there was a significant problem with unstable soils.”
After homes were built, the plaintiffs bought homes on the site. Shortly thereafter, the homes suffered damage from soil settlement “and the damage progressively worsened.” They separately filed complaints which the court consolidated.
During trial, the plaintiff’s expert said that there had been an inch and a half in both homes and three to five inches in the backyard and pool areas. “He also testified that there would be four to eight inches of future settlement in the next fifteen to twenty years.” The expert for Turf and JTL “testified that soil consolidation was complete and there would be no further settlement.”
Turf and JTL objected to projections made by the plaintiffs’ soil expert, William LaChappelle. Further, they called into question whether it was permissible for him to rely on work by a non-testifying expert, Mark Russell. The court upheld this noting that LaChappelle “said that they arrived at the opinion together, through a cycle of ‘back and forth’ and peer review, and that the opinion that the soil would settle four to eight inches in fifteen to twenty years was his own.”
Turf and JTL contended that the court relied on speculative damage. The appeals court disagreed, stating that the lower court based its award “on evidence of reasonably certain damage.”
Turf also that it was not strictly liable, since it did not own or sell the properties. The court wrote that they “disagree because Turf’s grading activities rendered it strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.” The court concluded that “Turf is strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.”
Judge Coffee upheld the decision of the lower court with Judges Yegan and Perren concurring.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Legislation Update: S-865 Public-Private Partnerships in New Jersey Passed by Both Houses-Awaiting Governor’s Signature
July 02, 2018 —
Steven M. Charney & Charles F. Kenny - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.New Jersey is finally close to being among the many states with broad authority to develop or improve public projects through a Public-Private Partnership (P3) delivery method. This contracting model has stimulated growth and improvements in other States and led to the delivery of projects that may not otherwise have happened. Senate Bill 865 (“S-865”), after undergoing some last-minute amendments in a frenzied legislature dealing with budget and other critical issues, has passed in both houses of the Legislature and is waiting for Governor Murphy’s signature, which is expected shortly. The law will be effective 180 days from formal enactment. The administrative framework is now in place to make Public-Private Partnerships a reality in New Jersey.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Charney, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Charles F. Kenny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com
Mr. Kenny may be contacted at ckenny@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie Wins Summary Judgment in Favor of Sub-Contracted Electrical Company
February 14, 2023 —
Colleen E. Hastie - Traub LiebermanIn a case brought before the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, Plaintiff alleged injury while performing work at a commercial premises in Brooklyn when he rolled his ankle on a jackhammered/chopped cellar floor slab while carrying a metal pipe from the main floor to the cellar on the subject premises. The property was owned by New York City entities, who were listed as Defendants in the underlying suit. A Construction Company was hired as the general contractor and construction manager for the work, who hired the Electrical Contractor to perform the main electrical fit out for the subject premises. The Electrical Contractor then hired Traub Lieberman’s client, the Electrical Subcontractor, to work on cellar-level conduit, cabling, backboxes, and lighting control systems. The Electrical Contractor, as Second Third-Party Plaintiff, brought suit against the Electrical Subcontractor, as Second Third-Party Defendant, for damages related to the underlying suit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colleen E. Hastie, Traub LiebermanMs. Hastie may be contacted at
chastie@tlsslaw.com
A Court-Side Seat: NWP 12 and the Dakota Access Pipeline Easement Get Forced Vacations, while a Potential Violation of the Eighth Amendment Isn’t Going Anywhere
August 10, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelHere’s a report on several new decisions made over the past few days.
U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Northern Plains Resources Council
On July 8, 2020, the Court has issued a partial stay of the decision of the U.S. District Court for Montana, which had held that the nationwide use by the Corps of Engineers of its Nationwide Permit 12 to permit oil and gas pipelines must be vacated because the Corps, when it reissued these permits in 2012, failed to follow the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The breadth of this ruling seems to have surprised and alarmed many past and perspective permittees of the Corps. The stay will not apply to the ongoing Ninth Circuit litigation.
FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL
Vega, et al. v. Semple (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)
On June 29, 2020, the court refused to dismiss a putative class action by past and present inmates of Connecticut’s Garner Correctional Institution who alleged that state correctional officials exposed them to excessive amounts of radon gas in violation of the Eighth Amendment. These officials are alleged to have been “deliberately indifferent” to inmate safety. A 1993 Supreme Court decision, Helling v. McKiney, clearly established the law in this area, and the Garner facility opened in 1992. The defense clams of limited immunity as to federal law violations were rejected.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits
January 27, 2020 —
David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement BlogA recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits.
One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Beyond the Disneyland Resort: Dining
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFFor fine dining experiences outside of the Disneyland Resort, try
Summit House Restaurant or the
Anaheim White House Italian Steak House .
A more unusual and upscale restaurant, try
The Hobbit in nearby Orange, California. They offer a seven-course, prix-fixe menu by reservation only. It’s a four-hour dining experience that begins in their Wine Cellar, then guests are taken to their tables in the dining room. Next, is an intermission where guests are encouraged to relax on the patios or visit the kitchen to chat with the chef. Guests then return to their table to finish their entrees and dessert.
If you’d rather spend your time in a unique lounge or bar, try
the Blind Rabbit, which calls itself Orange County’s speak easy. Located in the Anaheim Packing District, the Blind Rabbit’s tables are all reserved after 5pm, and you might want to brush up on their list of rules prior to visiting.
For something casual, try
Hollinghead’s Delicatessen in Orange, where you can purchase hand crafted sandwiches and beers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
