COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

After Breaching its Duty to Defend, Insurer Must Indemnify

August 11, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

In a brief decision analyzing Oregon law, the Ninth Circuit determined that once an insurer breaches its duty to defend, it must indemnify. See Desrosiers v. Hudson Speciality Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12591 (9th CIr. June 21, 2011).



The victim secured a judgment against the insured after he was beaten by another patron outside the insured's bar. Hudson Speciality Insurance refused to defend the insured, claiming the injury arose from an assault and battery, which excluded coverage.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Group Seeks Defense Coverage for Hard Rock Stadium Claims

December 09, 2019 — Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In an insurance coverage action pending in the S.D.N.Y., Hunt Construction Group (Hunt) contends that Berkley Assurance Company wrongfully denied defense coverage for claims arising out of the renovation of Hard Rock Stadium (home to the Miami Dolphins and Miami Hurricanes football teams). The stadium owner, South Florida Stadium LLC (SFS), hired Hunt to serve as the construction manager for the renovation project. Hunt subcontracted with Alberici Constructors Inc. (Alberici) to design and fabricate roof structures for the stadium. Hunt and SFS sued Alberici over its work on the project. In March 2017, Alberici asserted counterclaims against Hunt and SFS. In May 2018, SFS sought defense and indemnification from Hunt with respect to Alberici’s coverage claims. Hunt is insured under claims made and reported professional liability insurance policies issued by Berkley with policy periods from June 15, 2016 to June 15, 2017 (with an automatic extended reporting period through August 14, 2017) and from July 15, 2017 to June 15, 2018. Hunt notified Berkley of Alberici’s counterclaim on July 20, 2017 (within the extended reporting period of the 2016-2017 policy) and of SFS’s indemnity claim on June 5, 2018 (within the 2017-2018 policy period). Reprinted courtesy of Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Feds Used Wire to Crack Las Vegas HOA Scam

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Court documents have revealed that the FBI used informants wearing listening devices in order to uncover the plan to take over Las Vegas area homeowner associations with the intent of bilking the residents through backdoor agreements on construction defect claims. The Las Vegas Review-Journal notes one important step was when the FBI managed to get a member of the Mission Pointe board to act as an informant. The FBI informant was recruited by one of the conspirators, Sami Robert Hindiyeh. The informant eventually spoke with Benzer himself. The plan was to convince the community manager of Mission Pointe to take bribes, all part of rigging the board election. At one point, the informant was paid $20,000 for his help in convincing the manager to take part. The manager had agreed to play along in the FBI sting. Ralph Priola, one of the conspirators, told the informant that “as long as we keep everything on the up and up, that’s the way our company operates.” Later Priola asked the informant if legitimate ballots could be swapped out for those voting for Benzer’s candidates. But the election didn’t happen. The FBI raided Benzer’s office, bringing the scam to its end. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Nuclear Fusion Pushes to Reach Commercial Power Plant Stage

August 05, 2024 — Mary B. Powers, Debra K. Rubin, Peter Reina & David Godkin - Engineering News-Record
The quest to develop nuclear fusion—the process that energizes the sun and other stars—as an earth-based power source dates back more than a century when Albert Einstein and other scientists theorized how enormous amounts of energy could be produced when atoms fuse. That research was partly diverted for wartime weapons priorities but later targeted to develop fusion for commercial-scale energy—what sector proponents have called the “holy grail” for decades since. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record, Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record, Peter Reina, Engineering News-Record and David Godkin, Engineering News-Record Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits

August 10, 2020 — Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri & Katelyn Werner - Gordon & Rees
Despite first party insurance policies generally requiring cooperation from an insured in the investigation of a claim, insurers can no longer rely on the failure to cooperate as a defense in a claim for first party insurance benefits in Colorado unless certain conditions are met. The Bill: On July 2, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared S. Polis signed House Bill 20-1290 which addresses the ability of an insurer to use a failure to cooperate defense in an action where the insured has made a claim for benefits under an insurance policy. This bill bars an insurer from raising the failure to cooperate unless the following conditions are met:

• The insurer submitted a written request to the insured or the insured’s representative for the information (via electronic means if consent was given by insured or insured’s representative, or via certified mail);
• The information is not available to the insurer without the assistance of the insured;
• The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
• The written request is for information a reasonable person would determine the insurer needs to adjust the claim filed by the insured or to prevent fraud; and
• The insurer gives the insured an opportunity to cure, which must:
• Provide written notice to the insured of the alleged failure to cooperate, describing with particularity the alleged failure within 60 days after the alleged failure; and
• Allow the insured 60 days after receipt of the written notice to cure the alleged failure to cooperate.

Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri and Katelyn Werner Ms. Kroupa may be contacted at ckroupa@grsm.com Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at jpalmeri@grsm.com Ms. Werner may be contacted at kwerner@grsm.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Housing Inflation Begins to Rise

February 25, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Kathleen Madigan writing for The Wall Street Journal, “inflation remains muted at the start of 2014” except in one category: housing. Madigan stated that housing costs were “worth watching.” The “owners’ equivalent rent index had been rising at a steady pace through most of 2012 and 2013, with 12-month percent changes hovering around 2%” however, “the pace picked up” at the end of last year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act

January 26, 2017 — Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
A recent United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) decision emphasizes the importance of deadlines for appealing a contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). On July 22, 2016, the COFC granted the consolidation of two naval contract dispute appeals totaling nearly $12.4 million in response to Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba’s (“NTS”) motion to resolve two Requests for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) in the same forum. See Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. United States, No. 15-885C, 2016 WL 4009886, at *5 (Fed. Cl. July 22, 2016). NTS’s motion before the COFC sought to transfer an appeal of a REA before the COFC to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), where another appeal of a REA arising under the same contract was presently on appeal. The COFC rejected NTS’s appeal to transfer the REA to the ASBCA because NTS did not appeal the REA within the 90-day limit under the CDA. Instead, the COFC allowed NTS to transfer the REA before the ASBCA to the COFC because timeliness was not an issue. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Reynolds may be contacted at reynolds@ahclaw.com

---

Without Reservations: Fourth Circuit Affirms That Vague Reservation of Rights Waived Insurers’ Coverage Arguments

January 09, 2023 — Lara Degenhart Cassidy & Matthew J. Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Fourth Circuit recently affirmed insurance coverage for a South Carolina policyholder based on the “axiomatic principle” that an insurer which fails to fully and fairly articulate its potential coverage defenses in a reservation of rights letter loses the right to contest coverage on those grounds. Stoneledge at Lake Keowee Owner’s Assoc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 19-2009, 2022 WL 17592121 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc., 803 S.E.2d 288 (S.C. 2017)). More particularly, in Stoneledge, the Fourth Circuit affirmed per curiam a South Carolina District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a homeowners association that had successfully sued its general contractors for construction defects and was seeking to recover the damages owed from the contractors’ insurers. The Fourth Circuit agreed that the insurers’ vague reservation of rights letters failed to reserve the defenses on which the insurers purported to deny coverage. The question before the court in Stoneledge was whether the two insurers that had each agreed to defend their respective general-contractor insureds in the homeowner association’s underlying litigation had sufficiently informed their policyholders of their coverage positions. Specifically, the court considered whether the insurers provided notice of their intention to challenge coverage on specific bases and explained why those bases applied in their respective reservation of rights letters. Both of the insurers’ letters followed the typical approach of identifying various policy provisions and exclusions and outlining the general mechanics of those provisions, but they fell short of applying the provisions or exclusions to the facts in the case at hand. Further, the letters stated that the insurers would reevaluate how the provisions applied as the underlying case progressed. One of the insurer’s letters expressed doubt as to coverage but did not offer any analysis on the reasons for the prospective coverage denial. Reprinted courtesy of Lara Degenhart Cassidy, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Cassidy may be contacted at lcassidy@HuntonAK.com Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---