New York Preserves Subrogation Rights
September 06, 2023 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistThe insurer’s right of subrogation is equitable in nature, even if not based in contract. However, since the insurer steps into the shoes of its insured and is limited to the rights of its insured, an integral part of the investigation process is determining what rights the insured has. Whether or not the insured can settle with the tortfeasor and that whether the settlement would also apply to the subrogated carrier is a question the Supreme Court of New York, a trial court, recently addressed.
In Utica First Ins. Co. v. Homeport I LLC, et al., No. 150448/2022, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), the plaintiff insurance carrier’s insured, SI Waterfront Management Inc. (SI Waterfront), owned and operated a restaurant called Wynwood at 24 Navy Pier Court in Staten Island, New York. The owner of the property was Homeport I LLC (Homeport). Significant construction work pertaining to plumbing and draining lines at the property was done by Ironstate Holdings, LLC (Ironstate), the plumbing portion of which was conducted by subcontractor Claire Construction Corp. (Claire). As a result of the construction work, on June 8, 2021, SI Waterfront allegedly sustained property damage from flooding.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Picketing Threats
July 09, 2019 —
Jerry Morales - Snell & Wilmer Under ConstructionLetters from unions to owners, general contractors and other contractors informing them of the union’s dispute with one or more of the subcontractors, working at a common construction project site (or common situs), and of the union’s plans to engage in “public informational campaigns” at the site, in furtherance of the dispute, may constitute unlawful threats of secondary boycott.
Unions often send letters to various employers that share a common construction project site, informing them that the union has a dispute with one or more of the subcontractors working or scheduled to work at the same site. In labor law, the employers that do not have a dispute with the union are referred to as “neutral employers,” in contrast with the employers with which the union has the dispute, referred to as “primary employers.”
In the letters, the unions typically describe the reason for the labor dispute (e.g., alleged failure to pay “area standards”), request that the neutrals use their “managerial discretion” not to allow the primary employers to perform work at the project site until the dispute is resolved, and inform that the union will engage in public information campaigns against the primary employer at the common situs. The “public information campaign” is described in the union’s letter as including banner displays, distribution of handbills, picketing and other demonstration activity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jerry Morales, Snell & WilmerMr. Morales may be contacted at
jmorales@swlaw.com
Rainwater Collecting on Rooftop is not Subject to Policy's Flood Sublimits
October 15, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiResponding to a certified question from the First Circuit, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts determined that rainwater collecting on the insureds' rooftop and causing interior damage was not "flood" as defined in the policy and subject to sublimits. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Medical Properties Trust, Inc., 2024 Mass. LEXIS ___ (Mass. July 23, 2024).
A severe thunderstorm caused heavy rain and strong winds which damaged a hospital. The hospital was owned by Medical Properties Trust, Inc. (MPT) and leased to Steward Health Care System LLC (Steward). Ground water accumulated and flooded the basement. Rainwater also accumulated on the hospital's parapet roofs and on the second-story courtyard, and eventually seeped through the parapet roofs and courtyard to the hospital's upper floors, causing damage to the building and property within.
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
Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole
August 06, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistArkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]
In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Hawaii Appellate Court Finds Duty to Defend Group Builders Case
May 10, 2013 —
Tred EyerlyOn May 19, 2010, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals determined construction defect claims did not constitute an occurrence under a CGL policy.Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 231 P.3d 67 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010) ("Group Builders I"). The appeal in Group Builders I, however, only addressed the duty to indemnify. The ICA has now issued a second decision (unpublished), holding that there is was duty to defend Group Builders on the construction defect claims under Hawaii law, based upon the policy language and the allegations in the underlying complaint. Group Builders, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 Haw.App. LEXIS 207 (Haw. Ct. App. April 15, 2013).
The underlying suit involved allegations by Hilton Hotels Corp. that Group Builders, a subcontractor working on an addition to the hotel, was responsible for mold found after completion of the project. Hilton alleged that the "design, construction, installation, and/or selection of the . . . building exterior wall finish . . . did not provide an adequate air and/or moisture barriers." The counts alleged against Group Builders included breach of contract and negligence.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyMr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance
December 27, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIt is a good idea to know what your insurance covers and does not cover. This way, if your course of business has you performing a certain (risky) operation, you know whether that operation is covered or excluded under your policy. If you are not sure, discuss with your insurance broker — this is important. There is little value performing an operation that is NOT covered by your insurance policy, as you are now performing a risk that is not covered by insurance. If you know it is not covered by insurance you may elect to change your operations or see if there is insurance to cover the risk. Below is a case study of this occurrence dealing with a commercial automobile liability policy where an insured’s operations using a crane mounted to a super duty truck was not covered under their automobile liability policy.
In People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D262a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), homeowners hired a company to install a shed. The company hired another company to deliver and install the shed using a crane; the company used a crane mounted to a Ford F-750 super duty truck. This company improperly operated the crane resulting in the shed falling and damaging the homeowner’s roof. The homeowners submitted a claim to their property insurer and their property insurer subrogated to their rights and sued. The company operating the crane’s commercial automobile liability insurer denied coverage, and thus, denied the duty to defend. As a result, a
Coblentz-type agreement was entered into where the company operating the crane consented to a judgment in favor of the property insurer (subrogee) and assigned its rights under its commercial automobile liability policy to the property insurer. The property insurer then sued the automobile liability carrier for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the automobile liability insurer finding there was no coverage and this was affirmed on appeal. Why?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
A UK Bridge That Is a Lesson on How to Build Infrastructure
November 15, 2017 —
Cameron J. Bell - Engineering News-RecordThis country’s infrastructure—bridges, airports, dams and levees—needs wide-scale repair and renewal. The United Kingdom’s new Queensferry Crossing bridge, connecting Edinburgh to Fife in Scotland, sets a new standard for how to do it. The result speaks for itself: The Queensferry Crossing, a three-tower, 1.7-mile-long cable-stayed bridge, debuted in early September well within budget and a manageable eight-month time delay—a rare occurrence among bridges. According to research at the University of Oxford’s Saïd Business School, nine out of 10 fixed links (bridges and tunnels) suffer an average cost overrun of 34% and a time delay of roughly two years.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron J. Bell, ENR ENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Handshake Deals Gone Wrong
May 22, 2023 —
Jessica Allain - ConsensusDocsThe construction industry has it fair share of “handshake deals”, oral agreements relying on the integrity of the people involved. But when it comes to protecting and enforcing legal rights, it is always a better idea to properly paper the deal and get it in writing. Otherwise, contractors relying on verbal promises may find themselves without any legal remedy should the deal go south. After all, it is not just a matter of trust, but also a way to document that everybody agrees on what the terms of the deal actually are.
For example, a recent case out of New York highlights the dangers of unwritten promises. In Castle Restoration, LLC v. Castle Restoration & Construction, Inc., No. 16349-15 (N.Y. App. Div. 2/9/22), 2022 NY Slip Op 50082(U), 2022 WL 402882, 2022 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 485, Castle Inc. and Castle LLC entered into a deal for an asset sale to transfer equipment and a client list from Castle Inc. to Castle LLC. While that initial asset sale was properly papered with sale documents and a promissory note, the parties entered into a subsequent handshake/oral agreement where Castle LLC agreed to provide Castle Inc. with labor and materials on construction projects, and those goods and services would offset the payment obligation under the promissory note. But the problem was that the contract for the asset sale had a provision that the agreement could not be changed by oral agreement; rather, any changes had to be made in writing.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Allain, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Allain may be contacted at jallain@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
