The Ups and Downs of Elevator Maintenance Contractor's Policy Limits
October 03, 2022 —
Richard W. Brown & Sarah J. Markham - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The December 2021 First Department decision in Nouveau Elevator Indus. v. New York Marine & General Ins. Co. is pushing some buttons in the elevator industry, given the significant implications it may have on the adequacy of policy limits for elevator service companies operating in New York state.
The Court held in Nouveau that monthly elevator maintenance work performed under an ongoing service agreement is considered “completed operations” for purposes of applying policy limits. Specifically, the Court found that the per location policy limits are not implicated here, and instead held that the products-completed operations aggregate limit applies to completed work, which expressly includes “that part of the work done at a job site [that] has been put to its intended use.”
Facts of the Case
Nouveau provides elevator maintenance and service in the greater New York city region. Its work is done in multiple buildings and locations throughout the city. Nouveau purchased six commercial general liability (CGL) policies from New York Marine for consecutive one-year periods. Each of the CGL policies provides a liability limit of $1 million, with an aggregate limit of $2 million, per accident or occurrence.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Sarah J. Markham, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Markham may be contacted at SMarkham@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes
September 01, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogThis is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.
In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.
The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit
March 02, 2020 —
Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCOn December 5, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court released its opinion in King County v. King County Water Districts, et al.,[1] upholding King County’s Ordinance 18403, which requires utility companies who are franchise grantees to pay “franchise compensation” for their use of the County rights-of-way. Generally, utility companies must apply for and obtain from the County a franchise permitting it to do necessary work in the County rights-of-way. [2] Previously, King County only charged an administrative fee associated with issuing such a franchise. But with the new franchise compensation charges, King County estimates that it will raise approximately $10 million dollars per year for its general fund.
Ordinance 18403 passed in November 2016 and was the first of its kind in the state. The ordinance created a rule, set forth in RCW 6.27.080, requiring electric, gas, water, and sewer utilities who are granted a franchise by King County to pay “franchise compensation” in exchange for the right to use the County’s rights-of-way. The rule provides that franchise compensation is in the nature of an annual rent payment to the County for using the County roads. King County decides an initial estimate of the charge by considering various factors such as the value of the land used, the size of the area that will be used, and the density of the households served. But utility companies can negotiate with the County over the final amount of franchise compensation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Southwell may be contacted at
kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com
AAA Revises its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures
April 02, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThis one is for the lawyers. Or for those of you who are claims-minded . . .
Effective March 1, 2024, the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) revised its Construction Industry Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures. For those involved in construction, this is important since the AAA Rules are the default arbitration rules contained in AIA form contracts and are often the arbitration rules referenced in other construction contracts as well.
So, what are the changes?
- General: Fax numbers have gone the way of the Dodo bird and replaced by email addresses for all parties. Also, while already done in practice, preliminary hearings may now be held via videoconference in addition to telephone and in-person (Rule R-23).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction
January 27, 2020 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessRecent research backs up what we already know from practice: construction work is suboptimal. What happens on a construction site has not kept up with the demands of an increasingly complex work environment. Situational awareness could give on-site employees the necessary means to finally reap the productivity benefits of digitalization.
Under the guidance of Professor Olli Seppänen, research teams at the Finnish Aalto University have delved into everyday conditions at a construction site. With the workers’ permission, they used video cameras, sensors, and surveys to locate the bottlenecks in productivity. The researchers also monitored the movement of products and materials on a construction site. The results are eye-opening.
According to Aalto’s data, digitalization has not improved the productivity of construction foremen and workers. A typical worker still spends up to 70% of their time on activities that add no value: searching for information, unnecessary movement, and waiting. Construction materials are moved from place to place six times on the site before being consumed. In addition, especially on large construction sites, machinery often goes missing or is displaced.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Subsequent Owners of Homes Again Have Right to Sue Builders for Construction Defects
October 07, 2016 —
Mark L. Parisi – White and Williams LLPOwners of homes with damage from construction defects have long had the standing to sue the builders of their homes using the legal theories of 1) breach of contract, 2) breach of implied warranty, and 3) breach of Pennsylvania’s consumer fraud statute, the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).
Before the 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Conway v. Cutler, even owners who were not the original purchasers of their homes, so-called subsequent owners, had a right to sue the builder of their homes using implied warranty as the legal theory. But the Supreme Court in Conway said in 2014 that even though an implied warranty theory is not based on a written contract, it is a quasi contract theory and because subsequent owners never had a contractual relationship with the builder of their home, the implied warranty cause of action was not available. Subsequent purchasers were thus left without a remedy for damage from defective construction in their homes and builders had a second safe harbor from claims regarding homes they built. The first safe harbor is Pennsylvania’s Statute of Repose. If the home was completed more than 12 years before a lawsuit was filed, the Statute of Repose bars the claim. But after Conway, if the home was sold, this also cut off a builder’s potential liability for construction defects in the home.
ENTER THE UTPCPL
On July 26, 2016 the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Adams v. Hellings Builders issued a non-published (and therefore non-precedential) decision in a stucco construction defect case that held that subsequent purchasers could sue their home’s builder under the UTPCPL because the Act had no requirement that the purchaser of a product, or home, be the original purchaser. The decision cites several other appellate cases not involving construction defect claims that held that the UTPCPL was a valid legal theory for claims regarding products purchased second hand by the plaintiffs in those other cases. The court in Adams held that there was no reason that a suit regarding construction defects in a home should be treated any differently.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark L. Parisi, White and Williams LLPMr. Parisi may be contacted at
parisim@whiteandwilliams.com
Anatomy of an Indemnity Provision
January 28, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIndemnity clauses are one of the most negotiated (and litigated) provisions in a construction contract.
They are also one of the most least understood.
But we’re here to dissect it for you, so to speak.
What is an indemnity clause?
An indemnity clause is simply a risk transfer provision that seeks to transfer risk from one party to another party.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Connecticut District Court to Review Proposed Class Action in Defective Concrete Suit
July 13, 2017 —
Tiffany Casanova - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Thousands of Connecticut homeowners have fallen victim to a defective concrete epidemic. Over the last thirty years, the foundation in many homes, particularly in the Northeast region of the state, was built with a concrete aggregate that contained the mineral pyrrhotite. When exposed to the elements, including water and air, pyrrhotite oxidizes, resulting in cracking and disintegration over time. For Connecticut homeowners, this has resulted in disaster, both financially and to the foundations of their homes.
Previously, many homeowners insurance policies provided coverage for a “collapse” caused by the “use of defective material . . . in construction, remodeling or renovation.” As the pyrrhotite epidemic became more prevalent, insurers altered the coverage afforded for a “collapse” in several ways that potentially minimized or eliminated coverage for these types of claims. Primarily, coverage for a “collapse” is now restricted to collapses that are “abrupt,” and coverage is excluded for buildings in danger of falling down or those that are still standing, even if evidence of cracking or settling is demonstrated. The insurers did not notify homeowners of the change. Thus, homeowners who renewed policies were not informed of a coverage reduction nor were they provided with a corresponding reduction in the amount of premium.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Casanova may be contacted at
tlc@sdvlaw.com
