Excess Carrier Successfully Appeals Primary Insurer’s Summary Judgment Award
December 09, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the excess carrier was given inadequate notice of the underlying arbitration, the trial court determined it shared responsibility with the primary carrier for the arbitration award. Finding disputed issues of fact, the Washington Court of Appeals reversed in Am. States Ins. Co. v. Century Surety Co., 2011 Wash. App. LEXIS 2488 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2011).
The primary insurer, American States, issued two liability policies to Professional Home Builders (PHB), a siding contractor. The policies were for successive years, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. Each policy had annual limits of $1 million per occurrence. PHB also had a commercial excess liability policy for 1999-2000 with Century Surety Company.
PHB was sued by Residential Investment Partners (RIP) for construction defects after moisture entered the building envelope, causing decay and damage. Century’s expert determined the decay started before the 1999-2000 policy period.
RIP and PHB went to arbitration.
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 decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage
July 20, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.
The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.
Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.
After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.
The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”
Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”
The court concluded:
Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 6: Ensuring Availability of Insurance and State Regulations
August 03, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogBecause of the potential exposure associated with wildfires, many insurers have attempted to withdraw from the property coverage market in various states. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the challenges businesses and individuals face in obtaining wildfire insurance coverage, and the regulatory scheme that is intended to help them secure adequate coverage.
Given the increasing exposures associated with climate change, numerous insurers have sought to withdraw from the wildfire-related coverage market or increase rates to a level where they are effectively unavailable. States have been resistant to their doing so. As one commentator reports, “[e]ven where insurers have tried to withdraw policies or raise rates to reduce climate-related liabilities, state regulators have forced them to provide affordable coverage anyway, simply subsidizing the cost of underwriting such a risk policy or, in some cases, offering it themselves.” At least 30 states have developed regulation, referred to as “Fair Access to Insurance Requirements” (FAIR), to ensure the continued availability of insurance. The FAIR plan provides a channel to insurance for property owners who would be stuck without any reasonable access to insurance without state intervention.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Drones, Googleplexes and Hyperloops
March 05, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogI don’t know if it’s just me, or if there has been a lot of news lately about technology and construction:
Although flying in the face of some bad press recently, the use of drones in construction. And we’re talking about more than just cameras with propellers.
Battle of the (tech) Titans, as Google battles it out with the likes of LinkedIn and Microsoft for development rights in Mountain View, California for its futuristic new Googleplex. And we’re talking about more than just cameras with propellers.. And Google is only the most recent tech titan with development plans. Facebook’s Frank Gehry-designed campus expansion is in the works and Apple’s “spaceship” campus has already broken ground. We’ve come a long way since the HP garage in Palo Alto, baby!
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
ASCE Statement on Passage of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2022
December 26, 2022 —
Maria Lehman - American Society of Civil EngineersWASHINGTON, D.C. – ASCE applauds Congress for passing the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for 2022, which was included in the National Defense Authorization Act. The legislation authorizes construction for 25 new and existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) water infrastructure projects, including those related to dams, ports and inland waterways, flood risk management, and storm risk reduction. We are encouraged that the biannual reauthorization of WRDA continues to be a congressional priority.
ASCE applauds Congress for WRDA 2022 authorizing and establishing several programs dedicated to ensuring that our nation's water resources infrastructure benefits communities across the country. These accomplishments include reauthorizing the National Levee Safety Program; authorizing dredging activity in underserved community harbors; authorizing the USACE to recruit individuals more actively for careers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM); and enhancing infrastructure resilience, such as allowing the USACE to incorporate resilience measures into federally authorized hurricane or shore protection projects when performing emergency repairs. ASCE is also pleased to see that WRDA 2022 makes the current federal cost share formula for Inland Waterways Trust Fund projects permanent, with 65 percent coming from the general fund and 35 percent from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF). ASCE strongly supports this provision, as it was a key recommendation to raise the nation's "D+" inland waterways grade in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure.
Additionally, ASCE strongly supports provisions in WRDA 2022 that will enhance the safety of the nation's dams and levees, which each received a "D" grade in the 2021 report card. The bill requires the Corps to establish a new National Low-Head Dam Inventory to account for the nation's low-head dams, which can pose significant public hazards. Identifying and monitoring these types of dams nationwide will contribute to the overall safety of the nation's dams and help to save lives.
Finally, the reauthorization of WRDA works hand-in-hand with the additional investments made in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. This reauthorization shows that infrastructure remains a bipartisan priority. We thank Congress for passing this legislation and look forward to translating these investments to critical water infrastructure system improvements nationwide.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Two Things to Consider Before Making Warranty Repairs
January 21, 2019 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn my last article, “What a construction defect ‘win’ looks like for a builder,” I made the point that builders should go to great lengths to work with homeowners to resolve legitimate problems through the entire statute of repose, in order to prevent the homeowners from involving attorneys. Again, happy homeowners do not call attorneys and do not bring construction defect claims. In this article, I want to address the ramifications of this strategy that builders should consider.
First, builders must be aware that any repairs performed will likely start anew the statutes of limitation and repose for the repairs. Second, builders should inform and involve their insurers in this process so as to avoid running afoul of their carriers’ “voluntary payments” clauses. In the long run, keeping homeowners happy is well worth the cost, especially if you keep in mind these additional considerations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.
In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”
Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.
The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”
The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”
The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds Fire Damage Resulted from Single Occurrence
November 21, 2018 —
Brian Margolies - TLSS Insurance Law BlogIn its recent decision in Secura Ins. v. Lyme St. Croix Forest Co., LLC 2018 WI 103 (Oct. 30, 2018), the Wisconsin Supreme Court had occasion to consider whether a forest fire that caused damage to several homes and properties should be considered a single or multiple occurrences.
Secura insured Lyme St. Croix Forest Company under a general liability policy. Of relevance was the policy’s $500,000 sublimit of coverage for property damage due to fire arising from logging or lumbering operations, subject to a $2 million general policy aggregate limit. Lyme St. Croix sought coverage under the policy for a fire that resulted from its logging equipment. The fire lasted for three days, burning nearly 7,500 acres and causing damage to numerous homes and businesses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Margolies, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLPMr. Margolies may be contacted at
bmargolies@tlsslaw.com
