Illinois Appellate Court Addresses Professional Services Exclusion in Homeowners Policy
August 03, 2022 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Stonegate Ins. Co. v. Smith, 2022 IL App (1st) 210931, the Insured was performing plumbing work at a multi-story townhouse when a fire ensued causing damage to the second story unit. Although a carpenter by trade, the Insured was performing plumbing work consisting of the replacement of a shower valve as a favor for a friend. To accomplish the task, the Insured utilized a small propane torch to attempt to remove the old water piping to the shower. In doing so, the insulation behind the bathroom wall caught fire and the flame spread upward to the neighboring unit. Stonegate had issued a homeowner’s policy to the Insured during the relevant time period. The homeowner's policy excluded coverage for property damage "[a]rising out of the rendering of or failure to render professional services." Subsequent to tender of the loss, Stonegate initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it owned no duty to defend or indemnity pursuant to the professional services exclusions.
In finding in favor of the Insured, the Court began its analysis by noting that the homeowner's policy did not define the term "professional services" such that it was the Court’s task to determine whether the Insured’s work qualified as a "professional service" for purposes of the exclusion. The Court further prefaced its holding by stating that for an exclusionary clause to effectively deny coverage, its applicability must be clear and free from doubt because any doubts as to coverage will be resolved in favor of the insured. Looking to Illinois case precedent, the Court found that the term "professional service" is not limited to services for which the person performing them must be licensed by a governmental authority. Rather, "professional services" encompass any business activity conducted by an insured that (1) involves specialized knowledge, labor, or skill, and (2) is predominantly mental or intellectual as opposed to physical or manual in nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Home Sales and Stock Price Up for D. R. Horton
February 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThey call themselves "America's Builder," and in the last three months of 2013, D. R. Horton exceeded the market's predictions of how many of the homes they built would translate into sales. At the end of 2011, they had $27.7 million in earnings. At the end of last year, they saw $66.3 million in earnings. The 2011 earnings work out to 9 cents per share. Analysts were expecting 14 cents per share, but D. R. Horton delivered 20 cents per share.
The stock market responded with a 3.7% increase in the home builder's stock price, upping it by 79 cents to $22.10.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Know your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in Effect
November 04, 2019 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Colorado legislature had a busy session this year. Among the several significant bills it enacted, HB1170 strengthens tenant protections under the implied warranty of habitability. It became effective on August 2, 2019, so landlords and tenants alike are now subject to its requirements.
The bill makes numerous changes to Colorado’s implied warranty of habitability, and interested parties should review the bill in detail. Landlords in particular may want to consider retaining legal counsel to make sure they have proper procedures in place to promptly deal with any habitability complaints within the new required timelines. This posting is not intended to provide a comprehensive guide to the changed law, but simply to highlight some of the most significant changes.
With that caveat, landlords and tenants should be aware that as of August 2, 2019:
- The following conditions are now deemed to make a residential residence uninhabitable for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability:
- The presence of mold, which is defined as “microscopic organisms or fungi that can grow in damp conditions in the interior of a building.”
- A refrigerator, range stove, or oven (“Appliance”) included within a residential premises by a landlord for the use of the tenant that did not conform “to applicable law at the time of installation” or that is not “maintained in good working order.” Nothing in this statute requires a landlord to provide any appliances, but these requirements apply if the landlord either agreed to provide appliances in a written agreement or provided them at the inception of the tenant’s occupancy.
- Other conditions that “materially interfere with the tenant’s life, health or safety.”
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mcklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Lump Sum Subcontract? Perhaps Not.
August 20, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Lump sum subcontract? Perhaps not due to a recent ruling where the trial court said “No!” based on the language in the subcontract and contract documents generally incorporated into the subcontract.
This is a ruling on an interpretation of a subcontract and contract documents incorporated into the subcontract that I do not agree with and struggle to fully comprehend. The issue was whether the subcontract amount was a lump sum or subject to an audit, adjustment, and definitization based on actual costs incurred. Of course, the subcontractor (or any person in any business) is not just interested in recouping actual costs, but there needs to be a margin to cover profit and home office overhead that does not get factored into field general conditions.
In United States v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, 2018 WL 6571234 (M.D.Fla. 2018), a prime contractor was hired to perform work on a federal project. During the work, the Government issued the prime contractor a Modification that had a not-to-exceed value and required the prime contractor to track its costs for this Modification separate from other contract costs. In other words, based on this Modification, the prime contractor was paid its costs up to a maximum amount and the prime contractor would separately cost-code and track the costs for this work differently than other work it was performing under the prime contract. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com
Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case
January 06, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Several other insurance companies were party to this case. In the earlier case, the US District Court of Appeals for Arizona had granted a summary judgment to Ohio Casualty Group and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. At the heart of it, is a dispute over construction defect coverage.
The general contractor for Astragal Luxury Villas, GFTDC, contracted with American Family to provide it with a commercial liability policy. Coverage was issued to various subcontractors by Ohio Casualty and National Fire. These policies included blanket additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to GFTDC. The subcontractor policies had provisions making their coverage excess over other policies available to GFTDC.
The need for insurance was triggered when the Astragal Condominium Unit Owners Association filed a construction defect claim in the Arizona Superior Court. CFTDC filed a third-party claim against several subcontractors. The case was settled with American Family paying the settlement, after which it filed seeking reimbursement from the subcontractor’s insurers. The court instead granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and National Fire.
American Family appealed to the Ninth Circuit for a review of the summary judgment, arguing that the “other insurance” clauses were “mutually repugnant and unenforceable.” The Ninth Circuit cited a case from the Arizona Court of Appeals that held that “where two policies cover the same occurrence and both contain ‘other insurance’ clauses, the excess insurance provisions are mutually repugnant and must be disregarded. Each insurer is then liable for a pro rate share of the settlement or judgment.”
The court noted that unlike other “other insurance” cases, the American Family policy “states that it provides primary CGL coverage for CFTDC and is rendered excess only if there is ‘any other primary insurance’ available to GFTDC as an additional insured.” They note that “the American Family policy purports to convert from primary to excess coverage only if CFTDC has access to other primary insurance as an additional insured.”
In comparison, the court noted that “the ‘other insurance’ language in Ohio Casualty’s additional insured endorsement cannot reasonably be read to contradict, or otherwise be inconsistent with, the ‘other primary insurance’ provision in the American Family policy.” They find other reasons why National Fire’s coverage did not supersede American Family’s. In this case, the policy is “written explicitly to apply in excess.”
Finally, the Astragal settlement did not exhaust American Family’s coverage, so they were obligated to pay out the full amount. The court upheld the summary dismissal of American Family’s claims.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Two Firm Members Among the “Best Lawyers in America”
September 01, 2016 — A&C Crew – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
We are excited to announce that John P. Ahlers has been selected as a “Lawyer of the Year” in Construction Law, and John P. Ahlers and Paul R. Cressman, Jr. have been selected as “Best Lawyers in America” in Construction Litigation by Best Lawyers for 2017. Best Lawyers has recognized Mr. Ahlers and Mr. Cressman as “Best Lawyers in America” since 2007 and 2013, respectively. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
CCPA Class Action Lawsuits Are Coming. Are You Ready?
March 23, 2020 — Daniel Schneider & Jeffrey Dennis – Newmeyer Dillion
The only certainties in life used to be death and taxes. In 2020, it would be safe to add California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) class actions to that "distinguished" list. On February 3, Barnes v. Hanna Andersson, LLC, N.D. Cal., Case No. 20-cv-00812, was filed in the Northern District of California, setting in motion the certainty that CCPA class actions are on their way, if not already here.* Filed on behalf of all California residents, the Barnes complaint alleges that between September and November 2019, clothing retailer Hanna Andersson and Salesforce, its online payment services provider, failed to properly safeguard the personally identifiably information (PII) of its customers after hackers stole customers' private information and posted it to the dark web for sale.
What You Need to Know
- Under the CCPA, a data breach is any unauthorized access, theft or disclosure of a consumer's non-encrypted and non-redacted personal information that results from a company's failure to implement and maintain "reasonable" security procedures and practices. Here, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to maintain reasonable security procedures and practices in order to protect the consumers' PII.
- Although the CCPA is largely viewed as new law related to California consumers' privacy rights (and placement of subsequent obligations to companies doing business in California), the CCPA includes potentially draconian damages for a data breach permitted by unreasonable cybersecurity. Under the new law, an individual need not show any actual harm caused by a data breach, yet he/she may seek statutory fines of up to $750 per incident per individual in the event of a breach. Plaintiffs estimate that at least 10,000 California residents could have been affected by this breach, thereby exposing defendants to up to $7.5 million dollars in damages if proven true.
- There exists a duty to monitor and ensure that third party organizations are properly safeguarding a company's data. During the course of the investigation into the breach, it was discovered that the Salesforce ecommerce platform was infected with malware which allowed the hackers to steal consumers' PII from Hanna Andersson's website.
- The CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020, yet enforcement by the California Attorney General is not allowed until July 2020. However, no such delay is required for private litigation under the data breach portion of the CCPA. Interestingly, although the complaint alleges that the data breach occurred in 2019, the court could choose to apply the CCPA but that is still yet to be determined.
While Barnes may be the first class action lawsuit to mention violation of the CCPA, it certainly will not be the last. In fact, numerous class actions lawsuits have been filed in the new year which either mention the CCPA or utilize CCPA-like language to style particular claims. As such, it is evident that the Plaintiffs' bar sees the CCPA as a potential for extensive class action litigation. Expect to see an ongoing deluge of class action litigation in California under the data breach portions of the CCPA. In addition, although the Barnes' plaintiffs may not be able to invoke the CCPA due to the data breach occurring in 2019 (before the CCPA took affect), Barnes serves as a stark reminder that implementing and maintaining reasonable data security is vital to defend a business against CCPA claims. Newmeyer Dillion can assist companies analyze their cyber risk profile, and provide access to experienced forensic teams which can ensure reasonable security exists in your organization.
*While Barnes does not yet expressly state a cause of action under the CCPA, relying upon violations of the California Unfair Competition Law in its place, we anticipate that an amendment will soon be filed to include a CCPA claim.
Daniel Schneider is a Partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Privacy & Data Security group. Focused on advocating on behalf of clients when cyber threats inevitably happen, Dan also advises on best practices to help protect the company and mitigate future concerns. Dan can be reached at daniel.schneider@ndlf.com.
Jeff Dennis (CIPP/US) is the Head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Expert Testimony – Back to the Frye Test in Florida
December 19, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Expert testimony (opinions) – very important testimony in construction disputes. Whether it is a delay claim, an inefficiency claim, a defect claim, etc., expert testimony plays an invaluable role in construction disputes. Construction attorneys work closely with expert witnesses to ensure that an expert helps render an opinion to support their client’s burden of proof (including damages) or an affirmative defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com
