Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.
The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”
With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.
The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”
In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.
The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”
The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”
In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Lawyer's Perspective on Current Issues Dominating the Construction Industry
March 28, 2022 —
Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaSome of the hot topics dominating the construction industry today include the impacts of COVID-19, government testing and vaccine mandates, cyber security, and the evolving role of general counsel. This article provides a summary review of those topics.
a. The Economic Impact of COVID-19 for Project Owners
Project owners have been placed in a precarious position because courts across the country have almost unanimously ruled that insurance carriers are not liable for COVID-19-related business income losses.1 While project owners have sought alternative ways to mitigate losses resulting from COVID-19, many of these efforts have been negated by the exponential increase in materials costs.2 Thus, it remains unclear what, if any, solutions project owners have at their disposal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. McDonald may be contacted at
MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com
Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak
March 06, 2023 —
Kayla S. O'Connor - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Rhode Island case of Regan Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Company, Inc., et. al.1 provides much-needed guidance regarding ambiguity and the term “pollution.”
In Regan, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a pollution exclusion contained in the Plaintiff’s “Commercial Package Policy” was ambiguous as to whether home heating oil that escaped into a customer’s basement constituted a “pollutant” under the policy.
This case stems from a 2015 incident wherein Regan was in the process of removing an older heating system and installing a new heating system in a customer’s home when that customer discovered 170 gallons of home heating oil in his basement. The customer sued Regan, alleging negligence and demanding remediation for the property damage caused by the oil leak.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kayla S. O'Connor, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. O'Connor may be contacted at
KOconnor@sdvlaw.com
Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 4: Coverage for Supply Chain Related Losses
July 18, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogBusiness loss is not limited to fire or smoke damage to its own property – it often arises from damage to the supply chain. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we look at what coverage may exist when wildfire damages an entity’s supply chain.
In many instances, while the insured property does not sustain fire or smoke damage, wildfires can wreak havoc on the business supply chain. For some, contingent business interruption coverage may be a solution. Contingent business interruption insurance extends coverage for the loss of prospective earnings because of an interruption in the insured’s supply chain that is caused by damage to property that the insured neither owns nor operates.[1] Typically, the property covered is of a supplier or customer. For example, in 2000, Ericsson Telecom A.B., a mobile phone manufacturer, presented a substantial contingent business interruption claim based on a fire that damaged a Royal Philips Electronics semiconductor plant. Royal Philips supplied critical components for Ericsson’s mobile phones. The fire caused Royal Philips to close its plant, halting Ericsson’s phone production for six weeks, resulting in substantial losses.
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
Tenth Circuit Finds Insurer Must Defend Unintentional Faulty Workmanship
December 09, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Colorado law, the Tenth Circuit found a duty to defend construction defect claims where the faulty workmanship was unintentional. Greystone Const. Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22053 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011). A prior post [here] discussed the Tenth Circuit’s certified question to the Colorado Supreme Court in this matter, a request that was rejected by the Colorado court.
In two underlying cases, Greystone was sued by the homeowner for damage caused to the foundation by soil expansion. In both cases, the actual construction was performed by subcontractors. Further, in neither case was the damage intended or anticipated. Nevertheless, National Union refused to defend, contending property damage resulting from faulty construction was not an occurrence.
Relying on a Colorado Court of Appeals case, General Security Indemn. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), the district court granted summary judgment to National Union.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit first considered whether Colorado legislation enacted to overturn General Security could be applied retroactively. The statute, section 13-20-808, provided courts "shall presume that the work of a construction professional that results in property damage, including damage to the work itself or other work, is an accident unless the property damage is intended and expected by the insured."
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
Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas
October 01, 2014 —
Hui-yong Yu – BloombergSan Jose, California, and Dallas led the U.S. in office-rent increases in the third quarter as cities benefiting from growth in the technology and energy industries outperformed the gradual national recovery.
Rents after any landlord discounts, known as effective rents, climbed 6.7 percent from a year earlier in San Jose, compared with the U.S. average increase of 2.6 percent, property researcher Reis Inc. (REIS) said. Dallas rents rose 5.2 percent, followed by San Francisco’s 5.1 percent gain, Houston’s 4.4 percent increase and New York’s 3.9 percent advance.
The national sluggishness in the office market’s growth is being bucked by parts of Northern California and Texas, where large bases of technology or energy workers drive demand for space, Reis said. Throughout the U.S., increases in office occupancies show that the market “is in the midst of a recovery,” according to the New York-based company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hui-yong Yu, BloombergHui-yong Yu may be contacted at
hyu@bloomberg.net
The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals
September 10, 2018 —
William S. Bennett & Warsame Y. Hassan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld a prior appellate division decision finding that policyholders facing environmental claims, spanning multiple years, cannot force their insurers partially on the risk to provide coverage for years where the insurers did not issue policies, even though pollution insurance was unavailable in the marketplace.
In Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reins. Am., Keyspan Gas East Corporation (“Keyspan”) argued other insurers should cover the period when pollution property insurance was unavailable in the marketplace, according to their pro-rata share of coverage. 31 N.Y.3d 51 (2018). In a unanimous decision, the Court emphasized the Appellate Division’s prior ruling that stated, “spreading risk should not by itself serve as a legal basis for providing free insurance to an insured.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
"Repair Work" Endorsements and Punch List Work
May 20, 2019 —
Jeremiah M. Welch - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The recent white paper on
Repair Work Endorsements by
Jeremiah Welch, drew a storm of responses. Most were appreciative and included follow up questions, but there were those that lamented along the lines of: “How can that be? We’ve been doing it this way for years…”. For the skeptics, the best approach to test the premise of the paper (that most “repair work endorsements” are at best redundant with the PCO extension and at worst restrictive) is to try to formulate a scenario where coverage would be available under a “repair work endorsement” but not under a PCO extension.
Several folks asked about the impact of PCO extensions and repair work endorsements on “punch list” work. “Punch list” work presents a related but different problem. The first issue is understanding what is meant by the term “punch list”. You won’t find that term in an ISO CGL policy. You may find it defined in a construction contract and a Google search will yield several similar definitions. In general, our industry uses the term “punch list” to describe items identified toward the end of a project (often after the contractually defined point of “substantial completion”) which must be completed in order to fully comply with the contract requirements/scope. In short, “punch list” items are items necessary to complete the work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Welch may be contacted at
jmw@sdvlaw.com
