Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

Connecticutt Class Action on Collapse Claims Faces Motion to Dismiss

January 02, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The federal district court dismissed some insurers from a class action suit alleging failure to provide coverage for collapse claims. Halloran v. Harleysville Preferred Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 179807 (D. Conn. Oct. 19, 2018). A class of homeowners brought suit in 2016 against their homeowners insurance companies ("defendants") for failure to cover collapse claims. Plaintiffs alleged they bought their homes between 1984 and 2015. Each of the homes had basement walls that were "crumbling and cracking due to the oxidation of certain minerals contained in the concrete." As a result of the deteriorating concrete, plaintiffs claimed that their basement walls were in a state of collapse. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Additional Insured Status Survives Summary Judgment Stage

August 26, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined that the insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in seeking a determination that a hotel was not the additional insured under its elevator repair company's policy. Aspen Spec. Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Indem. Inc., 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2413 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 7, 2015). Michael Patalano was an elevator repairman employed by Transel Elevator Inc. Transel had a contract to maintain the elevators at Alphonse Hotel. The contract required Transel to name Alphonse as an additional insured on Transel's CGL policy. Patalano was injured while working at the hotel. He sued Alphonse, alleging that while performing work for the hotel, the stairs he was on which he was descending collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Alphonse tendered to Ironshore, Transel's CGL carrier. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Mutual Or Concurrent Delay Caused By Subcontractors

March 23, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
How are delay damages treated when two subcontractors cause a mutual or concurrent delay to the project? Assume multiple subcontractors concurrently contributed to an impact to the critical path resulting in a delay to the project. The delay caused the prime contractor to: (1) be assessed liquidated damages from the owner and (2) incur extended general conditions. The prime contractor will be looking to the subcontractors for reimbursement for any liquidated damages it is assessed along with its extended general conditions costs. There is really no great case that addresses this point when two (or more) subcontractors mutually or concurrently delay the project. It is also not uncommon, and frankly expected, that a subcontractor will point the finger at another subcontractor for the cause of the delay or that another subcontractor was concurrently delaying the project. The prime contractor should absolutely, without any exception, undertake efforts with a scheduling consultant to allocate the delay caused by subcontractors. Taking an approach that joint and several liability applies between multiple subcontractors and/or not trying to apportion delay because the subcontractors concurrently delayed the critical path at the same time is probably not the best approach. The prime contractor should have an expert render an opinion as to the allocation of the delay period amongst responsible subcontractors that delayed the critical path. Not doing so, in my opinion, is a mistake. 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

Georgia Supreme Court Determines Damage to "Other Property" Not Necessary for Finding Occurrence

July 31, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
The Georgia Supreme Court has determined that an "occurrence" may arise under a CGL policy even if "other property" is not damaged. Taylor Morrison Servs. v. HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co., 2013 Ga. LEXIS 618 (Ga. July 12, 2013). Taylor Morrison, the insured, was a homebuilder. It was sued in a class action by more than 400 homeowners in California alleging that the concrete foundations of their homes were improperly constructed. This led to water intrusion, cracks in the floors and driveways, and warped and buckled flooring. At first, HDI-Gerling defended under a reservation of rights. Subsequently, however, HDI-Gerling sued Taylor Morrison in federal district court in Georgia, seeking a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage. The district court granted summary judgment to HDI-Gerling after determining that there was no "occurrence" when the only "property damage" alleged was damage to work of the insured. Georgia law was applied to the dispute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Washington Supreme Court Finds Agent’s Representations in Certificate of Insurance Bind Insurance Company to Additional Insured Coverage

February 03, 2020 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman
In T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 450 P.3d 150 (Wash. 2019) the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether an insurance company is bound by its agent’s written representation—made in a certificate of insurance—that a particular corporation is an additional insured under a given policy. The question arose in a case where: (1) the Ninth Circuit had already ruled that the agent acted with apparent authority, but (2) the agent’s representation turned out to be inconsistent with the policy and (3) the certificate of insurance included additional text broadly disclaiming the certificate’s ability to “amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by” the policy. According to the Court, under Washington law the answer is yes: an insurance company is bound by the representation of its agent in those circumstances. Otherwise, the Court reasoned, an insurance company’s representations would be meaningless and it could mislead without consequence. At the heart of this case were two T-Mobiles entities: T-Mobile USA and T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”), which were distinct legal entities. T-Mobile NE engaged a contractor to construct a cell phone tower on a rooftop in New York City. The contract between T-Mobile NE and the contractor required the contractor to obtain a general liability insurance policy, to annually provide T-Mobile NE “with certificates of insurance evidencing [that policy’s] coverage,” and to name T-Mobile NE as an additional insured under the policy. T-Mobile USA was not a party to the contract, but was nonetheless aware of it and approved the contract as to form. The contractor obtained the required insurance policy from Selective. The policy provided that a third party would automatically become an “additional insured” under the policy if the contractor and the third party entered into their own contract that required the contractor to add the third party to its insurance policy as an additional insured. Because T-Mobile USA did not have a contract with the contractor, it did not automatically become an additional insured under the policy. Nevertheless, over the course of several years, Selective’s agent issued a series of certificates of insurance to “T-Mobile USA Inc., its Subsidiaries and Affiliates” that stated that those entities were “included as an additional insured [under the policy] with respect to” certain areas of coverage. The agent signed those certificates as Selective’s “Authorized Representative.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

Dispute Over Amount Insured Owes Public Adjuster Resolved

January 14, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court addressed a dispute over fees that the insureds allegedly owed the public adjuster. Public' Adjuster's, LLC v. Mark Gottesdiener & Co., et al., 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2352 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 6. 2024). The insureds owned an apartment building that was substantially damaged by a fire. The building was insured by Quincy Mutual Group. The insureds signed a Public Adjuster Employment Contract with The Public's Adjuster, LLC (Adjuster). The contract authorized Adjuster to negotiate the reimbursable damages with Quincy on the insureds' behalf. Adjuster was to recover 8 1/2% of any amounts received by the insureds. Because of the extent of the fire damage, the work of negotiating a settlement with Quincy proved to be complex. Adjuster meticulously prepared several detained written estimates to by submitted to Quincy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Cooperation and Collaboration With Government May Be on the Horizon

September 17, 2018 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel
In Is the Pendulum Swinging on Agency and Government Contractor Cooperation?, Pillsbury attorneys Mike Rizzo, Glenn Sweatt and Kevin Massoudi discuss comments from the Department of Defense as well as recent good faith and fair dealing court decisions that point to and encourage improved contractor/government relationships. Their key takeaways include

Government officials are actively encouraging collaboration with, and less antagonism of, industry contractors.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Are Contracting Parties Treated the Same When it Comes to Notice Obligations?

June 25, 2019 — G. Scott Walters - Smith Currie
Overview Experienced project delivery team members know too well the importance of timely and proper notice during a construction project. Ideally, contractual notice provisions, and any penalties for non-compliance, should apply equally to all of the contracting parties. For example, failure to comply with a notice provision concerning contract changes could bar a party from pursuing claims. And, untimely or improper notice can, likewise, prevent certain defenses to claims. Nowhere is notice more scrutinized than in the federal government contracting arena. Recently, the United States Court of Federal Claims issued two separate decisions involving the same construction project and the same parties and dealing with two specific aspects of notice in the federal government contracting process. The court’s decisions on the notice issues may, at first, appear to contradict each other or to favor one party over the other. A closer look at these two decisions reveals that notice requirements, in the context of federal government construction contracts, can come in multiple forms and notice is not a “one size fits all” proposition. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of G. Scott Walters, Smith Currie
Mr. Walters may be contacted at gswalters@smithcurrie.com

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES