Your Contract is a Hodgepodge of Conflicting Proposals
January 06, 2016 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorOuch. That’s what a court called a contract to remediate petroleum contamination at a number of gas stations in New York. Sometimes, it’s hard to believe the contracts that get signed.
Environmental Risk hired Science Applications to remediate petroleum contamination at 47 gas stations. Environmental Risk had previously entered into a Professional Services Master Agreement with Science Applications, but also required Science Applications to sign three separate, but basically identical, subcontracts called the Project Specific Scopes of Work. So, right from the start, there were four contracts that could apply to Science Applications’ work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Governor Bob Ferguson’s Recent Executive Orders – A Positive Sign for Washington’s Construction Industry
January 21, 2025 —
Ryan Sternoff & Trygve Groh - Ahlers Cressman & SleightOn January 15th, in his first act as Washington’s Governor, Bob Ferguson signed three executive orders, two of which may have a direct impact by removing some of the “red tape” that stifles Washington’s construction industry. This appears to be a positive sign that the Governor’s office is focused on pragmatic action, rather than partisan politics.
Executive Order 25-02 is entitled “Assessing Regulatory Efficiency and Addressing Washington’s Affordable Housing Crisis” and directs all executive and small cabinet agencies (collectively, “State Agencies”) to review their rules and regulations and prepare a report for the Governor’s Office that identifies rules or regulations that impact the construction of new housing. The reports will also identify rules or regulations that are no longer necessary and can be rescinded, rules or regulations that can be amended to speed up housing construction. The reports will include descriptions of proposed amendments to such rules and regulations. The reports must be provided to the Governor’s Office within sixty days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan Sternoff, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Sternoff may be contacted at
ryan.sternoff@acslawyers.com
All Aboard! COVID-19 Securities Suit Sets Sail, Implicates D&O Insurance
April 27, 2020 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a prior post, we predicted that novel coronavirus (COVID-19) risks could implicate D&O and similar management liability coverage arising from so-called “event-driven” litigation, a new kind of securities class action that relies on specific adverse events, rather than fraudulent financial disclosures or accounting issues, as the catalyst for targeting both companies and their directors and officers for the resulting drop in stock price. It appears that ship has sailed, so to speak, as Kevin LaCroix at D&O Diary reported over the weekend that a plaintiff shareholder had filed a securities class action lawsuit against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. alleging that the company employed misleading sales tactics related to the outbreak.
The lawsuit alleges that the cruise line made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose in its securities filings sales tactics by the company that purported to provide customers with unproven or blatantly false statements about COVID-19 to entice customers to purchase cruises. Those allegations rely on two news articles reporting on the company sales practices in the wake of COVID-19: a March 11, 2020 Miami New Times article quoting leaked emails in which a cruise employee reportedly asked sales staff to lie to customers about COVID-19 to protect the company’s bookings; and a March 12, 2020 Washington Post article entitled, “Norwegian Cruise Line Managers Urged Salespeople to Spread Falsehoods about Coronavirus.” The lawsuit alleges that the company’s share price was cut nearly in half following these disclosures.
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys
Lorelie S. Masters,
Michael S. Levine and
Geoffrey B. Fehling
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers
February 07, 2022 —
Sidney L. Fowler, Robert G. Howard & Emily Huang - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn November 15, 2021, the New York City Council approved a bill banning gas hookups in new buildings, making the biggest city in the U.S. the latest in a string of municipalities to prohibit natural gas infrastructure in new homes and buildings. In the two-and-a-half years since Berkeley, California, passed its then-novel municipal ban on new natural gas infrastructure, numerous cities have found themselves at odds with state governments and industry groups on the issue of full electrification in residential and commercial real estate. The resulting disputes, litigation and regulatory uncertainty have created headaches for the real estate industry. Although not all view the restrictions as negative, and many developers have embraced the push for more climate-neutral buildings, these bans introduce complexity to the real estate market, raising additional legal and commercial challenges.
Background
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the use of natural gas in homes and businesses accounts for 13 percent of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. For that reason, advocacy groups have pushed cities to prohibit natural gas infrastructure in new construction and encourage full electrification of newly constructed buildings. In addition to New York and Berkeley, cities that have either passed or considered such ordinances include San Francisco, Sacramento, Seattle and Denver, as well as numerous smaller cities. New York City’s newly passed gas ban, in particular, prohibits natural gas hookups in new buildings under seven stories by 2024, and in taller buildings by 2027, but exempts hookups in commercial kitchens.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury,
Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and
Emily Huang, Pillsbury
Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Huang may be contacted at emily.huang@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Inside the Old Psych Hospital Reborn As a Home for Money Managers
October 28, 2015 —
Simone Foxman – BloombergIt’s the most exclusive club for financiers in Dallas.
With seven Jeffersonian-style buildings and manicured lawns, Old Parkland looks more like a college campus than a hive of private-equity firms, hedge funds, foundations and family offices. But the 9.5-acre site, where an abandoned hospital once stood, is now home to some of the city’s wealthiest investors.
Old Parkland is the pet project of Harlan Crow, 66, a son of swashbuckling real estate developer Trammell Crow, whose empire was in tatters when he gave up control in the late 1980s. It’s also a symbol of a decades-long effort to rebuild the family’s legacy. Step inside any of the buildings and you might think you’re in a museum, with Rodin sculptures in the hallways, a 17th century antique sofa in a lobby and a piece of curtain Abraham Lincoln is said to have grabbed after being shot on display.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Simone Foxman, Bloomberg
Congratulations to Nicholas Rodriguez on His Promotion to Partner
November 25, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is very proud to announce that Nick Rodriguez has been promoted to the position of partner with the firm!
Nick has been with BWB&O since 2019 and is licensed to practice law in California and the U.S. District Courts. Nick’s practice focuses on complex construction defect matters, as well as personal injury and wrongful death claims. During his time with the firm, Nick has successfully represented numerous clients through alternative dispute resolution and has taken matters to trial where he has received favorable jury verdicts. He also supervises and manages a team of associates in the Newport Beach office.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Environmental Justice Update: The Justice40 Initiative
April 29, 2024 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogSoon after taking office, President Biden issued Executive Order 14008, entitled, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.” This is an unusually long and complex executive order and includes many provisions relating to environmental justice and the plight of “disadvantaged communities” that are overwhelmed by many environmental threats. Section 223 of the Order describes the President’s “Justice40 Initiative,” which is designed to ensure that 40% of Federal benefits flow to disadvantaged communities through an “all of government approach.” There is a recognition that some disadvantaged communities lack the personnel and resources to take advantage of this Initiative, so technical training funds will be made available. The Order establishes new offices throughout the Federal bureaucracy to handle and expedite environmental justice matters.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) play a large role in implementing the Initiative by issuing appropriate guidance and assisting the Federal agencies to locate, among the thousands of programs they supervise, suitable programs that will assist disadvantaged communities. At last count, 518 Federal programs administered by 19 distinct Federal agencies could be a good source for the resources needed by disadvantaged communities to cope with air and water pollution and solid waste issues. Direct grants will be made in many cases, and other programs require the community to apply for the funds promised by the Executive Order. In addition, the Order requires participating Federal agencies to assess the value and effectiveness of the benefits bestowed. OMB and the CEQ have issued guidance documents and conducted many meetings with key personnel and members of the disadvantaged communities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
