#3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMichael R. Vellado and
Nicole R. Kardassakis of
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP analyzed the appeals case that “reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company (“ProBuilders”) and held that the ‘other insurance’ clause in the ProBuilders policy did not relieve it of its duty to participate in the defense of its insured, Pacific Trades Construction & Development, Inc. ('Pacific Trades')."
Read the full story...
Another discussion of the ProBuilders appeal ruling occurred on the
California Construction Law Blog, written by
Yas Omidi of
Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP. Omidi explained the appeal’s court decision: “In reversing the trial court’s decision, the appellate court characterized ProBuilder’s ‘other insurance’ clause as an ‘escape clause’—i.e., a clause that attempts to have coverage, paid for with the insured’s premiums, evaporate in the presence of other insurance.” Furthermore, she noted that “California public policy disfavors such clauses.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update Regarding New York City’s Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) and the Reduction of Carbon Emissions in New York City
July 05, 2021 —
Caroline A. Harcourt, Natalie S. Starkman & Nika Bederman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn a previous post, we described how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act, 2019 (the CMA, or Local Laws 92, 94, 95, 96, 97, and 147 enacted in 2019) was passed with the goal of reducing New York City’s carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050 (as against a 2005 baseline as provided for in item 3 of Local Law 97). It is the most ambitious building emissions law to be enacted by any city in the world. The CMA impacts “Covered Buildings” (described below) and, besides contemplating the retrofitting of Covered Buildings to achieve energy efficiency and establishing a monitoring program for Covered Buildings, the CMA contemplates compliance by means of the purchase of carbon offset credits or renewable energy. (Note the new NYC Accelerator program, launched in 2012 by the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, provides guidance regarding energy-efficient upgrades to properties and emission reductions.)
Pursuant to the CMA:
- Beginning in 2024, Covered Buildings will have to meet the first emission targets, which are calculated by multiplying the gross floor area of each Covered Building by the occupancy classification as set forth in Local Law 97; and
- In 2025, owners of Covered Buildings will need to establish compliance by submitting a report establishing such compliance (prepared by a certified design professional) to the newly created Office of Building Energy and Emissions Performance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Caroline A. Harcourt, PillsburyMs. Harcourt may be contacted at
caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com
New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim
August 03, 2020 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanIn Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion:
"This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities."
Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly.
At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere have been changes recently in how courts interpret commercial general liability policies. Writing for Claims Journal, Burke Coleman, who is legal counsel and Compliance Manager for Demotech, looks at five recent cases and how they show changing views of CGL policies and construction defect claims.
He notes that the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that “defective construction itself does not trigger coverage.” The court’s view in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. was that a CGL policy does not protect contractors from every risk, but instead covers damage to other property that occur due to its work.
But, conversely, the Georgia Supreme Court found that construction defect claims could be covered under a commercial general liability policy, noting that “the limits of coverage do not have to be found in the word ‘occurrence,’ inasmuch as the other words of the insuring agreement — as well as the policy exclusions — have their own roles to play in marking the limits of coverage.” This decision was reached in Taylor Morrison Services v. HDI-Gerling America.
The Connecticut Supreme Court also concluded that defective construction could trigger coverage from a CGL policy, however, as Mr. Coleman notes, “only damage to non-defective property may be entitled to coverage.” He concludes that the North Dakota Supreme Court “has taken an even broader approach to the issue.” That court found that construction defects were covered “if the faulty work was unexpected and unintended.”
Finally, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that faulty work can be property damage. He notes “the policy at issue included a ‘your work’ exclusion that excluded coverage for work performed by the insured, but subcontractors were excepted from the exclusion.” However, another clause excluded work performed on the behalf of the insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose in June at a Slower Pace
August 27, 2014 —
Lorraine Woellert – BloombergHome prices in 20 U.S. cities rose at a slower pace in the year ended in June as declining affordability and weak wage gains kept appreciation in check.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values increased 8.1 percent from June 2013, the smallest 12-month gain since January 2013, the group reported today in New York.
Price gains are slowing as more houses are coming up for sale and investors retreat to the sidelines. That, combined with an improving job market, could put homeownership within reach of more Americans grappling with disappointing wage growth and strict lending rules.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lorraine Woellert, BloombergMs. Woellert may be contacted at
lwoellert@bloomberg.net
Insurer's Appeal of Jury Verdict Rejected by Tenth Circuit
March 06, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter a jury awarded damages related to the insurer's delayed payment under the claim and the insurer's post trial motions to set aside the verdict were denied, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. US General, LLC v. GuideOne Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 34066 (10th Cir. Dec. 12, 2022).
Crossroads American Baptist Church submitted a claim to GuideOne for hailstorm damage. Crossroads hired US General as the general contractor to perform the repairs and later assigned its interest in the insurance policy to US General.
Numerous disputes arose between Crossroads and GuideOne regarding the cost of the repairs. There were delayed payments and portions of the repairs were never paid for. The delayed payments meant GuideOne's ability to begin making the repairs was hindered because it was more expensive to start and stop a project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars
September 16, 2019 —
Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCWhile we avoid using this blog as a platform for self-promotion, long-time readers will know we make an exception to recognize the Super Lawyers of the firm, each of whom is humbled to receive this peer-rated award.
Super Lawyers recognizes attorneys who have distinguished themselves in their legal practice as recognized by their peers. Attorneys are selected through a patented selection process combining peer nominations and independent research. Results are based on legal excellence, industry involvement, and civic leadership. Only five percent of lawyers in Washington State are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers, and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers Rising Stars.
John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, was again recognized as one of the Top 10 Lawyers out of all Washington lawyers.
Founding partner Paul R. Cressman Jr. was again recognized as one of the 100-Best Lawyers considering Lawyers State of Washington wide.
In addition, four other firm members are also recognized as Super Lawyers: Founding Partner Scott R. Sleight, Brett M. Hill, Bruce A. Cohen, and Lawrence S. Glosser. Partners Ryan W. Sternoff and Lindsay (Taft) Watkins, and associates Ceslie A. Blass and Scott D. MacDonald are all recognized as Super Lawyer Rising Stars, which recognizes attorneys either 40 years old or younger, or in practice 10 years or less.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York
March 09, 2020 —
Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & VitaInsurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation?
Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967).
Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Nelson may be contacted at
rgn@sdvlaw.com
