The Housing Market Is Softening, But Home Depot and Lowe's Are Crushing It
February 26, 2015 —
Patrick Clark – BloombergTwo monthly reports that track the strength of the U.S. housing market offered dour assessments this week. And yet the companies that sell homeowners appliances, building materials, and power tools are thriving.
Home Depot reported strong sales growth yesterday, and Lowe’s did the same today. That follows news that existing home sales dropped 4.9 percent in January, according to the National Association of Realtors, and results from the S&P Case/Shiller index that showed the growth of home prices is slowing in major U.S. cities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Clark, BloombergMr. Clark may be contacted at
jclark185@bloomberg.net
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
Construction Suit Ends with Just an Apology
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFAfter suing a contractor for failing to complete the remodeling of their home, an Orange County couple has settled for an apology. Douglas J. Pettibone represented the contractor, who had lost his business after a broken neck, multiple surgeries, and an addiction to pain medicine. Mr. Pettibone represented his client pro bone. The case was settled in arbitration by JAMS.
Mr. Pettibone noted that his client gave “a heartfelt and very moving apology.” The remodeling was completed by another contractor, two years after Thorp Construction stopped work on the project. After the apology, the case was dismissed.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage Under Property Policy With Other Insurance and Loss Payment Provisions
September 17, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the other insurance and loss payment provisions relieved the insurer of coverage obligations. Moroney Body Works, Inc. v. Central Ins. Co., 2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 97 (Aug. 6, 2015).
A fire destroyed Moroney's custom-built bookmobile that had just been completed. Moroney had two policies: a commercial property policy issued by Central, and a garage insurance policy issued by Pilgrim Insurance Company. Central denied liability for the bookmobile. Pilgrim covered the cost of repairing the bookmobile. It paid $12,449.82 based on the appraiser's estimate of the repair costs. Moroney thought this amount was inadequate given its own estimate of the repair costs.
Moroney sued both insurers. Pilgrim settled by paying Moroney an additional amount which, when added to Pilgrim's earlier payment, resulted in Moroney receiving more than the repair cost. Moroney and Central both moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Moroney's motion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Have the Feds Taken Over Arbitration?
September 25, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAll of us in construction have run into mandatory arbitration clauses in our contracts. These clauses are more or less desirable based upon the size of project and other factors that will provide a topic for another post here at Musings or in my class at Solo Practice University (and likely both).
In drafting and considering the usefulness of these clauses, make sure that you keep in mind that the Federal Arbitration Act applies to actions in federal court. In short, the FAA gives parties to a contract containing an arbitration clause the absolute right to a stay of a law suit pending arbitration.
While this seems obvious, a recent U. S. Supreme Court decision expanded the universe of people that can demand such a stay. In Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, et. al., the Court stated that any person who is allowed to enforce a contract under state law can obtain such a stay. In short, if a person can make an argument that they have some sort of right to enforce a contract’s terms, that person can get a stay, at least until a court says otherwise.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Caution to GCs! An Exception to Privette Can Leave You Open to Liability
February 01, 2023 —
Nicole Whyte - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPIn a recent important decision, Brown v. Beach House Design & Development the Court of Appeal addressed an issue that frequently arises under the Privette doctrine—the extent to which a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to a subcontractor’s employee.
The injuries in Brown arose when a window casing subcontractor’s employee fell from a scaffold erected by a plastering subcontractor at a construction site. According to evidence offered by the plaintiff in opposition to a motion for summary judgment filed by the general contractor, the scaffold was not properly secured to the building where the work was being performed. As a result the scaffold was defective and failed, causing the injuries.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicole Whyte, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPMs. Whyte may be contacted at
nwhyte@bremerwhyte.com
Preliminary Notice Is More Important Than Ever During COVID-19
June 01, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome Justin Gitelman. Justin is the Content Coordinator at Levelset, where over 500,000 contractors and suppliers connect on a cloud-based platform to make payment processes stress-free. Levelset helps contractors and suppliers get payment under control, and sees a world where no one loses a night’s sleep over payment.
As the construction industry continues to adjust to the coronavirus and an uncertain future, contractors are struggling to get paid. During the COVID-19 pandemic, construction businesses across Virginia need to do everything they can to protect their payments, and get paid faster. One simple action that can help fight payment delays: sending preliminary notice on every job.
Subcontractors and suppliers should send preliminary notices out to the GC, project owner, and/or lender at the start of every single project. These tools allow contractors to make themselves visible on crowded job sites, helping contractors get paid more quickly, and, in some cases, securing their right to file a mechanics lien or bond claim.
Preliminary Notices in Construction
The purpose of a preliminary notice is to allow each member of a construction project to know who you are and what work you’ll be performing. With coronavirus in mind, contractors can use preliminary notices to remind the hiring party of their payment expectations. When you submit a preliminary notice on every project, you’ll have legal protection in your corner while also giving yourself a greater opportunity to get paid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrissghill@constructionlawva.com
NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal
June 25, 2019 —
Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-RecordNew York state intends to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for issuing a certificate to General Electric Co. affirming the company completed its $1.7-billion cleanup of about 40 miles of the upper Hudson River, contaminated with PCBs from two former factories. State Attorney General Letitia James said April 11 that a December state study showed elevated PCB levels in river sediment and concentrations in fish, which were not recovering at the rate EPA anticipated.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
