Florida Supreme Court: Notice of Right to Repair is a CGL “Suit,” SDV Amicus Brief Supports Decision
January 10, 2018 —
Gregory Podolak & Brian Clifford - SD&V Case AlertConstruction policyholders in Florida have been given substantial ammunition to compel general liability insurers to provide a defense against pre-suit accusations of defective work. Florida is one of approximately thirty (30) states that require property owners to serve contractors with notice and an opportunity to repair construction defects before filing suit. Only a few states have addressed whether a CGL policy should provide a defense for similar processes. Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., decided late in December by the Florida Supreme Court, acknowledged that the 558 process is a “suit,” thus impeding insurers from refusing a defense during this notice period.
Section 558.004(1), Florida Statutes (2012) requires a property owner alleging construction defects to serve a written notice to repair on the contractor before filing an action in court. Altman Contractors built a condominium in Broward County, Florida. In 2012, the condominium owners alleged defects in accordance with Section 558. Altman demanded that its general liability carrier, Crum & Forster, defend and indemnify it against the 558 notices. Crum & Forster denied coverage, claiming that 558 notices are not a “suit” as defined by the policy.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Brian Clifford, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Clifford may be contacted at bjc@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement
January 13, 2020 —
Danielle Ward, Esq. - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesIn July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract.
The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret.
The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.”
Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech.
The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding.
In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement.
Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit.
The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms.
Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Wrongfully Denies Coverage When Household Member Fails to Submit to EUO
May 06, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that coverage for a loss by fire could not be denied when the insured's son failed to appear for a examination under oath (EUO). Adekola v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27125 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2024).
Plaintiff had a homeowners policy with Allstate. Plaintiff - Michele Adekola - was the named insured under the policy. After the fire, Allstate provided payments for temporary housing. Allstate requested examinations under oath of Plaintiff and her son, Nico. Plaintiff and her son were examined by Zoom. Allstate then sought to examine Plaintiff's other son, Lemmeco, but these efforts were unsuccessful.
Allstate then stopped paying for Plaintiff's temporary housing and informed Plaintiff that Lemmeco's failure to participate in an EUO was a material breach of duties under the policy and the breach was prejudicial to Allstate. Allstate further contended that Lemmeco had a duty to submit to an EUO.
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
Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar
January 21, 2015 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law BlogIn a lengthy and somewhat detailed decision, the California Court of Appeal for First District, in Pittsburg Unified School District v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc., Case No. A138825 (December 22, 2014), held that a public entity could unilaterally withdraw retention funds during a pending legal dispute without the court first finding that the contractor had defaulted on the public works project.
Background
In 2008, general contractor S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc. (“S.J. Amoroso”) entered into a construction contract with the Pittsburg Unified School District (“District”) for the reconstruction and modernization of a high school in Pittsburg, California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Hughes may be contacted at
rhughes@wendel.com
Foreman in Fatal NYC Trench Collapse Gets Jail Sentence
December 21, 2016 —
Mary B. Powers – Engineering News-RecordWilmer Cueva, a construction foreman for Queens, N.Y.-based excavation subcontractor Sky Materials, was sentenced on Dec. 15 to up to three years in prison for causing the death of 22-year-old worker Carlos Moncayo, and endangering other workers at a lower Manhattan retail project site. Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said the workers were in an unprotected 13-ft trench that collapsed in 2015.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
OSHA Issues COVID-19 Guidance for Construction Industry
July 13, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThis past month, after remaining relatively quiet following the coronavirus outbreak, OSHA began issuing industry-specific guidance on how to deal with the coronavirus in the workplace.
Until this month, the only construction industry specific guidance issued by OSHA was an OSHA Alert entitled COVID-19 Guidance for the Construction Workforce, a one page document providing little more guidance than that workers should stay home if sick, wear masks and frequently wash hands to prevent spreading and catching the coronavirus, and to sanitize tools and work areas.
Early this month, OSHA issued more comprehensive guidance for the construction industry. The guidance, as noted in the preface by OSHA is simply guidance, “is not a standard or regulation” and “creates no legal obligations. The guidance supplements general guidance applicable to all workplaces issued earlier by OSHA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Your Construction Contract
April 08, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesYour construction contract is an important topic. What’s even more important is YOUR process for reviewing and negotiating construction contracts.
Are you simply acting as a riverboat gambler willing to assume undue risk because you don’t value the investment in understanding what you are signing? If so, it becomes hard to complain about what you agreed to and signed when you chose NOT to invest in the process. Investing in the process means you are working with a construction attorney, you have an insurance broker that understands your industry, you have resources in place to ensure risk is negotiated and allocated, and you understand what risk you are assuming to make sure you are properly protecting and perfecting your rights, and transferring risk downstream.
When it comes to construction contracts, there are really three approaches:
1. Riverboat Gambler. This is the “I’ll sign whatever you give me because I don’t want to lose the contract / revenue.” Under this approach, you are not worried about undue risk because you don’t value the investment in the next two approaches. Your thought process is that you’ll care about the risk when an issue pops up, i.e., the riverboat gambler. This is not an approach I’d recommend because it is contrary to the adage, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” This is simply a reactive approach to issues and risks. The other two approaches are more proactive and better suited to understand and manage risk.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Contractor Prevails on Summary Judgment To Establish Coverage under Subcontractor's Policy
June 07, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiWhen sued for construction defects caused by the subcontractor, the general contractor was granted summary judgment on the issue of coverage under the subcontractor's policy. Meritage Homes of Ga. v. Grange Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84591 (N.D. Ga. March 23, 2021).
Meritage built a home for the owners. Easterwood Excavating, Inc. was the subcontractor for excavation and grading work. Meritage was named an additional insured under Easterwood's policy with Grange.
After construction was completed, the owners were experiencing severe flooding after rain storms purportedly due to defects in the grading, site preparation and excavation. The owners filed an arbitration against Meritage for damages. The owners alleged that Meritage improperly excavated and graded their lot, causing water to collect and pool in their yard. Meritage denied all liability and looked to Easterwood and Grange for defense and indemnification. Grange denied coverage, contending there was no occurrence which resulted in property damage. The arbitrator found that the folding of water was caused by Meritage's improper grading of the lot. A Final Award in the amount of $129,530.93 was issued against Meritage.
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
