Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss
July 01, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's issuance of summary judgment regarding coverage for damages when the insured's plant had to be shut down due to an accident. Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace American Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. April 15, 2019).
Ingenco operated a gas purification plant which converted raw landfill gas into usable natural gas. The final step in the purification process involved the removal of excess nitrogen from the landfill gas. The gas was directed through adsorbent beads, to which nitrogen adhered, contained within pressure vessels.The beads could not withstand the direct pressure of the landfill gas inflow. which, if untreated, could grind the beads down into dust. To reduce the force of the gas flow on the beads, a "diffuser basket" was suspended from the top of each bead-filled pressure vessel. The diffuser basket acted as a shield that prevented the full force of the incoming landfill gas from striking the beads directly.
In 2010, metal brackets securing a diffiuser basket broke. This resulted in damage to other components and an eventual shutdown of the entire facility. The plant remained idle for several months as Ingenco investigated alternative nitrogen filtration options and undertook repairs.
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
Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?
October 20, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere is an argument that a performance bond is not liable for delay damages UNLESS the bond specifically allows for the recovery of such damages. Keep this in mind when requiring a performance bond so that the bond covers the associated risks (and damages) you contemplate when requiring the bond. This argument is supported by the Florida Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin General Hosp., Ltd., 593 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla. 1992):
The language in the performance bond, construed together with the purpose of the bond, clearly explains that the performance bond merely guaranteed the completion of the construction contract and nothing more. Upon default, the terms of the performance bond required American [performance bond surety] to step in and either complete construction or pay Larkin [obligee] the reasonable costs of completion. Because the terms of the performance bond control the liability of the surety, American’s liability will not be extended beyond the terms of the performance bond. Therefore, American cannot be held liable for delay damages.
However, the Eleventh Circuit in National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Const. Co., 320 F.3d 1260(11th Cir. 2003), also analyzing an issue relating to the recoverability of delay-type damages against a performance bond, did not narrowly interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Larkin General Hospital.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
Hartford Stadium Controversy Still Unresolved
September 22, 2016 —
Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-RecordThe Hartford Yard Goats and the city of Hartford, Conn., say Arch Insurance—the surety for the dual developer/prime contractor of the minor-league baseball team’s new, unfinished stadium—has committed to helping complete the project now that the team and its developer have acrimoniously split.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr.com@bnpmedia.com
Balancing Cybersecurity Threats in Smart Cities: Is the Potential Convenience of “Smart” Intersections Worth the Risk?
September 02, 2024 —
James P. Bobotek & Brian E. Finch - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe term “smart cities” has become popular parlance for municipalities’ attempts to enhance delivery of urban services and infrastructure through information and communications technology. While they may conjure images of neon-lit high rises or streetscapes populated by sleek, hovering vehicles, a bit like the 1960s-era The Jetsons cartoon envisioned our high-tech future, the reality of smart cities has begun to emerge in more subtle, less glamourous forms. Cities tend to focus on wastewater monitoring, traffic control and energy distribution technologies in their efforts to become incrementally “smarter.”
Smart cities lean heavily on automation, internet connectivity and the Internet of Things (IoT)—including smartphones, connected cars and a host of web-based appliances and utilities—to boost the delivery and quality of essential urban services and infrastructure like transit, sanitation, water, energy, emergency response and more. Successful smart cities need infrastructure that supports such connectivity, and they pull data from hundreds, or even thousands, of sensors that can be used to analyze and shepherd the direction of resources.
Reprinted courtesy of
James P. Bobotek, Pillsbury and
Brian E. Finch, Pillsbury
Mr. Bobotek may be contacted at james.bobotek@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Finch may be contacted at brian.finch@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice
November 16, 2020 —
Thomas Regan & Karley Kamaris - Lewis Brisbois NewsroomOn September 1, 2020, New Jersey adopted a brand-new rule of procedure, Rule 4:25-8, which properly defines motions in limine. On its face, the new rule prohibits, broadly, filing motions in limine that may have a dispositive effect on the case. Most notably, the rule expressly eliminates the ability to move, on motion in limine, to bar expert testimony in matters in which such experts are required to sustain a party’s burden of proof. This effectively makes the summary judgment phase of litigation the last chance to bar experts from a jury trial or take any other dispositive action
The new rule comes at a time in which the evidentiary standard for experts is shifting in New Jersey. In October 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court reconciled the framework for analyzing the reliability of expert testimony under N.J.R.E. 702 and 703 in In re: Accutane Litigation. Significantly, New Jersey, a traditional Frye jurisdiction, incorporated certain federal Daubert factors for expert “use by our courts” but, overall, fell short of adopting the Daubert standard as a whole. In applying the relevant Daubert factors, the trial court in Accutane held that the subject experts’ methodologies were unsound due to the failure to apply fundamentals of the scientific method of the medical-evidence hierarchy. The decision resulted in the dismissal of over 3,000 claims.
Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and
Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
North Carolina, Tennessee Prepare to Start Repairing Helene-damaged Interstates
October 07, 2024 —
Derek Lacey - Engineering News-RecordDamage from Hurricane Helene to interstates between North Carolina and Tennessee includes washed-out roads and bridges, landslides and extensive flooding—creating a long list of repair work needed for state transportation agencies as they prepare to rebuilding critical highways across the Appalachian Mountains.
Reprinted courtesy of
Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream
July 01, 2014 —
Kathleen M. Howley – BloombergAfter decades of factory shutdowns and population loss, the city of Dayton, Ohio, has found a fix for its housing market hard-hit by foreclosures -- immigration.
The rust-belt city of 140,000 has been encouraging immigrants from Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey to move there since 2011, after its population hit a 90-year low, by offering to help with resettlement and starting businesses. Dayton’s foreign population grew and so did its housing sales, rising last year at almost twice the national rate.
As the housing recovery nationwide sputters, the story of Dayton reveals a reason why: the U.S. market is missing the sales jolt provided by immigration. Last year, the number of immigrants granted U.S. residency -- typically a requirement to get a mortgage -- hit a nine-year low, according to government data. Immigrants, deterred by a weak American labor market since 2008, aren’t likely to get encouragement from Congress, where support for a reform bill has mostly evaporated.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kathleen M. Howley, BloombergMs. Howley may be contacted at
kmhowley@bloomberg.net
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
