Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure
November 21, 2017 —
Gregory D. Podolak - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Originally published by CDJ on May 3, 2017
In breaking news this week, LAW360.com posted that the Third Circuit ruled Friday that “a common exclusion found in a Travelers policy bars coverage for claims arising out of asbestos in any form, limiting insurers’ potential exposure to asbestos injury claims by precluding policyholders from arguing that the exclusionary language is ambiguous and doesn’t extend to products containing the carcinogen.”
In its detailed analysis of the decision, LAW360 turned to Greg Podolak for his analysis.
Gregory D. Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC’s Southeast office, said the ruling is a cautionary tale that should galvanize policyholders and their insurance brokers to take a closer look at policies to delete or curtail broad “arising out of” language in exclusions. Otherwise, insureds could find themselves without any coverage for claims even remotely related to a certain product, he said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Podolak may be contacted at
gdp@sdvlaw.com
Whether Subcontractor's Faulty Workmanship Is an Occurrence Creates Ambiguity
March 16, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ohio Court of Appeals determined that the CGL policy was ambiguous as to whether a subcontractor's faulty workmanship was an "occurrence." Ohio N. Univ. v. Charles Constr. Serv., 2017 Ohio App. LEXIS 258 (Ohio Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2017).
In 2007, Ohio Northern University (ONU) entered a contract with Charles Construction Services, Inc. (CCS) to construct a hotel on the campus. In 2011, the building was completed, but ONU found water intrusion and moisture damage in the interior. When remediating the water damage, ONU found additional, serious structural defects.
ONU sued CCS, alleging breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. CCS filed a third-party action against many of its subcontractors. Cincinnati Insurance Company (CIC) intervened and filed a cross-claim for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to provide coverage to CCS. CIC and ONU filed cross motions for summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Important Environmental Insurance Ruling Issued In Protracted Insurance-Coverage Dispute
May 16, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog The latest ruling in the long-running environmental insurance case, Olin Corporation v. Lamorak Ins. Co., was released on April 18, 2018, by Judge Rakoff of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York. Judge Rakoff granted motions for summary judgment filed by Olin Corporation (Olin) and The London Market Insurers, and awarded Olin $55M for its claims against Lamorak Insurance Company (Lamorak).
As Judge Rakoff notes, “the overall litigation, having already outlived two federal judges, is now before the unlucky undersigned.” This ruling is in response to the Second Circuit’s most recent decision in Olin Corp. v. OneBeacon Americans Ins. Co.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Why Federal and State Agencies are Considering Converting from a “Gallons Consumed” to a “Road Usage” Tax – And What are the Risks to the Consumer?
August 26, 2015 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law Blog“‘We’re going to have to find another way to finance the upkeep of the roads,’ Gov. Jerry Brown said earlier this year in rolling out his 2015 budget. Governor Brown gave no specifics, but last fall he signed a law that set up a commission to study a ‘road usage charge’ with a call to ‘establish a pilot program by Jan. 1, 2017…'” – San Jose Mercury News, January 27, 2015
This Change, It’s a Coming (Maybe)
Many states and the federal government are seriously considering converting from a “gallons consumed” tax levy to a “miles driven” program for determining gasoline tax. There are several compelling reasons for such a change. First, our roads are falling apart while revenue from current highway taxes fall woefully short of our current and projected needs. In the meantime, the number of miles driven by all-electric cars that pay no gas tax, is increasing rapidly; and by hybrids that pay substantially reduced tax; and worse for the taxing authorities, by increasingly efficient gas-powered cars. All of this means rapidly dropping gas tax revenues. Seeing this trend, local, state and the federal governments are making a major push to convert from a consumption based tax to a “miles driven” tax. This a good thing for those of us that believe increased investment in our transportation infrastructure is of high national concern.
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
New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill
May 31, 2021 —
Copernicus T. Gaza, Robert S. Nobel, Craig Rokuson, Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanThe New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):
- Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
- Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
- Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or
- Fails to act in good faith by compelling such claimant to initiate a lawsuit to recover under the policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such suit; or
- Fails to timely provide, on request of the policy holder or the policy holder's representative, all reports or other documentation arising from the investigation of a claim; or
- Refuses to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation prior to such refusal.
Reprinted courtesy of
Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman,
Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman,
Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and
Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Delaware “occurrence” and exclusions j(5) and j(6)
June 10, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Goodville Mut. Cas. Co. v. Baldo, No. 09-338 (D. Del. June 2, 2011), claimants condominium association and unit owners sued project developer Rehoboth and general contractor Capano seeking damages because of moisture penetration property damage to common elements and individual units resulting from construction defects. Rehoboth and Capano filed a third party complaint against insured property manager Baldo alleging that, if Rehoboth and Capano were liable to claimants, Baldo was also liable because of Baldo’s failure to properly manage, maintain, and repair the property
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy
April 03, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesBuilder’s risk insurance coverage is a vital property insurance coverage during the course of construction. Builder’s risk insurance is not a one-size-fits-all product so please make sure you are working with your insurance broker to procure this product that factors in and covers risk associated with the project.
Builder’s risk insurance is typically an occurrence-based policy. No different than other occurrence-based policies (such as commercial general liability), a dispute may arise as to the occurrence. This could be due to the triggering of the actual policy during the coverage period or it could be due deductible obligations, as in the case discussed below. When dealing with a builder’s risk insurance policy–again, no different than any policy–the language in the policy matters. Definitions used in the policy to define specific terms matter and, in numerous cases, the ordinary dictionary meanings of terms matter. But it all starts with the policy language.
In KT State & Lemon, LLP v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 2023 WL 2456499 (M.D.Fla. 2023), a builder’s risk policy provided coverage from April 2018 through the end of November 2019. There was a $50,000 per occurrence deductible for loss caused by or from water damage. An extension to the builder’s risk policy was negotiated through the end of January 2020 that increased this water damage deductible to $250,000 per occurrence. During construction and the testing of the fire suppression (sprinkler) system, leaks started to occur resulting in water damage. Two leaks occurred in September 2019, one leak in October 2019, one leak in November 2019, and two leaks in December 2019 (during the extension and higher water damage deductible period).
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
Florida Appeals Court Rules in Favor of Homeowners Unaware of Construction Defects and Lack of Permits
December 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Florida Court of Appeals has ruled that a homeowner is not liable for defects in unpermitted alterations, reversing a lower court’s decision in Jensen v. Bailey. The Jensens sold their house to the Baileys. During the sale, the Jensens filled out a property disclosure statement, checking “no” to a question about “any improvement or additions to the property, whether by your or by others that have been constructed in violation of building codes or without necessary permits.”
After moving in, the Baileys discovered several problems with the home. One involved a defective sewer connection leading to repeated backups. The Baileys also found problems with remodeling the Jensens had done in the kitchen, master bath, and bedroom. The remodeling work was not done with required permits nor was it up to code.
The court noted that an earlier case, Johnson v. Davis, established four criteria: “the seller of a home must have knowledge of a defect in the property; the defect must materially affect the value of the property; the defect must not be readily observable and must be unknown to the buyer; and the buyer must establish that the seller failed to disclose the defect to the buyer.” The court found that the first of these criteria was crucial to determining the case.
In the Johnson ruling, the then Chief Justice dissented, fearing that the courts “would ultimately construe Johnson’s requirement of actual knowledge to permit a finding of liability based on constructive knowledge,” quoting Justice Boyd, “a rule of constructive knowledge will develop based on the reasoning that if the seller did not know of the defect, he should have known about it before attempting to sell the property.” The Appeals Court concluded that the lower court hit this point in ruling on Jensen v. Bailey.
Citing other Florida cases, the court noted that the Johnson rule does require “proof of the seller’s actual knowledge of the defect.” The court cited a case in which it was concluded that the seller “should have known” that there was circumstantial evidence was that the seller did know about the defects, as the seller had been involved in the construction of the home.
In the case of the Jensens, the lower court concluded that they did not know that the work was defective, nor did they know that they were obligated to obtain permits for it. The Appeals Court found this one fact sufficient to reverse the decision and remand the case to the lower court for a final judgment in favor of the Jensens.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
