Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Meaning of "Living in the Same Household" for Purposes of Coverage Under a Homeowners Policy
April 10, 2019 —
Stella Szantova Giordano - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.As all insurance coverage attorneys know, how courts interpret certain words and phrases in insurance policies is significant since one word can make the difference between a claim being covered or not. On January 28, 2019, the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in the Ferro v. Weiner1 decision, clarified the jurisprudence on the meaning of “living in the same household” in the context of homeowners policies.
Background Facts
Ms. Enid Weiner owned a lakeside home which was insured under a homeowners policy through Intact Insurance Company (the “Intact Policy”). The Policy listed only Enid Weiner as the Named Insured, but provided coverage to her relatives “while living in the same household” for liability for unintentional bodily injury arising from an insured’s “personal actions anywhere in the world.” Although the lake house was used as a vacation home when Ms. Weiner’s children were small, it was her primary residence for about ten years before she moved into a nursing home. While she never permanently moved back, her three grown children and their families used the house as a cottage, with Enid occasionally accompanying them.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Giordano may be contacted at
ssg@sdvlaw.com
California Contractor Spills Coffee on Himself by Failing to Stay Mechanics Lien Action While Pursuing Arbitration
August 14, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt bugs the Mrs. that I have a habit of reading the directions. “Just plug the darn thing in!” said the Mrs. when we got a new coffee maker to replace our old one which we’ve had since I think before we were married (Life Lesson No. 347: Get a coffee maker you really, really like because they last forever). “But . . . the directions?,” I said.
By the time I had finished reading the instruction manual I could smell the coffee brewing in the kitchen. Granted, the Mrs. is more practical than I am in many ways (e.g., “You know, you didn’t need to buy 10 cans of corn to get the 10 for $10 discount. I guess you’re going to be eating a lot of corn”). But still. What might have happened if there was a serious coffee mishap?
And worrier as I may be mishaps can happen if you don’t read the directions. James Zenovic didn’t read the directions, and here’s his story . . .
Von Becelaere Ventures, LLC v. Zenovic
In Von Becelaere Ventures, LLC v. Zenovic, Case No. D072620 (June 6, 2018), James Zeonovic doing business as James Zeonovic Construction entered into a construction contract to build a single-family house for Von Becelaere Ventures, LLC in Laguna Beach, California. The construction contract included an arbitration provision that stated:
If any dispute arises concerning this Contract or the interpretation thereof, of concerning construction of the Improvements, or the Limited Warranty, customer service, defects, damages, or obligations therewith (a “Construction Dispute”), such Construction Dispute will be settled by binding arbitration. Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Caltrans Hiring of Inexperienced Chinese Builder for Bay Bridge Expansion Questioned
July 16, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe construction of the new eastern span of San Francisco’s bay bridge has been criticized for the $6.5 billion cost, welding crack violations, and alleged cover ups by Caltrans. The Sacramento Bee reported that the company Shanghai Zhenhua Port Machinery Co. Ltd. (ZPMC) “had never built a bridge.” In fact, ZPMC “was a manufacturer of giant cranes for container ports.”
How then did ZPMC manage to obtain the contract? The Sacramento Bee stated that the company “had established a reputation as fast and cost-effective, offering savings of about $250 million compared to the competing bidder.” The project was already “years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget by political squabbles and construction delays” and there were some fears that the “old bridge might not survive a major quake.”
Caltrans was told by an outside expert that ZPMC was a “high risk,” however, the company received a “contingent pass.” Sacramento Bee reported that an audit showed “ZPMC didn’t have enough qualified welders or inspectors…and routinely welded in the rain, a basic error that often causes defects.” Regardless, Caltrans signed off on the project.
“In August 2007, Caltrans auditors approved ZPMC outright, although the firm still lacked adequate quality control, even for ‘fracture critical’ materials,” the Sacramento Bee reported.
During the California Senate committee hearing in January, Doug Coe, a senior Caltrans engineer, said “’The race for time’ created overwhelming pressure to keep moving as planned….But there’s no excuse for building something defective like that because we are in a race for time.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits
August 10, 2020 —
Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri & Katelyn Werner - Gordon & ReesDespite first party insurance policies generally requiring cooperation from an insured in the investigation of a claim, insurers can no longer rely on the failure to cooperate as a defense in a claim for first party insurance benefits in Colorado unless certain conditions are met.
The Bill:
On July 2, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared S. Polis signed House Bill 20-1290 which addresses the ability of an insurer to use a failure to cooperate defense in an action where the insured has made a claim for benefits under an insurance policy. This bill bars an insurer from raising the failure to cooperate unless the following conditions are met:
- The insurer submitted a written request to the insured or the insured’s representative for the information (via electronic means if consent was given by insured or insured’s representative, or via certified mail);
- The information is not available to the insurer without the assistance of the insured;
- The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
- The written request is for information a reasonable person would determine the insurer needs to adjust the claim filed by the insured or to prevent fraud; and
- The insurer gives the insured an opportunity to cure, which must:
- Provide written notice to the insured of the alleged failure to cooperate, describing with particularity the alleged failure within 60 days after the alleged failure; and
- Allow the insured 60 days after receipt of the written notice to cure the alleged failure to cooperate.
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys
Christine Kroupa,
John Palmeri and
Katelyn Werner
Ms. Kroupa may be contacted at ckroupa@grsm.com
Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at jpalmeri@grsm.com
Ms. Werner may be contacted at kwerner@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense
June 12, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to giving your insurance carrier notice of claim, I am an advocate of providing that notice as soon as possible, i.e., prompt notice. The reason is to take away the carrier’s argument to deny coverage because you, as the insured, failed to provide it with prompt notice—the “untimely notice” defense. It doesn’t matter whether it is a first party property insurance claim or third-party liability policy claim, provide notice as soon as reasonably possible to take away that “untimely notice” defense.
The “untimely notice” defense was the issue in Benson v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1085a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) dealing with a first party property insurance policy. In this case, eighteen months after Hurricane Irma, the plaintiff noticed a smell and observed brown stains on walls and ceiling in his home. The plaintiff called roofing companies to inspect the damage and perform certain repairs. However, the plaintiff still noticed the smell so he called a company to test and remediate mold. The plaintiff, then, contacted his property insurer with numerous claims relative to the leaks and damage. Although there was an initial property insurance payment made, the carrier ultimately denied coverage for subsequent claims stating that “the late notice of the claim and the prior repairs to the roof substantially prejudiced its ability to complete an inspection of [plaintiff’s] property to evaluate the claim.” Benson, supra.
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
Aarow Equipment v. Travelers- An Update
January 16, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsPreviously here at Musings, I discussed the application of pay if paid clauses and the Miller Act. The case that prompted the discussion was the Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. case in which the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court determined that a “pay if paid” clause coupled with a proper termination could defeat a Miller Act bond claim. However, as I found out a couple of weeks ago at the VSB’s Construction Law and Public Contracts section meeting, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded this case in an unpublished opinion (Aarow Equipment & Services, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co.)
In it’s opinion, the 4th Circuit looked at some of the more “interesting” aspects of this case. One of these circumstances was that Syska (the general contractor) directed Aarow to construct sedimentary ponds and other water management measures around the project (the “pond work”), which both agreed was outside of the scope of the work defined in their subcontract. Syska asked that the government agree to a modification of the prime contract and asked Aarow to wait to submit its invoice for the pond work until after the government issued a modification to the prime contract and Syska issued a change order to the subcontract.
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
Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document
August 29, 2018 —
Todd M. Heffner - Smith CurrieMost construction contracts require that any changes to the work be made formally, in writing, via a change order, work directive, or similar written document. Frequently, however, changes to the work or extra work are communicated orally by the architect, engineer, or owner’s representative, instead of in writing. What is the contractor to do in such a situation? The best option is follow the provisions of the contract and demand a written change order before performing changed work. Unfortunately, the realities of construction sometimes make it impossible to get the changes in the proper format in a timely manner. Savvy contractors will maintain schedule and produce written documentation of the change in lieu of a formal change order or directive. But many contractors will simply proceed with the changed work, relying on the owner, architect, or engineer to do the right thing and stand by their oral instructions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd M. Heffner, Smith CurrieMr. Heffner may be contacted at
tmheffner@smithcurrie.com
A Guide to California’s Changes to Civil Discovery Rules
April 29, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomSan Diego, Calif. (April 10, 2024) - California legislators have changed the rules of discovery in civil cases through the passage of amendments to Code of Civil Procedure sections 2016.090 and 2023.050, effective January 1, 2024.
Section 2016.090 creates a new set of rules for civil litigators in cases filed on or after January 1, 2024, which permits any party to the litigation to demand initial disclosures be provided within 60-days. Such a demand can be made any time after a party has filed a responsive pleading, including a demurrer or motion to strike.
Notably, this rule requires production of all information relevant to any causes of action that are pled at the time of the demand, meaning the parties may be required to disclose information related to claims that are being challenged on demurrer or a motion to strike, such as claims for punitive damages. This statute is only implicated when one of the parties to the action makes a demand and may be modified by stipulation of the parties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
