Excess Insurer On The Hook For Cleanup Costs At Seven Industrial Sites
August 28, 2018 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA New York district court has held that an insurer must provide coverage under three excess insurance policies issued in 1970 for defense and cleanup costs incurred by Olin Corporation in remediating environmental contamination at seven sites in Connecticut, Washington, Maryland, Illinois, New York, and Washington. Seven of the remaining sites at issue presented questions of fact for trial, with only one site being dismissed due to lack of coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Another Reminder to ALWAYS Show up for Court
July 20, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed the need to always respond to a lawsuit on multiple occasions here at Construction Law Musings. However, I keep reading cases where the defendant fails to appear either by pleading or in person. Such action is never a good idea as demonstrated once again in the case of Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Precision Constr. & Mgmt. Group, LLC, a case out of the Eastern District of Virginia.
The basic facts are not a surprise and are taken from the magistrates report that was adopted by the District Court. Balfour Beatty and Precision entered into a subcontract for some electrical work at a project located in Loudoun County. The subcontract included an attorney fees provision and provided for liquidated damages for late performance and the typical damages for default. The project began in July of 2016 with substantial completion July 5, 2018. Precision failed to supply sufficient manpower and sent a letter to Precision stating the same. After an agreement between the parties regarding supplementation by Balfour Beatty and to the accompanying back charge, Balfour Beatty informed Precision by letter that it would be liable for any liquidated damages. The Owner began assessing liquidated damages and Balfour Beatty subsequently terminated the subcontract and discovered defective work by Precision.
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
Court Grants Partial Summary Judgment on Conversion Claim Against Insurer
February 01, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the court was incredulous that the parties were disputing the possession of a gate opener allegedly damaged in a lightning strike, it granted the insured's motion for partial summary judgment finding the insurer had converted the gate opener. Privratsky v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196002 (D. Haw. Oct. 27, 2022). (Full disclosure, our office is co-counsel for the insured).
Mr. Privratsky alleged his home on Maui was struck by lightning which caused an electrical surge. The home and personal property were damaged. The alleged cost of repair work at one point was as much as $325,000. A claim was submitted under a homeowner's policy issued by Liberty Mutual. Liberty paid for only some of the damage. Privratsky filed suit alleging three causes of action for: (1) declaratory judgment that the losses were covered by the policy issued by Liberty; (2) bad faith; and (3) conversion of personal property, namely, the damaged gate operator.
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
The Construction Lawyer as Counselor
June 10, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt’s been a while since I discussed the role that I believe a construction lawyer should serve. Back in 2013, I discussed how those of us that practice construction law are seen as “necessary evils.” I was thinking over the weekend about certain clients and matters (as I often do, particularly in the shower) and came to the conclusion that the best role for me as a Virginia construction attorney is that of counselor and sounding board for my clients. Sure I come from a litigation background, enjoy working with other construction lawyers here in the Commonwealth, and often the first contact that I have with clients is when there is a problem, but I enjoy my practice, and I believe clients are more satisfied with their interactions with me when I try and provide a more cost effective and pragmatic solution than that which litigation or arbitration provides.
The six years of solo construction practice since 2013 (yes, I’m close to the 9 year mark with my practice) has only served to cement the fact that construction professionals need and want the “counselor” portion of “attorney and counselor at law.” Working as a sort of “in house counsel” to various construction companies, as opposed to simply dealing with the litigation, allows me to better understand their businesses and assist them in avoiding problems through contract review, discussions of situations that come up short of claims, and general risk management. I also get to know these mostly small business owners on a more personal level (sometimes even resulting in a fishing trip or two).
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
SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures
April 13, 2017 —
Justin K. Fortescue & Ciaran B. Way - White and Williams LLPThe US District Court for the Southern District of New York recently vacated an arbitration award finding that a party-appointed arbitrator’s undisclosed relationship with the party appointing him was significant enough to demonstrate evident partiality. Certain Underwriting Members at Lloyd’s of London, et. al. v. Ins. Companies of America, Inc., Nos. 16-cv-232 and 16-cv-374 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2017).
In the arbitration, the panel was asked to determine whether the reinsurance contracts, covering workers’ compensation policies, only applied when multiple claimants were injured as the result of the same loss occurrence. After a three-day hearing, the arbitration panel issued an award in favor of the ceding company, Insurance Companies of America (ICA). After the award was issued, Lloyd’s discovered that ICA’s arbitrator had significant undisclosed relationships with principals at ICA and moved to vacate the award in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Justin K. Fortescue, White and Williams LLP and
Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2024 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®
November 11, 2024 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that seven Partners from the Hawthorne, NY office have been selected to the 2024 New York - Metro Super Lawyers list.
2024 New York – Metro Super Lawyers
- Copernicus Gaza – Insurance Coverage
- Jonathan Harwood – Professional Liability
- Lisa Rolle – Construction Litigation
- Hillary Raimondi – Employment Litigation
- Christopher Russo – Professional Liability
- Lisa Shrewsberry – Professional Liability
- Stephen Straus – Insurance Coverage
Lisa Shrewsberry was also selected to the Top 25: 2024 Westchester County Super Lawyers® list.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Surviving the Construction Law Backlog: Nontraditional Approaches to Resolution
June 07, 2021 —
Jeffrey Kozek - Construction ExecutiveAcross the construction industry, COVID-19’s impact has caused a range of problems for contractors and projects—prolonged or intermittent work shutdowns, supply chain delays, pricing increases on materials and funding shortfalls. It has also led to court closures. The legal backlog for claims and disputes means that owners and contractors are facing the option of waiting until the courts are functioning the way they were previously or utilizing alternative approaches to resolution to keep projects and businesses running.
Though courts across the country reopened to some extent in the latter half of 2020, many state and federal facilities were shut down or working with a limited capability for weeks or months. The closures not only froze the progress of numerous disputes already underway, but caused new schedule, cost and COVID-19-related claims to also be held up in the same backlog that is slowly being addressed under current restricted operations. New safety measures to reduce viral transmission, including reduced usage of courtrooms, restrictions on personnel and increased cleaning and sanitizing measures, have limited the number of cases courts can handle on a daily basis and lengthened legal timelines in ways many parties had not anticipated and cannot afford.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey Kozek, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
