No Duty to Defend Under Renter's Policy
May 03, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court agreed that the insurer had no potential liability under a policy where the insured allegedly concealed facts and made misrepresentations regarding the condition of the property it sold. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. TFG Enterprises, LLC, 2021 Neb. LEXIS 27 (Neb. Feb. 19, 2021).
TFG sold a house to Jeffrey Barkhurst. Thereafter, Barkhurst filed suit alleging that TFG failed to disclose and actively concealed several defects, including water intrusion, the presence of mold, substandard repairs and structural issues. State Farm agreed to TFG defend under a reservation of rights. State Farm then filed a declaratory judgment action to determine its obligations under the policy.
State Farm relied upon various exclusions in the rental policy issued to TFG. The exclusions provided there would be no liability coverage for "property damage to property owned by an insured"; "property damage to property rented to, occupied or used by or in the care of the insured"; or "property damage to premises the insured sells. . . if the property damage arises out of these premises."
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
Washington State Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision on Spearin Doctrine
September 29, 2021 —
Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe Washington State Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lake Hills Invs., LLC v. Rushforth Constr. Co. No. 99119-7, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Sept. 2, 2021) marks the first time in over 50 years that it has ruled on the Spearin doctrine. The Court’s opinion clarified the contractor’s burden when asserting a Spearin defense and affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of contractor AP Rushforth Construction Company (AP). The decision is a major win for Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC attorneys Scott Sleight, Brett Hill, and Nick Korst, who represented AP throughout its long-running dispute with Lake Hills Investments, LLC (LH), including the two-month jury trial and the appeal. Leonard Feldman of Peterson | Wampold | Rosato | Feldman | Luna and Stephanie Messplay of Van Siclen Stocks & Firkins also represented AP on appeal.
At trial, the owner—Lake Hills Investments, LLC (LH)—asserted it was entitled to $3 million in liquidated damages and $12.3 million for defects it alleged were caused by AP’s deficient workmanship. AP denied responsibility for the delays and most of the defects and requested payment of $5 million. Regarding LH’s defect claims, AP argued as an affirmative defense that the defects were caused by deficiencies in the plans and specifications provided by LH. This affirmative defense was rooted in the Spearin doctrine, which states that when the contractor follows plans and specifications provided by the owner, the contractor is not responsible for defects caused by the plans and specifications.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Sheldon may be contacted at
cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com
Georgia House Bill Addresses Construction Statute of Repose
May 04, 2020 —
Jason Gropper - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPOn March 2, 2020, by a unanimous vote, the House passed HB 968. This Bill seeks to clarify which civil actions are subject to Code Section 9-3-51, which is the eight-year statute of repose for deficiencies in connection with improvements to realty. If passed by the General Assembly, it would explicitly state that the statute of repose will not apply to breach of express warranties. If the Bill is passed, O.C.G.A § 9-3-51 would include a subsection that provides: “This Code section shall not apply to actions for breach of contract, including, but not limited to actions for breach of express contractual warranties.”
Jason Gropper, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Gropper may be contacted at Gropper@ahclaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract is Only as Good as Those Signing It
December 17, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, we beat the constant drum that “
the contract is king” and “draft a
good and well-worded construction contract” consistently. As a
Virginia construction attorney, I stand by these statements and fully endorse a well-written construction contract. Such a contract will set expectations and
provide the rules for your deal (particularly in the commercial context). Without this solid foundation (yes, I see the potential construction pun), when
there are issues on the job site, there will be no baseline for how to resolve those issues.
That said, I am also reminded on an almost daily basis that humans interact with these contracts. People negotiate the contracts and are the main forces that drive the success (or failure) of the construction project. Money is involved (often a lot of it) and there can at times be temptations to try and squeeze one last dollar out of the job despite what the contract says. Even the strongest contract cannot act as real-time protection against one party that refuses to comply with the contract and its performance or payment terms.
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
Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?
November 19, 2021 —
Michael T. Kennedy Jr. - BERDING|WEILOne of the most common features in construction defect cases is the Case Management Order (“CMO”) or Pre-Trial Order (“PTO”) to govern pre-trial and mediation procedures. CMOs and PTOs arose in the days when the HOA would sue the developer, the developer would cross-complaint against the subcontractors, and each defendant and cross-defendant might have 2 or 3 insurance carriers defending, each of whom may retain their own panel counsel. In a large case there may have been 20 parties and 30 defense attorneys. In order to avoid the cost and chaos of all of those parties propounding their own discovery, and in order to prepare these cases for mediation well before trial and the associated costs, it became standard practice in California to include provisions in the CMO to stay all discovery until just before trial.
Plaintiff would provide a Defect List or Statement of Claims and the parties experts would meet and exchange information as part of the mediation process. All of the information exchanged would be subject to mediation privileges and inadmissible at trial. The benefit of this practice was that the parties (and carriers) would avoid the cost of formal discovery and allow the experts to discuss compromised scopes of repair to help settle the case while being able to take a more aggressive position at trial. The disadvantages are that each party uses its privileged initial expert reports to stake out negotiating positions more extreme than what they would put on at trial, with each side losing credibility with the other in assessing the value of the case, and for those cases that did not settle, the parties would be faced with having to do all of the depositions and discovery in the last 60 days, or delaying trial, or both.
Over the last 10 or 15 years with the advent of wrap-up insurance policies, these cases now usually involve 2 sides instead of 20; only the HOA and the developer remain in the case. However, old habits die hard, and the standard CMO/PTO hasn’t evolved with other aspects of these cases. The practice of staying all discovery and exchanging information only under mediation privileges remains, and as a result insurance carriers don’t receive the admissible evidence that they need to determine coverage and evaluate the real settlement value of the case until just before trial. On the plaintiff’s side, if most of the experts’ work is done under the guise of mediation privilege, those costs may not be recoverable. Outside the context of mediation, costs incurred in investigation of the defects and preparation of a scope and cost of repair are recoverable.
This reflexive claim of mediation privilege over all information exchanged during the case has outlived its usefulness. The CMO can and should remain to regulate formal discovery and to help the parties prepare for mediation, but regulated discovery should be opened early in the case. In California, the SB800 process already provides for the exchange of admissible information during the prelitigation right to repair process. Continuing that exchange during the early litigation allows the parties to continue to prepare for mediation, but waiving privileges had advantages for both sides.
A senior claims manager once commented that Plaintiff’s mediation-protected Statement of Claims “might as well be a stack of blank paper” for all of its usefulness to the carrier in assessing the value of the case. If the Plaintiff and it expects are free to inflate their claims early in the case without having to worry about every supporting those claims in front of a jury, they have little or no credibility. And if those claims are inflated or not “real,” not only can the carrier not properly assess the verdict range and settlement value of the case, but it may also be hampered in making a coverage determination. Simply put, if the exchange of real information through formal discovery is put off until just before trial, the defense cannot be ready to settle until then. Worse, the cost of defense goes through the roof in the last 60 days before trial as the lawyers’ scramble to take all of the depositions and to all of the other work that had been stayed for the previous year or two.
The Plaintiff is faced with the same question of credibility of defense experts where they are free to take a “low ball” negotiating position without having to support that position through cross-examination in front of the jury. Just as the carrier behind the defense attorney needs the Plaintiff’s “real” evidence to assess the claim, so does the HIOA Board of Directors behind the Plaintiff’s counsel. Additionally, in California as in most states, the cost of experts’ preparation for mediation may not be recoverable as costs or damages, but investigation of the defects and preparation of the scope and cost of repair is recoverable.
The biggest challenge is resolving construction defect claims for both sides is how to resolve these cases quickly while keeping costs under control. Practices that worked 20 years ago are no longer applicable with changes in insurance, and in light of some of the bad habits that arise when all of the information exchanged was confidential.
The CMO/PTO process can still be useful to regulate the discovery and mediation schedule given the volume of documents and other information to be exchanged but exchanging “real” information in a form that may come into evidence at trial should foster earlier resolution, resulting in cost savings for the parties. The CMO can provide for the parties to respond to controlled discovery, and the exchange of expert reports and potentially depositions can and should be done earlier in the case, well before the eve of trial. The parties can then assess the true value of each case and prepare for more substantive mediation without waiting until they are on the figurative courthouse steps.
Construction defect cases have a pattern, and it is tempting for busy lawyers to just put each case through the same algorithms that they have used for years. However, these cases have evolved and those of us handling these cases need to reevaluate our approach to these cases. Taking aggressive negotiating positions that no longer have any credibility with the other side has become counterproductive, and the exchange of real evidence earlier in the case would better serve our clients and carriers.
BERDING|WEIL is the largest and most experienced construction defect and common interest development law firm in California. For more information, please visit https://www.berding-weil.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael T. Kennedy Jr., BERDING|WEILMr. Kennedy may be contacted at
mkennedy@berdingweil.com
A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction."
The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent.
Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense
November 14, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe “failure to cooperate” defense is a defense an insurer may raise when its insured fails to cooperate with it in the defense of the claim against the insured. If an insurer takes this position, it will typically be denying both defense and indemnification obligations, meaning the insured could be forfeiting coverage that otherwise exists through his/her/its failure to cooperate with the insurer. This defense by the insurer is not absolute as recently explained by the Fourth District in Barthelemy v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2379a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discussing the elements of this failure to cooperate defense.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.
October 24, 2021 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn
Serpanok Construction, Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC, Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals decided an issue of first impression in Washington—whether a guarantor of a partially secured debt remains liable until the last dollar of the entire debt is paid off. After examining cases from other jurisdictions, the court held that that a guarantor is liable until the underlying debt is paid in full unless the agreement contains an express pay down provision. A pay down provision sets forth the guarantor’s right to reduce its obligation to the extent of any payment toward the debt, and it establishes that the guaranty applies only until an amount equivalent to the guaranteed amount is paid off.
The Serpanok decision addressed several other issues, but the published portion of this part-published case focused on whether an entity involved in a real estate development, Point Ruston LLC, was discharged from its guaranty obligation following a foreclosure sale where the proceeds did not cover the entire debt owed to a subcontractor. Point Ruston LLC, Point Ruston Phase II LLC (“Phase II”), and Century Condominiums (“Century”) were affiliated entities (collectively “Point Ruston parties”) that constructed retail and residential structures on a site in Point Ruston. Serpanok Construction Inc. (“Serpanok”) entered into subcontract agreements with Phase II and Century to perform concrete and steel work on a parking garage and movie theater for the project. Point Ruston LLC was not a party to either subcontract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com
