Don’t Be Lazy with Your Tenders
October 24, 2022 —
Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOur clients probably spend significant time, money and effort refining and updating their contract provisions covering indemnification and the duty to defend claims arising on their projects. But they should also consider spending an appropriate and adequate amount of time, money and effort when sending notices, or “tenders,” to enforce those critical provisions. Tenders demanding defense and indemnity are strictly interpreted based on what the contract documents require. Getting tenders wrong can result in losing one of the most significant risk-shifting tools in the contract. It can also be a monumental mistake if insurance coverage for indemnification damages and defense costs are lost because of an inadequate tender.
The legal definition of “tender” is simple; it is “[a]n unconditional offer of money or performance to satisfy a debt or obligation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1479-80 (7th ed. 1999). Whereas “tender of defense” for insurance is “the act in which one party places its defense and all costs associated with said defense with another due to a contract or other agreement … [which] transfers the obligation of the defense and possible indemnification to the party to which the tender was made.” Int’l Risk Mgmt. Inst., Glossary. Thus, when claims arise on your projects, notice by tenders of defense and indemnity will often determine dispute resolution and available insurance proceeds.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rick Erickson, Snell & WilmerMr. Erickson may be contacted at
rerickson@swlaw.com
ASCE Statement on Hurricane Milton and Environmental Threats
October 15, 2024 —
Feniosky Peña-Mora, P.E., President - American Society of Civil EngineersWASHINGTON, DC. – On the heels of the tragic damage caused by Hurricane Helene throughout the Southeast, Floridians were struck by another major hurricane, Milton, less than two weeks later. Our hearts go out to those impacted again by this storm through property damage, lack of water access, power outages, or worse, loss of life, all before getting a chance to recover from Helene. Civil engineers are dedicated to protecting the public with projects that can lessen the impacts of these storms, and we are eager to help communities rebuild as quickly as possible following events like Milton and Helene.
Although we do not yet know the full scope of destruction caused by Hurricane Milton, severe weather, including compound flooding events, are increasing regularly and pose a great risk to our safety and economic vitality. While so many eyes are fixated on hurricanes impacting the Southeast, wildfires are burning across several western states, including the Elk Fire in Wyoming, the largest wildfire the Bighorn National Forest has experienced in more than a century, now spanning over 75,000 acres as the region is experiencing unusually hot and dry weather and strong winds that are helping this fire to spread rapidly. The climate impacts we are accustomed to – wildfires in the West and hurricanes in the Southeast – are getting stronger, and now environmental challenges are occurring in areas we wouldn't suspect, such as Hurricane Helene striking mountain communities in Western North Carolina that have been labeled as "climate safe-havens," and Texas dealing with annual winter storms.
ASCE is a leader in codes and standards development and has created an
easy-to-understand toolkit for legislators and the public to learn the benefits of these up-to-date standards and determine when and how to adopt them, making our built environment more resilient to natural catastrophes. ASCE's flagship standard,
ASCE/SEI 7-22, recently underwent the most significant update to its
flooding chapter to ensure structures following this standard are prepared for 500-year flood events.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)
May 04, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhat you contractually agree to matters, particularly when you are deemed a sophisticated entity. This means you can figuratively live or die by the terms and conditions agreed to. Don’t take it from me, but it take it from the Fourth Circuit’s decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Modern Mosaic, Ltd. v. Turner Construction Co., 2019 WL 7174550 (4th Cir. 2019), where the Court started off by stressing, “One of our country’s bedrock principles is the freedom of individuals and entities to enter into contracts and rely that their terms will be enforced.” Id. at *1.
This case involved a dispute between a prime contractor and its precast concrete subcontractor on a federal project. The subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. The trial court ruled against the subcontractor based on…the subcontract’s terms! So, yes, what you contractually agree to matters.
Example #1 – The subcontractor fabricated and installed precast concrete panels per engineering drawings. However, the parking garage was not built per dimensions meaning the panels it fabricated would not fit. The subcontractor had to perform remedial work on the panels to get them to fit. The subcontractor pursued the prime contractor for these costs arguing the prime contractor should have field verified the dimensions. The problem for the subcontractor, however, was that the subcontract required the subcontractor, not the prime contractor, to field verify the dimensions. Based on this language that required the subcontractor to field verify existing conditions and take field measurements, the subcontractor was not entitled to its remedial costs (and they were close to $1 Million). Furthermore, and of importance, the Court noted that the subcontract contained a flow down provision requiring the subcontractor to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the prime contract and assume those duties and obligations that the prime contractor was to assume towards the owner. While this flow-down provision may often be overlooked, here it was not, as it meant the subcontractor was assuming the field verification duties that the prime contractor was responsible to perform for the owner.
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
IRMI Expert Commentary: Managing Insurance Coverage from Multiple Insurers
May 11, 2020 —
Gregory D. Podolak, Philip B. Wilusz & Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & VitaWhat do you do when less is more? In many loss scenarios, triggering coverage under multiple policies can be a critical and effective strategy. However, doing so has the potential to complicate the insurance recovery proceedings immensely, and possibly even undermine those overall goals. The relation of "other insurance" clauses, allocation schemes, and the practical impacts of interacting with multiple insurers can all leave the insured with some difficult questions.
We present here several scenarios that illustrate how these concerns can arise and how they should be addressed to avoid running into what The Notorious B.I.G.—had he been a coverage lawyer—would have called "The More Coverage We Come Across, the More Problems We See."
The "Other Insurance" Issue
This first scenario is where a single-year loss implicates multiple lines of coverage. Consider the following: a general contractor (GC) faces a property damage liability claim from an owner. As a prudent insured, the GC notifies its customary first line of defense, its commercial general liability (CGL) insurer, to provide a defense. As knowledge of the claim evolves, it appears an element of pollution may be involved. The GC also places its pollution insurer on notice. Later, it's determined that the GC may have a professional liability exposure, so it tenders a claim to its professional liability insurer. Now assume that each insurer accepts coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita attorneys
Gregory D. Podolak,
Philip B. Wilusz and
Ashley McWilliams
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com
Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at amw@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Regulations on the Trump Administration's Chopping Block
August 02, 2017 —
Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-RecordThe Trump administration's next big step toward repealing the controversial Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule is official, with a proposal to rescind the Obama-era regulation appearing in the Federal Register on July 27, setting off a relatively short comment period that will end Aug. 28.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pam Radtke Russell, ENRMr. Russell may be contacted at
Russellp@bnpmedia.com
Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court.
The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.”
The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties.
Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment.
The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.”
The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors.
The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.”
The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects
June 28, 2013 —
Tred EyerlyA prior post here discussed the Tenth Circuit's decision in Greystone Constr., Inc. v. National Union Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F. 3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011). The court found a duty to defend construction defect claims where damage caused by the faulty workmanship was unintentional. The Tenth Circuit remanded for a determination on whether any policy exclusions precluded a defense or indemnity for damage arising from faulty workmanship. On remand, the district court denied National Union's Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to establish the policy exclusions precluded its duty to defend and to indemnify. See Greystone Constr., Inc. v. v. National Union Fire & Marine ins. Co., 2013 U. S. LEXIS 46707 (D. Colo. March 31, 2013).
Greystone was sued for construction defects in homes it built. The suit alleged that Greystone failed to recognize defects in the soil where the house was built. National Union refused to defend. The district court initially granted summary judgment to National Union because claims arising from construction defects were not covered. As noted above, the Tenth Circuit vacated because the damage in the underlying suit did not categorically fall outside coverage under the policy.
On remand, National Union first argued there was no duty to defend based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for damage arising out of work done by subcontractors unless the subcontractors agreed in writing to defend and indemnify the insured and carried insurance with coverage limits equal to or greater than that carried by the insured. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument because National Union had to rely on facts outside of the underlying complaint.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments
April 02, 2024 —
Eric Hermanson, Austin Moody & Victoria Ranieri - White and Williams LLPWeighing in on an issue that has divided courts nationwide, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that an insurer under Massachusetts law has no right to recoup defense costs, or amounts the insurer pays in settlement – even if the insurer reserves rights prior to payment and obtains a ruling, after the fact, that no defense or indemnity was owed. Berkley Natl. Ins. Co. v. Atlantic-Newport Realty LLC, No. 22-1959, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4115 (1st Cir. Feb 22, 2024) (“Granite Telecomm"). However, the First Circuit rested its ruling on narrow procedural grounds, which may prolong the controversy rather than resolve it.
The insureds in Granite Telecomm owned a company cafeteria. They were sued by a food service worker who suffered a foot infection after being exposed to bacteria during a sewage backup. They sought coverage from their insurer, Berkley. Berkley argued that coverage was barred by a fungus and bacteria exclusion in the policy. The insureds disagreed. They threatened suit under M.G.L. ch. 93A, and demanded that Berkley defend the case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric Hermanson, White and Williams LLP,
Austin Moody, White and Williams LLP and
Victoria Ranieri, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Ranieri may be contacted atranieriv@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
