Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims
November 20, 2013 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn October 24, 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals granted a rare interlocutory appeal in a multi-family residential construction defect case. The Court of Appeals accepted the case ofTriple Crown at Observatory Village Association, Inc. v. Village Homes of Colorado, Inc.(2013 WL 5761028) as an interlocutory appeal after the parties briefed and obtained rulings from the trial court that compelled the case to binding arbitration in lieu of a jury trial on all issues. The appellate decision of October 24, 2013 did not decide the merits of the case, but discussed the issues to be decided in the eventual merits decision. The significance of the issues presented and the interlocutory nature of this appeal both make this case worth watching for further appellate proceedings.
The core issue in this appeal was the applicability of Colorado’s Uniform Arbitration Act (C.R.S. § 13-22-201, et seq.), based on recorded Declarations filed by the developer. The Declarations mandated that the HOA arbitrate any design/construction disputes with the developer. Immediately prior to suit, the Association sought to amend the Declarations in order to avoid the arbitration process for these claims. The interlocutory appellate issues resulted from the trial court’s order compelling the arbitration over the objections of the Association.
The trial court’s decision was based on a reading of the Colorado Revised Non-Profit Corporation Act (“CRNPC,” at C.R.S. § 7-127-107), which was found applicable to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
How I Prevailed on a Remote Jury Trial
March 04, 2024 —
Samuel Yu - Kahana FeldAre you crazy? That is what I asked my client when he asked me to conduct a jury trial remotely. At the time, I did not even know if it was feasible. While I figured that most courtrooms had remote capabilities, I was not sure whether anyone was crazy enough to do a jury trial remotely and whether a courtroom would accommodate it. Would I be able to truly connect with the jurors? Would the jurors hold it against me that I am appearing remotely while they have to be there in person? I told my client that this was a terrible idea but that I would at least see if it was an option.
At the Final Status Conference, the Court confirmed that it could accommodate a remote appearance for both the party and the party’s counsel and gave its permission to do so. It was also clear that I would be the only attorney exercising this option, and the judge remarked that this would be a first for him. Appearing remotely while other attorneys appear in person is not something I would normally consider. However, this case presented a unique set of circumstances.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Samuel Yu, Kahana FeldMs. Yu may be contacted at
syu@kahanafeld.com
Property Damage to Non-Defective Work Is Covered
February 18, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe New Hampshire Supreme Court found some of the property damage evolving from the insured's portion of the work was covered under its liability policy. Cogswell Farm Condo. Ass'n v. Tower Group, Inc., 2015 N.H. LEXIS 3 (N.H. Jan. 13, 2015).
Lemery Building Company, Inc. constructed and developed 24 residential condominium units. After units were sold, the Cogswell Farm Condominium Association sued Lemery, asserting that the "weather barrier" components of the units were defectively constructed and resulted in damage to the units due to water leaks. Cogswell then sued its insurer, Tower Group, Inc., seeking a declaratory judgment that its claims against Lemery were covered.
The trial court eventually determined that exclusions J (1) and J (6) both applied to exclude coverage. Exclusion J (1) excluded coverage for "property damage" to property that Lemery "owns, rents, or occupies." Exclusion J (6) excluded coverage for property damage to "[t] hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because [Lemery's] work was incorrectly performed on it."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insured Entitled to Defense After Posting Medical Records Online
September 17, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer had a duty to defend the insured contractor's publication of medical records online, making them accessible to anyone. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Portal Heathcare Solutions, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. 110987 (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 2014).
Portal specialized in safekeeping of medical records for hospitals, clinics, and other medical providers. Portal was sued in a class action suit filed in New York state court for failing to safeguard the confidential medical records of patients at Glen Falls Hospital. Two patients of Glen Falls conducted a Google search of their respective names, and found a direct link to their Glen Falls medical records.
Travelers provided policies to Portal in 2012 and 2013, obligating Travelers to cover damages because of injury arising from (1) the "electronic publication of material that . . . gives unreasonable publicity to a person's private life" (the 2012 policy) or (2) the "electronic publication of material that . . . disclosed information about a person's private life" (the 2013 policy).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Potential Coverage Issues Implicated by the Champlain Towers Collapse
March 21, 2022 —
Theresa A. Guertin & Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In June 24, 2021, the Champlain Towers South in Surfside, Florida collapsed, killing nearly 100 individuals (the “Collapse”). As experts uncover more information regarding the cause of the Collapse, those individuals who have filed lawsuits as well as the potentially culpable defendants are looking to insurers for coverage of their bodily injury and property damage claims.
Contractors, engineers, and other professionals are or anticipate being sued for their roles in the Collapse. Those professionals have professional liability policies and/or director and officer liability policies. Likewise, the condominium association’s commercial general liability (CGL) policies and its business property policy may have a duty to defend and/or indemnify their insureds as well. Finally, individual unit owners/renters may look to their homeowners’ insurance, auto insurance, health insurance, and/or life insurance policies for coverage.1
The potential breadth of insurance coverage issues raised by the Collapse is beyond the scope of this article. The article will consider some concerns that could impact insurance coverage under a standard CGL policy in the case of a building collapse.
Reprinted courtesy of
Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at TGuertin@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
One Shot to Get It Right: Navigating the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace
January 18, 2021 —
Natale DiNatale, Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Emily A. Zaklukiewicz, Kayla N. West & Abby M. Warren - Construction ExecutiveThe Food and Drug Administration has granted Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines. As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, employers across all industries may be considering whether to adopt a vaccination policy requiring vaccination as a condition of working and/or accessing the workplace or jobsite. The FDA’s recent authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine raises several legal and practical issues that employers may wish to consider as they prepare for widespread distribution and availability of the vaccine in 2021.
Mandating the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued guidance suggesting that employers may mandate that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccination, subject to certain limitations. The EEOC has taken the position that administration of the COVID-19 vaccine does not implicate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because administration of the vaccine is not a medical examination. Under the EEOC’s guidance, employers, regardless of the industry, may require that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine without having to justify that the mandate is job related and consistent with business necessity. Beyond that, construction employers should be aware of numerous issues and risks associated with mandatory vaccine policies.
Reprinted courtesy of Natale DiNatale, Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Emily A. Zaklukiewicz, Kayla N. West & Abby M. Warren of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.
Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.
The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”
Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”
The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”
Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”
The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.
Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.
Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”
The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prior Occurrence Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defects
April 11, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiWhile the insured's faulty work constituted an occurrence under Florida law, a prior occurrence exclusion barred coverage. Pro-Tech Caulking & Waterproofing v. TIG Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12319 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2022).
Pro-Tech was a waterproofing subcontractor for construction of a oceanfront condominium building and was responsible for the installation of waterproofing systems on the Project. Pro-Tech entered into a separate contract with the developer, BRE Point Parcel, LLC to install a traffic coating on the garage floors.
BRE sued the general contractor, Pro-Tech and others for construction defects. The underlying action alleged that Pro-Tech, among other things, failed to wrap the filter fabric to protect the weep holes, improperly installed sealants between the stucco and the underside of the horizontal tile at the balcony slab edge, and failed to properly install traffic coating in one garage. The underlying complaint did not state exactly when the "property damage" resulting from Pro-Tech's alleged defective work occurred.
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
