Connecticut Federal District Court Follows Majority Rule on Insurance Policy Anti-Assignment Clauses
March 20, 2023 —
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A recent decision by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut further confirms that Connecticut courts follow the majority rule that contractual anti-assignment clauses do not bar assignment of an insured’s claim after the loss occurred.1
The September 2022 decision in
Am. Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. v. 51 Roses Mill LLC arose out of a fire that destroyed a property under contract for sale. At the time of the fire, the property was owned by Bridge33 Capital LLC (“Bridge33”), insured by American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“American Guarantee”), and under contract for sale to 51 Roses Mill LLC (“51 Roses”). After the fire, Bridge33 assigned its insurance claim to 51 Roses. American Guarantee filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the assignment was invalid, or that, if it was valid, 51 Roses could only recover under the actual cash value, rather than the replacement cost value, of the lost property. 51 Roses brought counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith and sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to replacement cost value under the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. may be contacted at
coverage@sdvlaw.com
Update: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in West Virginia v. EPA
August 03, 2022 —
Anne Idsal Austin, Shelby L. Dyl & Sheila McCafferty Harvey - PillsburyTakeaways
- The Supreme Court sided with a coalition of states and coal mining companies constraining EPA’s ability to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants.
- The Supreme Court’s deployment of the “major questions doctrine” could have far-reaching implications for agencies’ authority to take actions that are politically and economically significant.
- The Court also announced a broad interpretation of standing, finding that the challengers could bring their suit notwithstanding EPA’s announced nonenforcement of the Clean Power Plan and intent to engage in a rulemaking to replace it.
Introduction
On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA, invalidating the 2015 Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP). Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, holding that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to devise emissions caps based on “generation shifting”—the approach EPA took in the CPP wherein power plants would be required to transition from higher-emitting (e.g., coal) to lower-emitting (e.g., natural-gas) to then even lower-emitting (e.g., wind and solar) electricity production.
The Court’s holding that the case was justiciable despite the Biden administration’s stated intent to repeal the Clean Power Plan and engage in a new rulemaking, as well as its deployment of the “major questions doctrine,” is likely to have far-reaching implications for legal challenges to all administrative agency actions.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anne Idsal Austin, Pillsbury,
Shelby L. Dyl, Pillsbury and
Sheila McCafferty Harvey, Pillsbury
Ms. Austin may be contacted at anne.austin@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Dyl may be contacted at shelby.dyl@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Harvey may be contacted at sheila.harvey@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Big Policyholder Win in Michigan
January 05, 2017 —
Jeremiah M. Welch – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Jeremiah Welch and
Michael Barrese recently had a big win in front of the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The case (Skanska-Schweitzer v. Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan) involved Skanska’s claim for defense and indemnity from Farm Bureau Ins. Co. of Michigan for an injury to an elementary school student arising out of the removal of playground equipment by a landscaping company, Horrocks. Farm Bureau denied coverage because it claimed that the work was not part of Horrocks’ contract with the project owner and therefore Skanska, the construction manager, did not qualify as an additional insured on the policy.
SDV argued that the AI endorsement did not specify that Horrocks’ work be performed as part of its contract with the owner; it only required that the work be performed “for Skanska.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremiah M. Welch, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Welch may be contacted at
jmw@sdvlaw.com
The “Climate 21 Project” Prepared for the New Administration
December 21, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a brief review of the recently released “Climate 21 Project” policy memo. It is the work of many former members of the Obama Administration who are deeply concerned about climate change and what steps the new administration can take in the first 100 days to confront a problem. Offering “actionable advice” rather than a policy agenda, the group recognizes that Congress must do its part by providing new statutory authorities within the early days of the new administration, and the President must be prepared to aggressively exercise the powers of his office. As the members of the Group see it, there are four interlocking crises facing the President: (a) the COVID-19 pandemic; (b) the economic devastation visited upon many people by the pandemic; (c) racial injustice; and (d) accelerating threats posed by climate change.
Accordingly:
1. The Executive Office of the President must take stronger steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through domestic investment, rulemakings, policy changes, and international diplomacy. A new Special Assistant for Climate Change must be created to take charge of these climate change initiatives. There should also be established in the Executive Office of the President a National Climate Change Council. All agencies must be advised of the urgency of this problem. The paper seems to envision a substantial growth in the White Hose staff.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Waiver of Subrogation Enforced, Denying Insurers Recovery Against Additional Insured in $500 Million Off-Shore Oil Rig Loss
September 30, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently rejected a claim by a group of insurance companies (“Underwriters”) against American Global Maritime Inc. for more than $500 million that the Underwriters paid the named insured under an Off-Shore Construction Risk insurance policy for losses resulting from the an alleged off-shore oil rig failure.
The action arose out of alleged construction defects related to Chevron’s “Big Foot” oil-drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron hired American Global to be the marine warranty surveyor responsible for reviewing and certifying the project’s specifications and materials. American Global issued the certificate of approval required for the project to proceed; however, during the attempted installation of the platform in 2015, it was alleged that parts from the structure fell to the sea floor. The Underwriters paid more than $500 million in connection with the incident under an Off-Shore Construction insurance policy they had issued to Chevron.
After paying the claim, the Underwriters filed a negligence action against American Global and other contractors involved in the project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews & Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel , Hunton Andrews & Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Whose Employee is it Anyway?: Federal Court Finds No Coverage for Injured Subcontractor's Claim Based on Modified Employer's Liability Exclusion
September 28, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn Nagog Real Estate Consulting Corp. v. Nautilus Insurance Co.,1 the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that an insurer had no duty to defend its insureds against claims brought by an injured subcontractor, based on an overbroad employer’s liability exclusion in the policy.
Nautilus Insurance Company issued a commercial general liability policy to developer Nagog Homes LLC and its related construction company, Nagog Real Estate. The policy was endorsed with an Employer’s Liability Exclusion (the L205 Endorsement) that expanded the scope of the standard exclusion in the coverage form to include bodily injury claims of employees of “any” insured and their contractors or subcontractors, as opposed to simply the employees of the named insured.
Nagog Homes was the developer, and Nagog Real Estate was the general contractor for a residential construction project. An employee of the framing subcontractor hired by Nagog Real Estate was injured while working on the project and sued both Nagog entities for his injuries. Nautilus, relying on the modified employer’s liability exclusion, denied coverage for the lawsuit based on allegations that the Nagog entities hired the framing subcontractor to perform work, which effectively made the plaintiff an employee of one or both of the Nagog entities.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita , Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“A No-Lose Proposition?”
October 07, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause.
In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….”
The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:
“[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
PSA: New COVID Vaccine ETS Issued by OSHA
November 08, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsBack in September, Joe Biden announced that his administration would mandate vaccinations for employers with over 100 employees. Today, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued
the emergency temporary standard implementing that mandate.
While I have not had a chance to thoroughly review the standard and how it will impact the clients of my firm or those in the Virginia construction industry, OSHA provided
a fact sheet outlining the basics that I recommend you review as soon as possible.
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
