BHA at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law
October 21, 2015 —
CDJ STAFFBert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., (BHA) is proud to be partnering with the State Bar of Texas, Construction Law Section, as a sponsor and exhibitor at The Basic Course in Texas Construction Law to be held November 12 & 13, 2015 at The Westin Austin at The Domain.
With offices in San Antonio and Houston, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in over 5,500 cases. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of developers, general contractors and subcontractors.
BHA’s experience covers the full range of construction defect litigation, including single and multi-family residential (including high-rise), institutional (schools, hospitals and government buildings), commercial, and industrial claims. BHA also specializes in coverage, exposure, premises liability and delay claim analysis.
As the dynamic litigation climate in Texas continues to change, and as the number of construction defect and other construction-related cases continues to rise and become more sophisticated, it is more important than ever for contractors and builders to be aggressive in preparing for claims before they are made, and in defending against those claims once they are filed.
Since 1993, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting services, and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, in Texas and across the Western United States.
Register for the Basic Course...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage Established for Property Damage Caused by Added Product
April 28, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Minnesota law, the federal district court determined the supplier of contaminated dried milk had coverage. The Netherlands Ins. Co. v. Main Street Ingredients, LLC, 2014 WL 1012793 (8th Cir. March 18, 2014).
In 2007, Plainview Milk Products sold dried milk to Main Street Ingredients, LLC, who then sold the dried milk to Malt-O-Meal. The dried milk was used by Malt-O-Meal in its instant oatmeal products.
In June 2009, the FDA found Salmonella bacteria at Plainview's plant. The FDA also observed thirteen instances of insanitary conditions in the plant. Plainview issued a product recall notice announcing a "voluntary recall" of dried milk, stating its dried milk had "the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Several other insurance companies were party to this case. In the earlier case, the US District Court of Appeals for Arizona had granted a summary judgment to Ohio Casualty Group and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. At the heart of it, is a dispute over construction defect coverage.
The general contractor for Astragal Luxury Villas, GFTDC, contracted with American Family to provide it with a commercial liability policy. Coverage was issued to various subcontractors by Ohio Casualty and National Fire. These policies included blanket additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to GFTDC. The subcontractor policies had provisions making their coverage excess over other policies available to GFTDC.
The need for insurance was triggered when the Astragal Condominium Unit Owners Association filed a construction defect claim in the Arizona Superior Court. CFTDC filed a third-party claim against several subcontractors. The case was settled with American Family paying the settlement, after which it filed seeking reimbursement from the subcontractor’s insurers. The court instead granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and National Fire.
American Family appealed to the Ninth Circuit for a review of the summary judgment, arguing that the “other insurance” clauses were “mutually repugnant and unenforceable.” The Ninth Circuit cited a case from the Arizona Court of Appeals that held that “where two policies cover the same occurrence and both contain ‘other insurance’ clauses, the excess insurance provisions are mutually repugnant and must be disregarded. Each insurer is then liable for a pro rate share of the settlement or judgment.”
The court noted that unlike other “other insurance” cases, the American Family policy “states that it provides primary CGL coverage for CFTDC and is rendered excess only if there is ‘any other primary insurance’ available to GFTDC as an additional insured.” They note that “the American Family policy purports to convert from primary to excess coverage only if CFTDC has access to other primary insurance as an additional insured.”
In comparison, the court noted that “the ‘other insurance’ language in Ohio Casualty’s additional insured endorsement cannot reasonably be read to contradict, or otherwise be inconsistent with, the ‘other primary insurance’ provision in the American Family policy.” They find other reasons why National Fire’s coverage did not supersede American Family’s. In this case, the policy is “written explicitly to apply in excess.”
Finally, the Astragal settlement did not exhaust American Family’s coverage, so they were obligated to pay out the full amount. The court upheld the summary dismissal of American Family’s claims.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good
November 02, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPTales of subcontractors who close up shop before paying their employees are not all that uncommon, but they are certainly not common enough to require General Contractors to pay for that same labor twice. Last month, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1701, which requires the General Contractor of a private construction project to pay all unpaid wages and fringe benefits owed to an employee of a subcontractor, irrespective of the tier, and even if the General Contractor made the payment. With the Governor’s recent signature, Assembly Bill No. 1701 is now the law of the land. Here is what you need to know:
- It applies to all private (but not public) construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018;
- It gives a subcontractor’s employee a direct cause of action against the General Contractor for any unpaid wages and fringe benefits, even if the General Contractor has fully paid the subcontractor;
- It gives a third party owed fringe or other benefits a cause of action against the General Contractor;
- All actions by the employee or third party must be filed within one year of the earliest of the recordation of the notice of completion, the recordation of the notice of cessation of work, or the actual completion of the work;
- The General Contractor cannot contract to avoid the liability imposed by Assembly Bill No. 1701, but it can seek indemnity from the subcontractor; and
- At the General Contractor’s request, the subcontractor shall provide the General Contractor with its payroll records.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “How Bad Is It?”
September 25, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyHow bad is it?
“Not that bad,” said an Illinois federal court to a surety which was complaining that its subcontract performance bond terms had not been satisfied by the obligees on the bonds (the general contractor and the building owner).
In response to $3.6 million demand by the obligees on the performance bond, the surety filed an action in federal court in Illinois seeking to have the court declare that the surety had no further obligation on its performance bond. The surety urged that the obligees had not fulfilled the prerequisite requirements in the bond to make a claim on the bond (which, although the court never identified the bond form, was a bond form that closely resembled the AIA A312-2010 performance bond).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
El Paso Increases Surety Bond Requirement on Contractors
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe city of El Paso has recently increased surety bonds required of contractors from $10,000 to $50,000, according to the El Paso Times. Proponents of the increase believe it was necessary to protect homeowners from fly-by-night builders, while opponents argue that the increase will have an adverse effect on an industry in that is already suffering due to the economic slowdown.
Arguments for and against the increase have been flooding the blogosphere with their views. Christian Dorobantescu on the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog claims that “only about 15% of the city’s 2,500 contractors had been able to secure a higher bond to remain eligible for work after the new requirements were announced.” However, insurance companies have a different take. “From a surety broker standpoint, most contractors will be able qualify for the bond; some will just have to pay higher premium rates to obtain it,” a recent post on the Surety1 blog argues.
While the increased bond may help homeowners deal with construction defect claims, it is not clear what effect it will have on builders in El Paso.
Read more from the El Paso Times…
Read more from the Small Business Entrepreneur Blog…
Read more from the Surety1 Blog…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Claims are on the Rise Due to Pandemic-Related Issues
April 25, 2022 —
Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ StaffAccording to a recent
New York Times article, pandemic-related issues such as “stop-and-start construction, global supply chain issues, pressure from lenders and yo-yoing housing prices” has caused an increase in construction defect suits for new apartment developments: “Complaints and legal claims are already emerging, signaling that a confluence of all factors amid the Covid crisis could continue to be a problem for new construction — from entry-level studios to top-tier penthouses — for years to come, according to lawyers and development consultants.”
A Times analysis of Department of Buildings data by Marketproof demonstrated an increase in complaints beginning March 1st, 2020: “During the first year of the pandemic, new residential buildings recorded an average of five complaints per building, a 46 percent jump from the same period the previous year.”
Steven D. Sladkus, a partner at Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas told the Times that his “'phone’s been ringing off the hook' with complaints from homeowners in new condo buildings” regarding “heating problems, poor sound insulation, fire safety issues and faulty elevators.”
Developers have faced a variety of pandemic-related challenges including a disrupted supply chain, shut downs, shipping delays, labor shortages, and increased material prices. In 2020, the lack of availability of vaccines caused some construction to halt: “Suddenly one guy calls in sick and the whole crew of electricians can’t show up,” Steven Zirinsky, co-chair of the building codes committee at the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects told the Times.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?
September 26, 2022 —
Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogRecent research I did on a case led me to the conclusion that Arizona law recognizes foreign litigation (i.e., a lawsuit filed outside of Arizona) as a justification for the recording of a lis pendens against real property located within Arizona. See
TWE Retirement Fund Trust v. Ream, 198 Ariz. 268 (Ct. App. 2000). Apparently, there’s some debate about whether foreign litigation can support a local lis pendens. See
Boca Petroco, Inc. v. Petroleum Realty II, 285 Ga. 487 (Ga. 2009). As noted in the TWE case, Arizona’s lis pendens statute
(A.R.S. 12-1191) does not discriminate between local or foreign “actions.” As such, if litigation is pending anywhere that affects Arizona real property, a lis pendens can (and probably should) be filed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
