Top 10 Insurance Cases of 2024
January 21, 2025 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Michelle A. Grieco - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Federal and state courts tackled a myriad of interesting insurance-related issues this past year. The U.S. Supreme Court also surprisingly addressed coverage issues in 2024, in not one—but two—decisions. It is rare for the Supreme Court to confront insurance coverage issues which usually involve matters of state law. The highest court’s assessment of the nuances of insurance to resolve maritime choice of law issues and interpret an insurer’s role in bankruptcy proceedings is indicative of the significant role that insurance coverage plays in resolving commercial disputes.
Additionally, 2024 included a pivotal opinion from the 5th Circuit, which welcomed the principle that negligent construction can constitute “property damage” under a CGL policy if it causes a harmful change to the property. Elsewhere in the country, the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that reckless conduct can qualify as an “accident” under a CGL policy’s definition of “occurrence”; however, the court simultaneously ruled that greenhouse gases fall within the scope of “pollutants” under the policy’s pollution exclusion. Cyber coverage decisions were also prominent, and the 5th Circuit chimed in with an interesting decision interpreting the scope of coverage afforded under a “system failure” provision. These decisions represent a mere sampling of the multitude of insurance issues courts nationwide have grappled with in 2024.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Michelle A. Grieco, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Grieco may be contacted at MGrieco@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pinnacle Controls in Verano
February 21, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has applied the California Supreme Court’s recent Pinnacle decision to a new case, Verano Condominium Association v. La Cima Development. As in Pinnacle, La Cima sought to compel arbitration of construction defect claims with a homeowners association. The trial court denied La Cima’s attempt to compel arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was made with the individual homeowners and not the homeowners association. Further, it was determined that the CC&Rs “were unenforceable due to unconscionability.”
La Cima appealed, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. After Pinnacle, La Cima sought a review. The Supreme Court of California directed the appeals court to vacate their earlier decision and reconsider, based on Pinnacle.
The Fourth Circuit Court has concluded that this conflicted with the ruling in Pinnacle. There, as in Verano, homeowners signed agreements that disputes with the developer would be settled through binding arbitration. The appeals court had found for the community association, but on review, the California Supreme Court reversed this decision.
The California Court of Appeals had two issue to consider in this review: whether the arbitration provisions applied to the homeowners association, and whether these provisions were unconscionable. The court concluded that “in light of Pinnacle it is clear the arbitration provisions set forth in the Verano CC&Rs constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate.” On the second question, the Verano CC&Rs were described by the court as “materially indistinguishable” from those in the earlier case. As the state Supreme Court found that those were not unconscionable, clearly neither were these.
The case was remanded for further proceedings and La Cima is entitled to recover the costs of the appeal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yet Another Reminder that Tort and Contract Don’t Mix
January 25, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have stated on numerous occasions here at Musings that in Virginia, contract claims and tort claims (read fraud) don’t mix. A recent case from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia presents another example of this principle. In Itility LLC v. The Staffing Resource Group, Judge Ellis of the Alexandria Division, considered ITility’s claims of fraud and breach of contract against SRG and one of its officers based upon SRG’s alleged violation of its duties under a teaming agreement. The claim by ITility was that TSRG provided false and misleading resumes and thus damaged ITility. SRG filed a Motion to Dismiss and the Court was therefore required to resolve the following issues: (1) whether plaintiff’s fraud claim is barred by Virginia’s “source of duty” rule; (2) whether plaintiff’s claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy is barred by SRG’s participation in the business expectancy, and (3) whether the teaming agreement between the parties bars plaintiff’s claims for consequential and punitive damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Force Majeure, Construction Delays, Labor Shortages and COVID-19
April 06, 2020 —
Elizabeth J. Dye - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe global effect of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is still unknown, and the progress of many large-scale construction projects has been affected by “Shelter in Place” orders, although some states and localities have classified construction projects as “essential.” Just last Friday, New York shut down all construction, with few exceptions.
Several states have enacted gathering bans of all sizes (including Michigan, Oregon, New Mexico, Washington, New York, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, California) and more people are likely to be quarantined as widespread testing becomes available. These decisions will undoubtedly affect the supply of materials and labor necessary for construction projects.
Officials have turned to increasingly disruptive and measures to control the spread of the virus in addition to event prohibitions and school closures, including restricting people to their homes, and closing businesses that are not “essential.” While many companies have adopted mandatory telecommuting, this is an impossibility on the construction sites. Eventually, supply and labor shortages due to governmental restrictions or quarantines will affect the critical path of construction projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Elizabeth J. Dye, PillsburyMs. Dye may be contacted at
elizabeth.dye@pillsburylaw.com
Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects
May 15, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneIn All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court.
Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Reroof Blamed for $10 Million in Damage
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA renovation of the city hall in Bay City, Michigan went wrong when roof repairs lead to fire and flooding of the historic building. Bay City has sued Gregory Construction and Mihm Enterprises, who earlier had been awarded a $1.5 million contract to reroof the building. The cost of repairing the building is expected to exceed the city’s insurance limit of $10 million.
The fire that damaged the building is alleged to have started when a roofer allegedly used a DeWalt grinder in attempt to remove some bolts. Under the contract with the city, the contractor was not going to use grinders, due to the risk of fire. The suit alleges that further water damage was caused, beyond the damage due to the firefighting, due to the contractor failing to “secure a section of the roof which was part of the Roofing Project with a tarp or other water-resistant covering.”
The contractors dispute the claims made by Bay City, with Gregory Construction describing them as “untrue and contrary to the facts.” Gregory Construction also claims that their obligations were delegated to Mihn Enterprises. Mihn Enterprises disputes this and states that they do not “owe a duty to the Plaintiffs; as a result their negligence claim is unenforceable as a matter of law.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability
September 10, 2014 —
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract.
In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts
May 10, 2017 —
David Kocieniewski & Caleb Melby - BloombergA company owned by the family of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, has abandoned plans to buy a sprawling industrial site in New Jersey from Honeywell International Inc., a major federal contractor, and develop it into a residential community.
Kushner Cos. had been the leading bidder for the 95-acre formerly contaminated site known as Bayfront, which is co-owned by Honeywell and Jersey City, city officials said. The company had submitted plans to build as many as 8,100 housing units to be marketed to Orthodox Jewish residents of the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn who are being priced out of that neighborhood.
Last fall, the Kushners bid about $150 million, tens of millions higher than competitors, according to people involved in the negotiations. Honeywell heard from others who would only make an offer once the environmental approvals for the cleaned-up site were final. So the bidding is scheduled to reopen later this year and Kushner Cos. had been expected to continue in the process, the people said.
But on Tuesday, when Bloomberg News asked about Bayfront, company spokesman James Yolles said the Kushners are no longer pursuing the project. He wouldn’t elaborate or explain.
Reprinted courtesy of
David Kocieniewski, Bloomberg and
Caleb Melby, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
