Court Holds That Parent Corporation Lacks Standing to Sue Subsidiary’s Insurers for Declaratory Relief
May 12, 2016 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn D. Cummins Corp. v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty (no. A142985, filed 3/30/16), a California Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a declaratory relief action filed by the parent holding company of an insured corporation seeking coverage for asbestos claims.
Cummings Corp. installed asbestos containing products in California. It had been insured by USF&G between 1969 and 1992. Cummings Holding, LLC was the parent and majority shareholder of Cummings Corp., which had no assets. The holding company claimed to be “the sole entity responsible for managing the affairs of Cummins Corp., including making decisions as to litigation strategy, resolution and settlement,” and sued USF&G seeking a declaratory judgment that the insurer was obligated to defend and/or indemnify Cummins Corp., “in full, including, without limitation, payment of the cost of investigation, defense, settlement and judgment . . . , for past, present and future Asbestos Suits.” The insurer demurred on the ground that the holding company had insufficient interest in its insurance policies and, consequently, lacked standing to sue for declaratory relief.
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Defenses Raised Three-Years Too Late Estop Insurer’s Coverage Denial
February 21, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogLiability insurance typically affords broad defense coverage. But insurers sometimes reserve their right to challenge the insured’s right to a defense, or even outright terminate the defense. When this occurs after the insurer has been in exclusive control of the defense, some courts recognize that the consequences can be catastrophic for the insured defendant. Insurers, therefore, may be estopped from denying coverage where doing so will prejudice the insured. This is exactly what transpired in RLI Ins. Co. v. AST Engineering Corp., No. 20-214 (2d Cir. Jan. 12, 2022), where the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that an insurer’s attempt to withdraw the defense it had provided to its insured for three years would prejudice the insured.
In AST Engineering, RLI sought a declaration that it did not have to defend the insured, AST, in two underlying cases in which AST was sued as a third-party defendant. The underlying cases concerned a construction project in New York City for which AST provided engineering drawings on October 28, 2012.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute
September 03, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Jessica M. Lassere Ryland - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn August 27, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal weighed in on whether prevailing wages are required for public contracts in situations where work is performed in furtherance of the project but at a permanent offsite manufacturing facility that is not exclusively dedicated to the project. In Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 401 v. John C. Duncan and Russ Will Mechanical, the project at issue was for a community college district where Russ Will was the HVAC subcontractor. The contract documents required contractors to pay prevailing wages but they did not limit where or how Russ Will would fabricate sheet metal required for the job. Russ Will used its existing fabrication facility to form the sheet metal.
An employee of Russ Will filed a complaint with the DIR alleging he should have been paid prevailing wages for work related to the project. The worker fabricated sheet metal for the project but at Russ Will’s Hayward facility, not at the site. The DIR issued a coverage determination in which it concluded that Russ Will was required to pay prevailing wages for the offsite fabrication work associated with the project. The DIR's determination turned on whether Russ Will was exempt from the prevailing wage law as a material supplier. To qualify for the material supplier exemption, the employer must sell supplies to the general public and its fabrication or manufacturing facility must not be established for the particular public works contract or be located at the site of the public work.
Following the DIR determination, Rush Will filed an administrative appeal. The department reversed its initial coverage determination, concluding that the offsite fabrication performed by Russ Will was not subject to the prevailing wage law.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builder’s Risk Coverage—Construction Defects
August 20, 2019 —
Brian Hearst - Construction ExecutiveThis is the second of three articles bringing clarity to the complex and challenging course of construction exposures and providing solutions for mitigating risk through builder’s risk insurance coverage. Part I, Builder’s Risk Coverage – Language Matters, addressed a select few critical exposures to projects under the course of construction. Part II addresses how a standard builder’s risk policy may respond to a loss arising from defective construction and alternative insurance market offerings that can help with specific costs associated with construction defect loss.
Coverage for Loss Ensuing from Faulty Workmanship
Part I tackled the standard builder’s risk exclusion that applies to losses arising from faulty materials or workmanship. Traditionally, carriers do not have an appetite for covering a contractor’s failure to perform their work properly. There is one exception, which is coverage is available for ensuing loss – or the resulting damage to other property from faulty workmanship.
If the excluded cause of loss (i.e., faulty workmanship) causes resultant damage, the builder’s risk policy will cover the damages to the extent the peril of fire is covered. The ensuing loss exception limits the faulty work exclusion to costs directly related to repairing or replacing the faulty work.
For example, suppose faulty wiring work leads to a fire which damages part of a structure under construction. The faulty workmanship exclusion would apply to the actual faulty wiring work, but if fire is a covered peril under the policy (this is nearly always the case), the policy would respond to the structure’s fire damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Hearst, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Hearst may be contacted at
Brian.Hearst@lockton.com
A Look Back at the Ollies
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence, also known as the “Ollie” award, is presented to “an individual who is outstanding or has contributed to the betterment of the construction defect community.” West Coast Casualty asks members of the construction defect community to nominate those they feel are deserving of the award, and then members vote for one of four nominees. The award is presented at the West Coast Casualty Seminar. Those recognized receive a plaque and a donation in the winner’s name to Habitat for Humanity as well as a local California and Nevada charity.
Jerrold S. Oliver was a “’founding father’ in the alternate resolution process in construction defect claims and litigation. His loyalty and commitment to this community were beyond mere words as he was a true believer in the process of resolution.”
Past Award Winners:
1996 - Awarded to Ross R. Hart, Esq. (Mediator - American Arbitration Assoc.)
1997 - Awarded to Merv Thompson, Esq. (Mediator in private practice)
1999 - Awarded to Tom Craigo, (Adjuster - C.N.A. Insurance Company)
2000 - Awarded to Kristi Cole, (Adjuster - Safeco Insurance Company)
2001 - Awarded to Karen Rice, (Claims Manager - ACE / USA)
2002 - Awarded to Stephen Henning, Esq. (Wood, Smith, Henning and Berman, LLP)
2003 - Awarded to Ross Feinberg, Esq. (Feldscott, Lee, Feinberg, Grant and Mayfield LLP)
2004 - Awarded to Janet Shipes (Adjuster – C.N.A. Insurance Company)
2005 - Awarded to Edward Martinet (Expert – MC Consultants)
2006 - Awarded to Hon. Victoria V. Chaney (Judge – Los Angeles Superior Court)
2007 - Awarded to Bruce Edwards, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2008 - Awarded to Gerald Kurland, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2009 - Awarded to Keith Koeller, Esq. (Koeller, Nebecker, Carlson and Haluck, LLP)
2010 - Awarded to Terry Wolcott – (Construction Defect Manager – Travelers Ins. Co.)
2011 - Awarded to George Calkins, Esq. (Mediator) JAMS
2012 - Awarded to Joyia Greenfield, Esq. (Lorber, Greenfield and Polito, LLP)
2013 - Awarded to Margee Luper (Claim Manager – XL Insurance Group)
2014 - Awarded to Matt Liedle, Esq. (Liedle, Lounsbery, Larson & Lidl, LLP)
2015 - Awarded to Robert A. Bellagamba, Esq. (Special Master/Mediator, Castle & Dekker)
2016 - Awarded to Lisa Unger, (Senior Claims Examiner, Global Management Liability Markel)
2017 - Awarded to Caryn Siebert, (Vice President, Claims, Knight Insurance Group)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NYC Condo Skyscraper's Builder Wins a Round -- With a Catch
November 15, 2017 —
Oshrat Carmiel - BloombergThe battle over whether an 800-foot condo tower planned for Manhattan’s East Side can be built to its full height took a step forward Wednesday -- with city officials saying both yes, and no.
A years-long neighborhood lobbying effort to cap the height of new towers near the East 50s riverfront won an endorsement Wednesday from the planning commission, which agreed to rezone the area in a way that would make skyscraping condo towers impossible to build. But commissioners also voted to allow Sutton 58, the under-construction project that inspired the rezoning push, to be grandfathered in under the new law, and proceed as is.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
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
Connecticut Answers Critical Questions Regarding Scope of Collapse Coverage in Homeowners Policies in Insurers’ Favor
February 10, 2020 —
Kevin Sullivan - Traub LiebermanNationwide, homeowners’ insurers routinely face foundation wall collapse claims. But in Connecticut, where at least 30,000 homes are believed to have been constructed in the 1980s and 1990s with defective concrete, the scope of homeowners insurance for collapse claims has been a closely watched issue. In Jemiola v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., 2019 WL 5955904 (Conn. Nov. 12, 2019), the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that a collapse coverage grant requiring “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose” is unambiguous and enforceable.
In Jemiola, the insured homeowner purchased her home in 1986 and insured it continuously with the same insurer. In 2006, the homeowner noticed cracking in a basement wall, and was informed that the cracking likely resulted from defective concrete used in the construction of the home. The homeowner made a claim under her policy’s collapse coverage, which the insurer denied because the cracking did not compromise the structural integrity of the foundation walls. In the resulting lawsuit, the insured’s expert opined that the defective concrete substantially impaired the foundation walls’ structural integrity, but that this impairment did not commence until 2006 when the homeowner first noticed the cracking. Accordingly, the court analyzed coverage under the collapse coverage grant in effect in 2006, which defined collapse to mean “an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building… with the result that the building… cannot be occupied for its intended purpose.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Sullivan, Traub LiebermanMr. Sullivan may be contacted at
ksullivan@tlsslaw.com
