Insurer Prevails on Summary Judgment for Bad Faith Claim
July 16, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted summary judgment to the insurer on the insured's claim for bad faith due to denial of the claim. Treigle v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87786 (E.D. La. May 19, 2023).
The insured's home sustained serious water damage due to Hurricane in August 2021. Her policy with State Farm excluded losses related to surface water and mold.
The insured reported the loss from Hurricane Ida after she returned to her home and found two inches of standing water in the house. State Farm advised the insured to hire a water mitigation company to help with the water. The insured contacted 7 Brothers Company to start mitigation, including tearing out the disposing of wet building materials.
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
Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?
June 06, 2022 —
Sidney L. Fowler, Robert G. Howard & Emily Huang - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogClean hydrogen has the potential to play a significant role in the energy transition by serving as a carbon-free form of energy storage and heat production. In real estate, hydrogen could provide heating, replace or supplement natural gas in many applications, or store excess rooftop solar power. The United Kingdom, United States and Japan
are all homes to pilot projects attempting to scale out hydrogen for use in communities.
As we have
discussed previously, many cities have recently passed ordinances banning the inclusion of natural gas infrastructure in new commercial and residential buildings. These bans can create headaches for real estate developers and inject uncertainty into development plans.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury,
Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and
Emily Huang, Pillsbury
Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Huang may be contacted at emily.huang@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Everyone's Moving to Seattle, and It's Stressing Out Sushi Lovers
July 16, 2014 —
Peter Robison and Alison Vekshin – BloombergSooner or later, everyone moves to Seattle, went one saying in the city’s 1990s heyday. The trouble residents face now: What happens after everyone does?
Known for hiking and the open spaces of the American West, Seattle is in the midst of another boom that’s made it the fastest-growing among the top 50 U.S. cities. That’s causing angst over density, affordability, crime and other issues more familiar to an East Coast metropolis. At the same time, pay is outpacing the national average and an already rich cultural life is thriving as new restaurants and nightspots open.
“It’s a blessing,” Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, a 59-year-old Democrat, said of the growth. “But with it comes some real challenges.”
Mr. Robison may be contacted at robison@bloomberg.net; Ms. Vekshin may be contacted at avekshin@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Robison and Alison Vekshin, Bloomberg
Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFJudge Gleuda E. Edmonds, a magistrate judge in the United States District Court of Arizona issued a ruling in Guadiana v. State Farm on January 25, 2012. Judge Edmonds recommended a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Ms. Guandiana’s home had water damage due to pluming leaks in September 2004. She was informed that polybutylene pluming in her house could not be repaired in parts “it must be completely replaced.” She had had the plumbing replaced. State Farm denied her claim, arguing that “the tear-out provision did not cover the cost of accessing and replacing those pipes that were not leaking.”
In September 2007, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss. The court rejected this motion, stating that “If Guadiana can establish as a matter of fact that the system that caused the covered loss included all the pipes in her house and it was necessary to replace all the pipes to repair that system, State Farm is obligated to pay the tear-out costs necessary to replace all the pipes, even those not leaking.”
In March 2009, State Farm filed for summary judgment, which the court granted. State Farm argued that “the tear-out provision only applied to ‘repair’ and not ‘replace’ the system that caused the covered leak.” As for the rest of the piping, State Farm argued that “the policy does not cover defective materials.”
In December 2011, Ms. Guadiana filed for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that “the policy ‘covers tear-out costs necessary to adequately repair the plumbing system, even if an adequate repair requires replacing all or part of the system.”
In her ruling, Judge Edmonds noted that Ms. Guadiana’s claim is that “the water damage is a covered loss and she is entitled to tear-out costs necessary to repair the pluming system that caused that covered loss.” She rejected State Farm’s claim that it was not obligated to replace presumably defective pipes. Further, she rejected State Farm’s argument that they were only responsible for the leaking portion, noting “Guadiana intends to prove at trial that this is an unusual case where repair of her plumbing system requires replacement of all the PB plumbing.”
Judge Edmonds concluded by directing the District Court to interpret the tear out issue as “the tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay all tear-out costs necessary to repair the plumbing system (that caused the covered loss) even if repair of the system requires accessing more than the leaking portion of the system.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Governor Inslee’s Recent Vaccination Mandate Applies to Many Construction Contractors and their Workers
September 13, 2021 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThis month Governor Jay Inslee enacted COVID vaccination requirements that apply to certain construction contractors and their workers in Washington state. Inslee’s vaccine proclamation becomes effective October 18, 2021 and requires construction contractors, subcontractors, and their workers to be fully vaccinated to perform work onsite on certain covered projects.
The following are types of covered projects where the vaccine mandate applies:
- State agencies: All contractors working at projects for Washington state agencies (including WSDOT, DES, DNR, etc.) if the work is required to be performed in person and onsite, regardless of the frequency or whether other workers are present. The vaccine mandate applies to indoor and outdoor settings and there is no exemption even if social distancing requirements can be met.
- Education/Higher Education/Child Care: All contractors performing work onsite for K-12, higher education (community colleges, technical colleges, and 4-year universities), child care and other facilities where students or persons receiving services are present. New and unoccupied projects are exempt but it does apply to public and private projects.
- Medical facilities: All contractors performing work at a “healthcare setting” where patients receiving care are present. “Healthcare setting” is defined as any public or private setting that is primarily used for the delivery of in-person health care services to people. “Healthcare setting” includes portions of a multi-use facility, but only the areas that are primarily used for the delivery of health care, such as a pharmacy within a grocery store. Additional information is on the state’s Q&A page.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
A Few Construction Related Bills to Keep an Eye On in 2023 (UPDATED)
February 20, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThe annual General Assembly session is now well underway here in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As is always the case, those in our fine state legislature have introduced with varying success a few construction-related bills. This post will list just a few without comment, and a big one at the end that will likely spur a post or two down the road here at Construction Law Musings:
HB1490:
Virginia Public Procurement Act; certain construction contracts; performance and payment bonds. Allows localities to allow a contractor of indefinite-delivery or quantity contracts, defined in the bill, who is otherwise required to furnish performance and payment bonds in the sum of the contract amount to the public body with which he contracted to furnish such bonds only the dollar amount of the individual tasks identified in the underlying contract. Such contractors shall not be required to furnish the sum of the contract amount if the governing locality has adopted such an ordinance.
UPDATE: Passed the House and is being considered in the Senate
UPDATE 2: A
substitute bill has passed both the House and the Senate.
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
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably
October 26, 2017 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessA new Danish study shows how the use of a shared digital management and communication platform on large-scale construction projects leads to considerable cost reductions.
The Danish Building Research Institute conducted a six-month research project that studied the effects of using a specific IT concept during construction. The three case studies were:
1. The Maersk Tower, a 15-story, 42,700-square-meter extension to the Panum complex.
2. The Niels Bohr Building, a 52,000-square-meter new laboratory and academic building.
3. The Danish Defence’s Property Agency’s construction project portfolio (FES).
Each of them used GenieBelt as the shared IT platform. It was used for the progress management of a construction project portfolio, management of construction activities, and communication between the construction management team and contractors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
info@aepartners.fi
