Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders
July 19, 2017 —
Austin D. Moody - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On June 20, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a life insurance salesman had no fiduciary duty to his customers where the customers retained decision-making authority regarding which policies to purchase. In Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., the Court returned a 4-2 verdict, overturning the lower court’s finding that it was possible that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties.
The suit arose from a series of transactions between Eugene and Ruth Yenchi and Bryan Holland, a financial advisor for IDS Life Insurance Corporation.
The relationship began when Holland cold-called the Yenchis and asked to meet with them regarding their “financial stuff.” For a fee of $350, Holland met with the Yenchis on several occasions and counseled them regarding their insurance needs. On Holland’s advice, the Yenchis cashed out several existing polices and purchased a whole-life policy for Mr. Yenchi and a deferred variable annuity in Mrs. Yenchi’s name.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Moody may be contacted at
adm@sdvlaw.com
Ninth Circuit Affirms Duty to Defend CERCLA Section 104 (e) Letter
October 10, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly — Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit held there is a duty to defend not only a PRP letter issued by the EPA, but also a section 104 (e) letter. Anderson Brothers, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18156 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2013).
The insured received two letters from the EPA notifying it of potential liability under CERCLA for environmental contamination of the Portland Harbor Superfund Site. The first letter was received in January 2008, and stated that the EPA sought the insured's cooperation in its investigation of the release of hazardous substances at the site. The letter enclosed an extensive, 82-question "Information Request" seeking information about the insured's current and former activities at the site. The letter informed the insured that its voluntary cooperation was sought, but compliance with the Information Request was required by law and failure to respond could result in an enforcement action and civil penalties of $32,500 per day. The insured tendered the 104 (e) letter to St. Paul and requested a defense and indemnity pursuant to the CGL policy. St. Paul declined to provide a defense because the letter did not constitute a "suit," which was required by the policy to trigger the duty to defend.
The second letter from the EPA, received in November 2009, was entitled "General Notice Letter for the Portland Superfund Site" and notified the insured that it was a "potentially responsible party ("PRP").
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Be Careful How You Terminate: Terminating for Convenience May Limit Your Future Rights
January 19, 2017 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC BlogMany construction contracts contain a termination clause that allows a contractor to be terminated either for convenience or for cause. Termination for convenience and termination for cause clauses have been discussed previously on the blog
here,
here and
here. The distinction between a termination for convenience or for cause is an important one.
If a contractor is terminated for convenience, the rights of the party who has terminated the contractor for convenience could be limited in the future. This is specifically true as to any defects in the terminated contractor’s work that are discovered after the termination for convenience.
This issue was addressed in an Oregon Court of Appeals case where a general contractor attempted to recover costs incurred in correcting a terminated subcontractor’s work after the subcontractor was terminated for convenience. Shelter Prods. v. Steel Wood Constr., Inc., 257 Or. App 382 (2013). In that case, the subcontractor sued the general contractor for its termination expenses. The general contractor asserted an offset/backcharge claim for damages incurred by the general contractor in correcting the subcontractor’s defective work. The general contractor had incurred the costs after it had terminated the subcontractor. The general contractor did not notify the subcontractor that its work was defective and did not give the subcontractor an opportunity to cure before the repairs were completed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
bhill@ac-lawyers.com
New York Developer gets Reprieve in Leasehold Battle
March 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to The Real Deal, a “Manhattan Supreme Court judge granted an injunction in favor of Tribeca Mews developer Thurcon Properties, which is fighting to keep the leasehold on several adjacent parcels in connection with a certificate of occupancy.”
In 2013, Thurcon Properties was sued by the condo board, who claimed “the certificate of occupancy was pushed back at the building due to a number of construction defects.” The Real Deal further reported that the condo board “claimed the developers sold about 10 units to an outside buyer, and took some of the proceeds for themselves.”
Recently, a judge “ordered Feldman Heritage, owner of the ground lease at 125 Church and several adjacent sites, to appear in court on April 30,” because he wants the lease owner “to show why Thurcon should not be given the chance to cure the alleged lease default.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rather Than Limit Decision to "That Particular Part" of Developer's Policy Necessary to Bar Coverage, 10th Circuit Renders Questionable Decision on Exclusion j(6)
September 06, 2021 —
William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, applying Colorado law, recently extended Colorado’s broad application of the phrase “arising out of” in insurance interpretation, barring an insured real estate developer from receiving a defense to a suit alleging liability for construction of a defective retaining wall and associated resulting damage.1 The decision also included a questionable analysis of the commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy’s exclusion j(6), contradicting both the plain meaning of the exclusion as well as existing 10th Circuit case law.
The underlying dispute concerned a land developer, HT Services, LLC, who was sued by the homeowner’s association (“HOA”) of one of its developments. The HOA alleged that HT Services negligently designed and constructed a retaining wall in the community. HT Services had CGL policies from Western Heritage Insurance Company in place from 2010 to 2013 that insured it for liability associated with four acres of land that the community was built upon.
HT Services tendered the HOA’s lawsuit to Western Heritage, which declined to defend and indemnify HT Services. After that matter settled, HT Services sued Western Heritage, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Western Heritage moved for summary judgment, asserting two exclusions, and the District Court granted the motion in Western Heritage’s favor. In upholding the District Court’s decision, the 10th Circuit discussed two exclusions that the District Court determined precluded coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment over Defective Archway Construction
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFA judge has ruled that a plaintiff can go forward with her suit that she was injured by a defective archway during a birthday party. A three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals issued this ruling on January 23, 2012, in the case of Trujillo v. Cosio.
Ms. Trujillo attended a birthday party at the home of Maria Cosio and Joel Verduzco. A piñata was hung between a tree and a brick archway. Ms. Trujillo went to get candy that had fallen from the piñata, during which the archway fell on her hand. Subsequent examination of the archway showed that it had not been “properly anchored to the supporting pillars to protect the arch from falling.”
Ms. Cosio and Mr. Verduzco argued that they could not have been aware of the defective nature of the archway’s construction, as it had been built at the request of the prior property owner. The structure was constructed without building permits. Mark Burns, a civil engineer testifying for the plaintiff, said that “a reasonable property owner would have thoroughly tested the archway to ensure it was capable of withstanding such horizontal forces before allowing children to enter into the area.” Mr. Burns noted that twenty rope pulls would have been sufficient to demonstrate the structure’s instability.
The trial court rejected Mr. Burn’s statements, finding that the respondents did not have any knowledge of the defect and that a visual inspection should have sufficed. The court noted that this a triable issue, whether visual inspection suffices, or whether the property owners should have done as Mr. Burns suggested and yank a rope twenty times. The court noted that “although a jury may ultimately disagree with Burn’s opinion, it was supported by sufficient foundation and was not speculative.”
The opinion was written by Judge Flier, with Judges Rubin and Grimes concurring.
Read the court’s decison…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies
March 06, 2022 —
Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsThe construction industry operates under the constant spectre of claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Fortunately, the law in most states treats these claims as covered under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies. A small minority of states take a much stingier view. In a newly decided case, a Pennsylvania federal court confirmed that Pennsylvania belongs to this small group of states that regard construction claims as not worthy of liability insurance coverage. Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Howard Lynch Plastering, Inc., No. CV 21-3977, 2022 WL 445768, (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2022).
Main St. involves a typical construction defect case: W.B. Homes (“W.B.”) developed a residential community, contracting with various trades to build the homes. W.B. required these subcontractors to obtain liability insurance covering their work and, when homeowners sued W.B. for damages due to allegedly faulty work, W.B. tendered the claim to these insurers. One of them, Main Street Assurance Co. (“Main Street”) then sued W.B. for declaratory relief, arguing that under Pennsylvania law, it had no duty to defend W.B.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Federal Court to Examine Issues of Alleged Arbitrator Conflicts of Interests in Panama Canal Case
May 24, 2021 —
Sarah B. Biser & Philip Z. Langer - ConsensusDocsThe parties in a $238-million dispute over the construction of the third set of locks for the Panama Canal are raising issues concerning alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) arbitrators in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.[2] The case may address rarely litigated issues concerning whether arbitrators who sit on multiple arbitration panels together or who support appointment of each other to lead arbitration panels have disabling conflicts of interest.
The case pits Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. (“Grupo”), a consortium of Spanish, Italian, Belgian, and Panamanian construction firms, against Autoridad del Canal de Panama (“ACP”), the Panamanian entity that operates the Panama Canal and that sponsored the multi-billion-dollar, decade-long project to expand the Canal’s capacity by building a new set of locks (the “Project”). The current dispute (the “Panama 1 Arbitration”), which centers on the suitability of the rock coming from the excavations to be used to produce concrete aggregates for the Project, was arbitrated before a three-member ICC Tribunal and resulted in a $238-million award to ACP and against Grupo. The ICC Tribunal reversed a decision of the dispute review board established in the parties’ contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP and
Philip Z. Langer, Fox Rothschild LLP
Ms. Biser may be contacted at sbiser@foxrothschild.com
Mr. Langer may be contacted at planger@foxrothschild.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
