Could You Be More Specific . . . About My Excess AI Coverage?
February 23, 2017 —
Yas Omidi - California Construction Law BlogAre you a general contractor who is pretty sure that you have additional insured coverage for some stuff under your sub-subcontractor’s excess policy? Advent, Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, Case No. H041934 (December 6, 2016) warns you to be a little more specific.
Johnson Western Gunite was the shotcrete sub-subcontractor on a job. One of its employees—specifically, Jerry Kielty—tumbled down a stairwell, sustaining severe bodily injury thereby. Kielty filed suit against the general contractor in charge of the job—Advent, Inc.—amongst others. Kielty did not name his employer Johnson in the suit. In terms of insurance:
Advent was insured under a primary insurance policy issued by Landmark American Insurance Company and an excess policy issued by Topa Insurance Company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yas Omidi, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMs. Omidi may be contacted at
yomidi@wendel.com
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wildfire Risk Scores and Insurance Placement: What You Should Know
July 15, 2024 —
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer & Molly L. Okamura - Newmeyer DillionWhat Are Wildfire Risk Scores and How Are They Calculated?
Wildfire risk scores are scores assigned to properties by third-party vendors based on the likelihood of direct or indirect exposure to a wildfire. Wildfire risk scores can be a factor used by insurance companies when making coverage decisions. Additionally, wildfire risk scores can be a helpful metric for real estate developers to consider when determining whether to buy a piece of property.
There are a variety of vendors that use unique methods to calculate wildfire risk scores. For example, CoreLogic, FireLine, and RedZone are vendors used by insurance companies in California. Some vendors' scoring scales are from 1-10, and some are from 1-100, but generally the higher the score, the higher the likelihood of a wildfire impacting the property. There is no national, standardized scoring scale.
Reprinted courtesy of
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion and
Molly L. Okamura, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Ms. Okamura may be contacted at molly.okamura@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants
October 26, 2020 —
Amber Karns & Dan Pipitone - Construction ExecutiveThe commercial construction contracting and subcontracting industry in general is unique under the law for industry professionals, as they’re typically limited to wage and hour litigation under provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The majority of FLSA cases seek class action status or collective classification, while other FLSA litigation is initiated by individuals seeking damages. For the former, past and current employees can opt into class action litigation and seek collective damages against a construction company. The looming financial burden of class action or collective litigation against construction companies consume time, money and resources to the extent it’s often advisable for Defendants to negotiate an unfair settlement.
Yet, thanks to a recent federal court decision on March 27, 2020, the legal maneuvering behind unreasonable Plaintiff demands may soon be counter-balanced by the class action Defendants’ right to due process review. A recent legal opinion in a recent FLSA case has potentially wide-ranging implications for Defendant employers mired in future class action litigation. Moreover, as the FLSA applies to all employers, this decision potentially applies to all ownership groups representing the commercial construction industry, extending to partners, contractors and subcontractors.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amber Karns & Dan Pipitone, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Pipitone may be contacted at dpipitone@munsch.com
Ms. Karns may be contacted at akarns@munsch.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Defective Construction is Not Considered "Property Damage"
September 12, 2022 —
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In the July 5, 2022, case of Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Casualty Co., the United States District Court for Colorado addressed the issue of whether damage to defectively installed balconies is considered “property damage” under Colorado law, requiring payment by a commercial general liability policy.
Facts of the Case
The case stems from a construction project where a subcontractor improperly installed balconies on an apartment complex. The owner of the project secured commercial general liability (CGL) coverage through an OCIP insured by Houston Casualty Company (HHC). The OCIP insured the general contractor and subcontractors. The general contractor also purchased a subcontractor default insurance policy insured by Indian Harbor.
All parties agreed that the subcontractor improperly installed portions of various balconies, including flashing, water-proof sealing, and water-resistant barriers, among other defects with the installation process. The parties also agreed that other portions of the balconies were properly installed. However, in order to repair the defects in the installations, every bit of each balcony had to be torn off and re-constructed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Litigation Counsel of America Honors Partner Victor Anderson with Peter Perlman Award
November 10, 2016 —
Victor R. Anderson, III – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPPartner Victor R. Anderson, III received the Peter Perlman Service Award in recognition of his efforts to improve the lives of others through his community service and charity work. The awards are presented to select attorneys throughout the year by the Litigation Counsel of America (LCA) to candidates whose exemplary contributions merit commendation.
The Litigation Counsel of America is a close-knit, peer-selected, and aggressively diverse honorary society of 3,500 of the best trial lawyers. Less than one-half of one percent of American lawyers, vigorously vetted for skills, expertise, and service are invited to be on the Counsel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victor R. Anderson, III, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Anderson may be contacted at
vanderson@hbblaw.com
Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rose at a Faster Pace in October
January 06, 2016 —
Victoria Stilwell & Michelle Jamrisko – BloombergHome values in 20 U.S. cities rose at a faster pace in the year ended October as lean inventories of available properties combined with steadily improving demand.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values climbed 5.5 percent from October 2014 after rising 5.4 percent in the year ended September, the group said Tuesday in New York. The median projection of 21 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 5.6 percent advance. Nationally, prices rose 5.2 percent year-over-year.
A limited supply of properties for sale has helped prop up home values, boosting the household wealth levels of U.S. homeowners in the process. Faster wage growth and continued low borrowing costs will be needed to keep low-income and first-time buyers in the market and provide the next leg of growth in the housing recovery.
Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg and
Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How Well Do You Know the 2012 IECC Code?
January 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe online publication Big Builder reports that “only a handful of states have implemented the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC),” according to the International Code Council. However, because of “the aggressive 2015 IECC” approaching, they “anticipate wider implementation of the 2012 IECC to snowball.”
Big Builder challenges their readers to test their knowledge of “2012 IECC mandates” by taking their quiz.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
