Top 10 Cases of 2019
February 10, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita, Grace V. Hebbel & Andrew G. Heckler - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In the 2019 edition of SDV’s Top Ten Insurance Cases, we probe wiretapping claims under an armed security services policy, delicately sniff out E&O coverage for a company using cow manure to create electricity, scour the earth for coverage for crumbling foundation claims, and inspect D&O policies for government investigation coverage. In addition, we preview some important and exciting decisions due in 2020. Without further ado, SDV raises the curtain on the most informative and influential insurance
coverage decisions of 2019.1
1.
ACE American Ins. Co. v. American Medical Plumbing, Inc.,
206 A.3d 437 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019)
April 4, 2019
Is waiver of subrogation language in a standard AIA201 contract sufficient to bar an insurer’s subrogation rights?
The New Jersey Supreme Court held that it was. Equinox Development obtained a comprehensive blanket all-risk policy with limits of $32 million per occurrence from ACE American Ins. Co. (“ACE”). The policy covered Equinox’s new project in Summit, New Jersey. Equinox hired Grace Construction as GC, who in turn subcontracted the plumbing scope of work to American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (“American”). After completion of the work under the subcontract, a water main failed and flooded the entire project. ACE paid the limits of the policy and subrogated against American to recover its losses. American argued that there was a waiver of subrogation in the AIA201 contract that barred the suit. ACE challenged the validity of the AIA provision, arguing that it applied only to claims before completion of construction and that it only applied to damage to the work itself and not to adjacent property. The court rejected both arguments, finding that the AIA provision effectively barred ACE’s subrogation claim. This decision provides guidance on a frequently used contract form for contractors across the country.
Reprinted courtesy of Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. attorneys
Jeffrey J. Vita,
Grace V. Hebbel and
Andrew G. Heckler
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Heckler may be contacted at agh@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Extends Insurer Rights to Equitable Contribution
October 28, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Underwriters of Interest v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co. (No. D066615; filed 10/23/15), a California appeals court refused to enforce an “escape” other insurance clause in an insurer versus insurer contribution action, refused to enforce a Contractors Special Conditions endorsement and found that equitable tolling applied to rule that a nondefending insurer was obligated to reimburse defense costs incurred defending the two insurers’ common insured.
Certain Underwriters provided CGL insurance to Pacific Trades Construction & Development in effect between October 23, 2001 and October 23, 2003. ProBuilders Specialty insured Pacific Trades from December 9, 2002 to December 9, 2004. When Pacific Trades was sued in construction defect actions arising out of the development and construction of single family homes, Underwriters provided a defense, while ProBuilders declined to participate. The case was ultimately settled and when Underwriters sued ProBuilders for contribution to the defense costs, the trial court granted summary judgment for ProBuilders, finding its other insurance clause precluded any obligation to contribute or reimburse Underwriters.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Couple Gets $79,000 on $10 Million Construction Defect Claim
September 24, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Florida couple who sought more than $10 million in damages in a construction defect suit, has received a jury verdict of only $79,000. Leo and Kathryn Vecellio bought the 25,000 square-foot home in 2008, after which they discovered water intrusion issues. They sued both the builder and couple from whom they had bought the house.
Although the Vecellios spent more than $11 million to repair their home, the jury concluded that the builder did not know about the construction defects. The jury did determine that the builder, Dan E. Swanson, did either lie about or conceal certain facts about the construction. He was ordered to pay the $79,000 in damages to the Vecellios.
Lawyers for the defendants argued that the leaks were not from the original construction of the home, but were instead caused by the renovations made by the Vecellios. The Vecellios are pursuing whether they are entitled to money from home warranties. “There will be more evidence to be considered. I’m determined to see this through,” said Leo Vecellio.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
9th Circuit Plumbs Through the Federal and State False Claims Acts
January 16, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogYou may have heard of the False Claims Act and know that it penalizes companies and individuals in contract with the government who present false claims. The federal False Claims Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to penalize profiteers during the Civil War who were selling the Union Army moth eaten blankets, boxes of sawdust instead of guns, and sometimes re-selling the Army calvary horses several times over. Since then, many states, including California, as well as municipalities, have enacted their own false claim statutes.
As currently written, the federal False Claims Act provides for statutory penalties against any person who:
- “[K]nowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval”;
- “[K]nowingly makes, uses or causes to be made or used, a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim”;
- “[H]as possession, custody, or control of property or money used, or to be used, by the Government an knowingly delivers, or causes to be delivered, less than all of that money or property”;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
The Sky is Falling! – Or is it? Impacting Lives through Addressing the Fear of Environmental Liabilities
March 30, 2016 —
John Van Vlear and Karl Foster – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPSix months ago, a couple anxiously relayed to N&D lawyers how the sky was falling – with environmental liabilities at the center of their seemingly real Chicken Little fears. The couple owned two properties in a central California town, one being a former gas station which an oil company had abandoned alleging the lease was void given partial eminent domain actions. Before interviewing us, the couple had spent in excess of $100,000 in legal fees with another law firm trying to force the oil company to take responsibility for potential environmental impacts under the disputed lease.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Van Vlear, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP and
Karl Foster, Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
Mr. Van Vlear may be contacted at john.vanvlear@ndlf.com.
Mr. Foster may be contacted at karl.foster@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Meet the Forum's Neutrals: TOM DUNN
October 21, 2024 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Pierce Atwood LLP
Office Location: Boston, MA
Licensed in: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California (inactive)
Email: rtdunn@pierceatwood.com
Website: https://www.pierceatwood.com/people/r-thomas-dunn
Law School: McGeorge School of Law (2004 JD)
Types of ADR services offered: Arbitration
Affiliated ADR organizations: American Arbitration Association
Geographic area served: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New England
Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral.
A: Arbitration and alternative forms to avoid and resolve disputes has interested me since law school. Serving as an arbitrator is rewarding both as a neutral helping people close out disputes, but also as an advocate as it reminds me about how best to communicate with the fact finder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
Construction Companies Must Prepare for a Surge of Third-Party Contractors
February 08, 2021 —
Kim Holly - Construction ExecutiveEconomists agree that the trajectory of the current recession has been different from any other. Looking back at the 2008 economic crisis, there are noticeable trends in the construction space that indicate a surge in third-party contractor hiring could be coming in 2021.
The demand for more contract work will come as no surprise for seasoned construction executives—the share of contractors at U.S. businesses has increased by 15% in the last decade. Contractors are a valuable asset in the construction industry, but organizations will need to prepare for the coming influx to ensure third-party contractors and full-time employees are set up for success to keep operations running smoothly.
THE CONTRACTOR SURGE BLUEPRINT
Managing a substantial influx of contractors on construction worksites can be an overwhelming task. However, with guiding principles in place, construction executives can successfully incorporate more contractors into their operations and effectively manage associated risks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kim Holly, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
