Court Affirms Summary Adjudication of Bad Faith Claim Where Expert Opinions Raised a Genuine Dispute
July 06, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn 501 East 51st Street etc. v. Kookmin Best Ins. Co., Ltd. (No. B293605, filed 4/2/20, ordered pub. 4/16/20), a California appeals court affirmed summary adjudication and dismissal of a bad faith claim based on the genuine dispute doctrine.
501 East 51st Street Long-Beach-10, LLC (501) was the owner of a 10-unit apartment complex, insured by Kookmin Best. In 2017, an underground water main alongside the building burst which, according to 501, caused the building to move and crack. 501 made a claim and supplied a geotechnical report finding cracks in the foundation walls, cracks in the stucco and significant floor deformation and tilting near the water leak. The engineer’s opinion concluded that that “existing building distress was substantially contributed to by the water main break. The water introduced to the soil medium appears to have triggered differential foundation movement causing the stress features to develop.”
Kookmin retained its own engineers to investigate, who returned an opinion that the leak had exacerbated long-term pre-existing settlement which would continue. Under the policy, damage to the building caused by earth movement and settlement were excluded, but water damage resulting from an “accidental discharge” of water was covered. Kookmin then obtained an opinion from coverage counsel, who opined that only damage allocable to the water leak would be covered.
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
Labor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of Limitations
May 08, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you want a case that goes into history of the federal Miller Act, check out the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in U.S. ex rel. Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, 2023 WL 3083440 (4th Cir. 2023). While I am not going to delve into this history, it’s a worthwhile read. It is also a worthwhile read for two other points.
First, it discusses what constitutes “labor” under the Miller Act.
Second, it discusses doctrine of estoppel to prevent a surety from raising the statute of limitations to bar a Miller Act payment bond claim, which is a doctrine you do NOT want to rely on, as this case reinforces.
Both of these points applicable to Miller Act claims are discussed below.
This case dealt with a prime contractor renovating staircases that was terminated by the federal government. The prime contractor hired a professional engineer as its subcontractor to serve as its project manager and supervise labor on the project. The engineer/subcontractor also had “logistical and clerical duties, taking various field measurements, cleaning the worksite, moving tools and materials, and sometimes even watering the concrete himself.” Dickson, supra, at *1.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Dispute Over Amount Insured Owes Public Adjuster Resolved
January 14, 2025 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court addressed a dispute over fees that the insureds allegedly owed the public adjuster. Public' Adjuster's, LLC v. Mark Gottesdiener & Co., et al., 2024 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2352 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 6. 2024).
The insureds owned an apartment building that was substantially damaged by a fire. The building was insured by Quincy Mutual Group. The insureds signed a Public Adjuster Employment Contract with The Public's Adjuster, LLC (Adjuster). The contract authorized Adjuster to negotiate the reimbursable damages with Quincy on the insureds' behalf. Adjuster was to recover 8 1/2% of any amounts received by the insureds.
Because of the extent of the fire damage, the work of negotiating a settlement with Quincy proved to be complex. Adjuster meticulously prepared several detained written estimates to by submitted to Quincy.
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
New WA Law Caps Retainage on Private Projects at 5%
May 29, 2023 —
Brett M. Hill & Ryanne S. Mathisen - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThis month, Governor Jay Inslee signed into law a new statute that caps retainage on private construction projects to five percent (5%), provides a mechanism for subcontractors to get paid their retainage prior to project completion, and allows for contractors and subcontractors to post a retainage bond and get paid their retainage early. For those interested in reading the full text of this new law, the statute can be found
here.
The new statute goes into effect on July 23, 2023. Under the statute, when a contractor or subcontractor considers their work under a contract subject to retainage complete, they may notify the party they contracted to perform the work for. Within 15 days of receiving the notice of completion of work, the party receiving the notice must respond with either (1) notice of acceptance of work or (2) notice of uncompleted items to the contractor or subcontractor.
If the party receiving notice does not provide notice of uncompleted items within 15 days or fails to respond to the notice of completion entirely, the unpaid retainage will begin to accrue interest at a rate of one percent (1%) per month, 30 days after the initial 15-day period. However, this interest will not accrue against a contractor who has not been paid the retainage by an upper-tier contractor or owner until payment has been received, so long as that contractor has submitted its subcontractor’s notice of completion to the upper-tier contractor or owner within 30 days of receipt.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and
Ryanne S. Mathisen, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Ms. Mathisen may be contacted at ryanne.mathisen@acslawyers.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insured's Lack of Knowledge of Tenant's Growing Marijuana Means Coverage Afforded for Fire Loss
August 17, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer regarding a claim for fire loss. Mosley v. Pacific Sec. Ins, Co., 2020 Cal. App LEXIS (Cal. Ct. App, May 26, 2020).
The Mosleys rented their property to Pedro Lopez. Six months later, the property was damaged by fire. Lopez had tapped a main power line into the attic to power his energy-intensive marijuana growing operation. The illegal power line caused the fire.
Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (PSIC) insured the property under an HO-3 Standard Homeowners policy. Paragraph E of the policy provided,
We do not insure for loss resulting from any manufacturing, product or operation, engaged in:
- The growing of plants; or
- The manufacture, production, operation or processing of chemical, biological, animal or plant 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
Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled in Creswell v. Estate of Howe, a case in which a woman bought a home and then sued the seller’s estate, both sets of real estate agents, and the homeowner’s association over construction defects. A district court ruled against her, granting summary judgment to the other parties.
After buying a townhome “as is,” Catherine Creswell claims to have shared a thought with her agent that the homeowners association was, in the words of her agent, “trying to hide something.” Later, Creswell found that a few days before her closing, the board had discussed problems with “roofs, siding and soundproofing of the townhomes.” The court noted that “it was clear from the documents that appellant [Creswell] received that the association had known about various construction defects for many years, some of which affected [her] unit.”
Creswell initially sued the estate, the man who negotiated the sale for his mother’s estate, the real estate companies and the agents involved, the homeowners association, and four board members. Later she sued for punitive damages, dropped a claim for interference with contractual relations, and dismissed her claims against the individual board members. The court dismissed all of Creswell’s claims awarding costs to those she sued.
The appeals court has affirmed the decision of lower court, noting that Creswell “did not provide us with any argument why the district court erred in dismissing her unjust-enrichment, breach of contract, or rescission claims against the various respondents.” Nor did she provide evidence to support her claims of “breach of duty, fraud, and violation of consumer protection statutes.”
The court noted that Creswell could not sue the homeowners association over the construction defects because she “failed to prove that she was damaged by the association’s nondisclosure.” The court noted that “there are no damages in this case,” as Creswell “was never assessed for any repairs, she had not paid anything out-of-pocket for repairs, and she has presented no evidence that the value of her individual unit has declined because of the alleged undisclosed construction defects.”
The court granted the other parties motion to dismiss and denied Creswell’s motion to supplement the record. Costs were awarded to the respondents.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appraisers May Determine Causation
January 21, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIn a case of first impression, the Iowa Court of Appeals held that an appraisal may determine issues of causation. North Glenn Homeowners Association v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 854 N.W. 2d 67 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014).
On July 15, 2009, North Glenn Homeowners Association submitted a claim to State Farm for hail damage on the roof. The claim was paid. North Glenn did not repair all of the damage, instead deciding to use some of the money to make other repairs to the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
SFAA Commends Congress for Maintaining Current Bonding Protection Levels in National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
December 20, 2021 —
The Surety & Fidelity Association of AmericaDecember 15, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA), a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry, commends the U.S. Senate and House for passing the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2022, and including Section 877, which exempts the Miller Act from periodic indexing for inflation. SFAA would like to thank Miller Act exemption bill sponsors, Representatives Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Byron Donalds (R-FL), as well as Senators Robert Portman (R-OH), Gary Peters (D-MI) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI), for their leadership and commitment on the passage of this bill.
Exempting the Miller Act from periodic indexing for inflation ensures essential payment protections remain in place for subcontractors, suppliers, and workers on all federal construction contracts subject to the Miller Act. The exemption also ensures performance protections for taxpayers will remain in place on federal construction contracts of $150,000 and more.
For over 80 years, the federal Miller Act has protected taxpayers against risk of loss by requiring payment and performance bonds on federal construction contracts. President Biden is expected to sign the NDAA into law in the coming days.
The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry. Based in Washington, D.C., SFAA works to promote the value of surety and fidelity bonding by proactively advocating on behalf of its members and stakeholders. The association’s more than 450 member companies write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. For more information visit www.surety.org.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
