CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

No Coverage for Construction Defect Claim Only Impacting Insured's Work

January 08, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
In a coverage dispute between two insurers over a claim for damages caused by faulty workmanship, the court found there was no right to equitable contribution or indemnity. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Mallcraft, Inc., 2023 Cal. Super. LEXIS 67568 (Cal. Super. Ct. Sept. 15, 2023). Mallcraft was the general contractor for a building project and was sued for construction defects. Travelers was an additional insured under a policy issued to a subcontractor, KitCor. Travelers defended Mallcraft in an arbitration. Travelers sought equitable contribution and equitable indemnity from Hartford, Mallcraft's insurer. Mallcraft and Travelers stiulated to a judgment agianst Mallcraft for all costs Travelers incurred in the arbitration. Travelers' insured, KitCor, was not implicated in the construction defect claims against Mallcraft. The judgment set forth findings, including the fact that the underlying plaintiff never made any claim that KitCor perfomred work on the project or casued property damage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Temporary Obstructions Are a Permanent Problem Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

March 12, 2015 — Max W. Gavron and Keith M. Rozanski – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Boxes, ladders, furniture or other objects commonly placed in aisles, walkways or paths may not be temporary obstructions and may be actionable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) according to a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. DBA Pier 1 Imports #1132, No. 12-16857 (filed March 5, 2015). Many property and business owners have long operated under the assumption that they are not violating ADA regulations requiring minimum clear widths for accessible routes (“[t]he minimum clear width of an accessible route shall be 36 in[ches]” (28 C.F.R. pg. 36, app. A, § 4.3.3)) when they place objects that can easily be removed in aisles or pathways such as trash cans, ladders, plants, signs and the like because temporary obstructions are not considered violations of the ADA (28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b)). Reprinted courtesy of Max W. Gavron, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Keith M. Rozanski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Gavron may be contacted at mgavron@hbblaw.com Mr. Rozanski may be contacted at krozanski@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Texas Federal Court Finds Total Pollution Exclusion Does Not Foreclose a Duty to Defend Waterway Degradation Lawsuit

October 24, 2022 — Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
Evanston Ins Co. v. Tex. Concrete and Sand Gravel, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-00103 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2022) is a coverage dispute over Evanston Insurance Co.’s (“Evanston”) duty to defend and indemnify Texas Concrete Sand and Gravel, Inc. (“Texas Concrete”) and Apcon Services, LLC (“Apcon”) (collectively, the “Insureds”) for their contributions to the degradation of the waterways and retention lakes built to control flooding in the Houston area. On August 3, 2022, Magistrate Judge Yvonne Y. Ho recommended that Evanston’s motion for summary judgment be denied. On August 30, 2022, District Court Judge Alfred H. Bennett adopted Judge Ho’s Memorandum and Recommendations. In 2017, Hurricane Harvey caused significant flooding of the Houston area, which resulted in large-scale property damage. The underlying lawsuits alleged that, since 1954, Lake Houston’s waterways sustained a steady decline in capacity because of the release of materials into the waterway system. The Insureds allegedly contributed to the decline by allowing “materials and substances” (such as processed water, silt, sand, sediment, dirt, rock, and aggregate) to run off their privately controlled properties and into the Houston waterways. The reduced capacity, allegedly caused in part by the Insureds, exacerbated the flooding after Hurricane Harvey hit, increasing the damage from the hurricane. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com

---

Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations

May 27, 2019 — Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Andrews Kurth
The Tennessee Supreme Court has refused to construe an ambiguous definition of actual cash value to allow for deduction of labor costs as part of depreciation calculations where that subset of repair costs are not clearly addressed in the policy. Despite the split of authority nationwide, the Tennessee case presents a straightforward application of policy interpretation principles to a common valuation issue in first-party property claims. In Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Co., No. M2017-2546-SC-R23-CV (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2019), insureds brought a class-action lawsuit against their property insurer, Auto-Owners, alleging breach of contract. The plaintiffs each owned buildings damaged by a hail storm and had each submitted claims to Auto-Owners. Auto-Owners accepted the claims and determined that the losses would be determined on an actual cash value basis. In performing those valuations, Auto-Owners depreciated both the building materials and the labor costs associated with repairing the properties. The insureds challenged the labor cost depreciation. Auto-Owners moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response, the insureds requested that the district court certify to the Tennessee Supreme Court whether, “[u]nder Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as ‘the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss,’ or (2) states that ‘actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation?”’ Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York Court Permits Asbestos Claimants to Proceed Against Insurers with Buyout Agreements

December 06, 2021 — Patricia B. Santelle & Frank J. Perch, III - White and Williams LLP
A recent New York federal district court decision addresses a number of issues in the context of asbestos coverage involving an insolvent insured, holding that policy buyout agreements between the insured and its insurers did not bar actions by certain tort judgment creditors against some of the settling insurers, and further finding that such agreements can constitute fraudulent conveyances, especially where the proceeds of the settlement are not reserved for payment of insured claims. In the litigation pending in the Western District of New York (Mineweaser v. One Beacon Insurance Company, et al., No. 14-CV-0585A), certain asbestos plaintiffs sought recovery from excess insurers for judgments obtained against an insolvent asbestos supplier (Hedman Resources, formerly known as Hedman Mines), which ceased operations in 2007 due to insolvency. Hedman had at one time been a subsidiary of Gulf & Western. As of 2009-2011, the excess insurers of Gulf & Western were advised of exhaustion of primary insurance as well as Hedman’s insolvency. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

After More than Two Years, USDOT Rejects WSDOT’s Recommendation to Reinstate Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs into DBE Participation Goals

February 24, 2020 — Ellie Perka - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
For the past several years, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight has been closely following news of Washington State Department of Transportation’s (“WSDOT’s”) exclusion of non-minority women-owned Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (“DBEs”)[1] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. See ACS’s letter of January 9, 2014 and blog articles of June 2, 2017 and September 21, 2017. In a striking—and long awaited—decision issued just days ago, USDOT rejected WSDOT’s recommendation to unwind the exclusion of non-minority women-owned DBEs from COA Goals, meaning women-owned DBEs in Washington remain excluded from DBE COA participation goals until September 2020. As background, the DBE program is a program created by Congress with the goal of increasing women and minority-owned business participation in federally-funded transportation contracting. To withstand constitutional scrutiny, each state must tailor its program to the specific discrimination found to exist in that state.[2] To that end, every three years, WSDOT must conduct a “Disparity Study,” aimed at statistically measuring the “discrimination” in the marketplace. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Perka may be contacted at ellie.perka@acslawyers.com

---

WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits

February 25, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In the Daily Journal of Commerce, Scott A. Smith and James H. Wendell discussed the recent Washington Supreme Court decision in Donatelli v D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers. The court’s ruling casts “doubt on a company's ability to limit its liability for economic losses arising out of a contract dispute.” The Donatellis hired D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers to develop vacant land in King County, however, the “project did not go according to plan and the real estate market collapsed before the project was completed,” according to the Daily Journal of Commerce. The “Donatellis lost their property through foreclosure” and then “sued the engineering firm for more than $1.5 million in lost profits.” D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers asked for the negligence claims to be dismissed “because the parties' contract contained a provision limiting the engineering firm's liability to the amount of its fee for ‘any injury or loss on account of any error, omission, or other professional negligence.’” However, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that “the case could proceed in the trial court on a theory that the engineers could be liable if they made negligent misrepresentations that induced the Donatellis to enter into the contract in the first place.” Smith and Wendell stated that because of “this decision, engineering, architectural, construction, and other professional service companies may now face damage claims they thought they were contractually protected against.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction Work

December 20, 2017 — David M McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In a case that squarely confronts the juxtaposition of an insurer’s duty to defend or indemnify its insured for construction related defects, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on both matters against a construction subrogee, in Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC, No. 15-cv-02025-RPM, 2016 WL 9735743, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 10. 2017). Mountainview Construction Services, LLC (“MCS”) served as the general contractor for the construction of a residence on a lot owned by Glen Lot E-8, LLC (“E-8”). MCS took out a Commercial General Liability Policy (“Policy”) with Association Insurance Company (“AIC”) that provided coverage to MCS for the relevant time period for the construction of the residence. E-8 then asserted a series of claims against MCS, based on the allegation that MCS and its subcontractors defectively constructed the home by, among other things, building the residence two feet too high in violation of applicable codes. E-8 also argued that MCS and its subcontractors made significant alterations and/or deviations from the original project specifications without obtaining E-8’s consent or approval from relevant authorities. MCS tendered the claim to AIC for defense and indemnity. In turn, AIC declined coverage on the argument that the Policy precluded any coverage for defective work MCS may have performed on the project, absent damage to person or other property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---