Federal Court Asks South Dakota Supreme Court to Decide Whether Injunction Costs Are “Damages,” Adopts Restatement’s Position on Providing “Inadequate” Defense
August 13, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPDo costs associated with complying with an injunction constitute covered “damages?” The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota recently certified that question to the South Dakota Supreme Court, in Sapienza v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, No. 3:18-CV-03015-RAL, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84973 (D.S.D. May 17, 2019). If the South Dakota Supreme Court takes on the question, it will become one of the few highest state courts to do so.[1] The Sapienza case is also notable because the court adopted § 12 of the Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance (Restatement) regarding an insurer’s potential liability for providing an “inadequate” defense. In doing so, the Sapienza court joins a growing list of courts to rely upon or cite to the Restatement.
The Sapienza case arose out of an underlying dispute between residential neighbors over the size and location of the Sapienzas’ new house they built in a historic district in Sioux Falls, SD. The newly-built house allegedly prevented the neighbors from using their fireplace, blocked natural light the neighbors previously enjoyed, and decreased the value of the neighbors’ house. The neighbors sought a permanent injunction requiring the Sapienzas to modify or relocate the house. The Sapienzas’ homeowners’ insurer provided them with defense counsel, but the insurer instructed the Sapienzas that it would not cover any costs associated with an injunction as such costs did not constitute covered “damages.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Schulman may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Anderson may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurers Dispute Sharing of Defense in Construction Defect Case
May 13, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision that the defending insurer was not entitled to reimbursement of defense costs from another insurer based upon a subcontract and additional insured endorsement. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Corp., 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1261 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2024).
Martin McNerney Development Company (McNerney) entered a construction contract to perform seismic upgrades and tenant improvements for condominiums. McNerney and Broadway Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (Broadway) entered a "Subcontract Agreement" under which Broadway was to perform plumbing work at the project. The agreement required Broadway to maintain general liability insurance naming McNerney as an additional insured for work performed on the project, including completed operations. The subcontract also required Broadway to indemnify and hold McNerney harmless with respect to all claims for damage to property arising out of work performed by Broadway.
Broadway completed its work on the project in September 2007. Broadway issued a one-year warranty for its work on the project.
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
UK's Biggest Construction Show Bans 'Promo Girls'
February 28, 2018 —
Debra K. Rubin - ENRThe UK Construction Week megashow, set to attract 35,000 attendees and more than 670 exhibitors October 9-11 in Birmingham, England, released a new "code of conduct" for exhibitors, banning the use of "promo girls" and stressing “equality, diversity and inclusion" in marketing, event organizers announced Feb. 12.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-RecordMs. Rubin may be contacted at
rubind@enr.com
A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction."
The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent.
Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Jailed for Home Repair Fraud
November 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAn Illinois man has received his third prison sentence for construction fraud, this time for five and a half years. Perry Porter was arrested in October and plead guilty to aggravated home repair fraud. Mr. Porter had charged a homeowner $1,000 per hour for a home repair that should have cost a total of $500. Mr. Porter has also been ordered to pay $6,700 in restitution to the victim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury Celebrates the Addition of Two New Partners
February 18, 2019 —
Wilke FleuryWilke Fleury celebrates the addition of two new partners – Shannon Smith-Crowley and Daniel J. Foster – who complement the firm’s shifting generations of leadership. Shannon and Danny bring unique perspective and excellent capability to Wilke Fleury’s partnership effective January 1, 2019.
Shannon has been a registered lobbyist in California for 20 years. After a career in managed care, she started lobbying with the California Medical Association before founding her own firm, Partners In Advocacy to specialize in medical and reproductive health advocacy. At Wilke Fleury, her areas of practice include health care, women’s equity, life sciences, the biomedical industry, new family formation and emerging technologies in green energy. After a four year tenure with the firm, she has been elevated to the partnership.
Click here to read more about Shannon Smith-Crowley.
Daniel Foster’s litigation practice is composed of matters involving complex construction defect litigation, mechanics liens claims, stop notice actions and Miller Act claims. He represents clients before the Contractors State License Board and handles matters involving breach of warranty, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, indemnity agreements and liability insurance coverage.
Click here to read more about Daniel J. Foster Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury
Georgia Supreme Court Addresses Anti-Indemnity Statute
October 21, 2019 —
David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement BlogIn prior blog posts, we addressed Georgia’s anti-indemnity statute. One of the posts addressed the statute in the context of an electric utility easement near an airport. That case made its way to the Supreme Court Georgia, which provided some additional clarity to the statute. Milliken & Co. v. Georgia Power Co., — Ga. –, 829 S.E.2d 111 (2019).
When a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Milliken”), based on claims that transmission lines on Milliken’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Milliken cross claimed against Georgia Power Company (“GPC”). Milliken’s claim was based on an easement it granted to GPC, which required GPC to indemnify it for any claims arising out of GPC’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines.
On appeal, the Supreme Court considered whether the clause was unenforceable under O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b). In general, “a party may contract away liability to the other party for the consequences of his own negligence without contravening public policy, except when such agreement it prohibited by statute.” Id. at 113 citing Lanier at McEver v. Planners & Eng’rs Collaborative, 284 Ga. 204, 205 (2008). As one such statute, O.C.G.A. § 13-8-2(b) applies when an indemnification provision (i) “relates in some way to a contract for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of certain property” and (ii) “promises to indemnify a party for damages arising from that own party’s sole negligence.” Id. at 114 (internal punctuation omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
