Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed
February 25, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn his California Construction Law blog, Garret Murai published the recent Industry Bulletin released by the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) regarding the delayed implementation of the California Building Energy Standards. CSLB has delayed implementation from January 1st, 2014 to July 1, 2014 due to “unanticipated delays in developing complete performance compliance software for 2013 Public Domain Residential and Nonresidential California Building Energy Code Compliance guidelines, necessitating the CEC action to change the effective date of energy related provisions.”
The Industry Bulletin summarized changes regarding various codes including 2013 California Energy Code, Part 6; 2013 California Administrative Code, Chapter 10, Part 1; and, 2013 CALGreen, Part 11. According to the bulletin, as reported by the California Construction Law blog, “Contractors are encouraged to contact their local building enforcement agencies for assistance and/or clarification.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stay of Coverage Case Appropriate While Court Determines Arbitrability of Dispute
April 22, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit vacated a discovery order issued by the district court and remanded the case for issuance of a stay while the arbitrability of the coverage dispute was reviewed. Cameron Parish Recreation #6 v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., et al., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 3804 (5th Cir. Feb. 19, 2024).
The plaintiffs purchased surplus lines polices from various insurance companies to provide coverage for commercial properties. The policies included an arbitration provision for resolving any disputes. After plaintiffs were denied coverage for damage to their properties from Hurricane Laura, they sued the insurers. The insurers filed motions to compel arbitration and to stay the case. The district court refused the stay and ordered limited discovery into arbitrability. The insurers appealed.
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
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents
August 19, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorSeveral months ago, I wrote about an escalator subcontractor that sued a general contractor, demanding payment for work completed based on approved shop drawings. The trial court agreed with the subcontractor, but the general contractor appealed. Ten months later, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the subcontractor had a duty to bring to the general contractor’s attention major discrepancies or errors they detect in the bid documents.
“The subcontractor failed to disclose ambiguities in the plans and must suffer the peril.”
Construction Difficulties
The subcontractor installed 32 inch escalators throughout the project, but the plans called for 40 inch escalators. The general contractor and subcontractor could not reach agreement on how the dispute should be resolved. The subcontractor sued the general to get paid for replacing the escalators and the general sued to subcontractor for concessions it had to pay to the owner.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL
January 24, 2018 —
Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, & BargerRICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ.
GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ.
JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ.
DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ.
The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98.
By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in
Liberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in
McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.
After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred.
The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely
a remedy for construction defects but
the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage.
The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed.
The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard Glucksman,
Glenn Barger,
Jon Turigliatto and
David Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida’s Supreme Court Resolves Conflicting Appellate Court Decisions on Concurrent Causation
December 21, 2016 —
Afua S. Akoto – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Supreme Court of Florida kicked off December with an opinion that determined which theory of recovery applies when multiple perils combine to create a loss, and at least one of those perils is excluded by the terms of a policy. In Sebo v. American Home Assurance Company, Inc.,1 the court resolved the conflict between the Florida Appellate Courts for the Second District and the Third District and declared the concurrent cause doctrine (CCD) as the more applicable theory of recovery over the efficient proximate cause doctrine (EPC).
The underlying dispute concerned damage to a home Sebo purchased in Naples, Florida in April 2005. The American Home Assurance Company (AHAC) insured the home under a manuscript policy specifically created for the property with limits of over eight million dollars. In May 2005, Sebo discovered major water leaks in the main foyer, master bathroom, exercise room, piano room, and living room of the home. In August, paint fell off the walls after it rained, and it became clear that the house suffered from major design and construction defects. When Hurricane Wilma struck in October, the house was further damaged by rain water and high winds, and was eventually demolished.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Akoto may be contacted at
asa@sdvlaw.com
Public Adjuster Cannot Serve As Disinterested Appraiser
April 18, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Florida Supreme Court found that the president of a public adjusting firm, which was to be compensated on a contingency basis for its adjusting services, could not subsequently serve as a "disinterested" appraiser pursuant to the policy language. Parrish v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co., 2023 Fl. LEXIS 261 (Feb. 9, 2023).
Jon Parrish was insured under a policy issued by State Farm Florida Insurance Company. When his home was damaged by Hurricane Irma in September 2017, he filed a claim and hired Keys Claims Consultants, Inc. (KCC) to provide public adjusting services. Mr. Parrish agreed to pay KCC a contingency fee equal to ten percent of whatever amount he eventually recovered from State Farm.
There was disagreement between State Farm's estimate of the loss and that of KCC. Mr. Parrish demanded that the appraisal process set forth in the policy be implemented. Mr. Parrish informed State Farm that George Keys, the president of KCC, would serve as Mr. Parrish's appraiser.
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
Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries
February 18, 2020 —
William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Maryland’s highest court recently heard arguments regarding the proper method of allocation of the covered damages from a slowly progressing asbestos injury amongst insurance policies in place over a period of years. Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 2436 (Md. 2019). The court may also be forced to determine what the proper trigger of coverage is for latent bodily injury claims, although the plaintiff has not framed the issue in that manner.
In Rossello, the plaintiff, Patrick Rossello, worked for a period of years for the now-defunct Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. (“Mitchell”), a construction company operating until 1976. In 1974 he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers. He was ultimately diagnosed in 2013 with malignant mesothelioma as a result of that exposure. Rossello obtained a judgment for approximately $2,700,000 against Mitchell and secured the right to pursue its insurance. As relevant to this dispute, Mitchell carried liability insurance policies, which provide coverage for asbestos related claims, from 1974 to 1977.
Rossello seeks to hold Zurich, as successor to Maryland Casualty Company, accountable for the full value of his award, based on the 1974 policy. Although this contention actually implicates two separate issues, plaintiff’s counsel passed over the initial trigger of coverage issue and focused instead on the issue of allocation of coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
