Don’t Ignore the Dispute Resolution Provisions in Your Construction Contract
June 05, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesDon’t ignore dispute resolution provisions in a construction contract. Sometimes, you may want to. But dispute resolution provisions should be one of the first provisions you look to when a dispute arises recognizing these provisions will be raised if you fail to comply. Not only will they be raised, but the presumption is they will be enforced. This is the situation that was raised in Seminole County, Florida v. APM Construction Corp., 2023 WL 3555356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).
Here, a contractor was terminated for cause by Seminole County. The contractor then filed suit against the County. The County moved to dismiss the lawsuit because the contractor failed to comply with contractual presuit administrative procedures in the contract prior to filing a lawsuit. While the trial court denied the County’s motion to dismiss, the appellate court granted the County’s petition for writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss. For purposes of granting the writ of certiorari, the appellate court held irreparable harm existed because “certiorari jurisdiction is properly exercised when a trial court permits a party to litigate when there is a contractual or legal obligation to first administrative proceed.” Seminole County, supra, at *2.
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
Insurer Must Defend Additional Insured Though Its Insured is a Non-Party
November 18, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe plaintiff insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order that defendant insurer was obligated to defend a non-party as an additional insured was granted. Am Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Burlington Ins. Co., 2019 N. Y. Misc. LEXIS 4145 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. July 25, 2019).
Quality Building Construction, LLC was the contractor hired to work on exterior facade of a building owned by Central Park West Corporation. The underlying complaint alleged that Quality caused plastic spacers and pedestals used for the penthouse terrace to fall down the roof drain riser. A clog and rainwater backup resulted in water damage to apartment 8A. The resulting damage was allegedly due to the clogged roof drain riser.
Quality subcontracted the work to Mega State, Inc. The subcontract required Mega to indemnify and hold Quality harmless against claims in connection with Mega's work, as well as name Quality as an additional insured on a primary, non-contributory bases under Mega's CGL policy. Burlington issued a policy to Mega naming Quality as an additional insured. American Empire issued a CGL policy to Quality.
Quality was sued in the underlying action, but Mega was not. American Empire tendered a demand for coverage to Mega and Burlington, relying on the agreement between Quality and Mega. Burlington responded that Mega was not liable for the alleged damages. American Empire sued Burlington. Subsequently, Burlington accepted the tender to defend Quality in the underlying action, and reserved rights as to whether Burlington's policy was primary and on the question of indemnification. American Empire agreed to withdraw its suit if Burlington would modify its reservation of rights. Burlington refused.
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
Three Attorneys Named Among The Best Lawyers in America 2018
August 24, 2017 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPPartners
Denis Moriarty and
Mark VonderHaar, and Of Counsel
William Baumgaertner were selected by their peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America 2018. This marks the twelfth consecutive year Mr. Baumgaertner has been listed for his defendants’ and plaintiffs’ work in personal injury and product liability litigation, and the sixth consecutive year Mr. Moriarty has been listed for his work in insurance law. Mr. VonderHaar was listed for the first time for his work in insurance law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Condominium Association Responsibility to Resolve Construction Defect Claims
July 23, 2014 —
Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogThe Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently issued an opinion in Greenstein v. Council of Unit Owners of Avalon Court Six Condominium Inc. finding that an association can be sued by its unit owner members if it fails to take timely legal action against a developer. In that case, the association was aware of construction defects, but failed to take action to preserve its claim and then filed a lawsuit against the developer too late, after the statute of limitations expired. As a result, the suit against the developer was dismissed and the association was forced to assess its unit owner members for the $1 million in repair costs. Some of the unit owners then sued their association, seeking to recover the cost of their assessments on the ground that the association was negligent in failing to pursue a timely legal action against the developer.
On appeal, the court was asked to decide whether state law permits owners to sue their condominium association for negligently failing to sue a developer for common element construction defects. The court, in an unpublished opinion, found that an association could be held liable to its members. The court said: “The duty to maintain, repair and replace the common elements together with the exclusive right to initiate litigation regarding the common elements [which was stated in a provision of the association’s bylaws] creates a concomitant obligation on the part of the [association] to pursue recovery from [the developer] on behalf of [the unit owners] for damage to the common elements caused by [the developer’s] negligence, breach of contract or violation of any applicable law.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogMr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Federal Court Confirms Consequetial Property Damage, But Finds No Coverage for Subcontractor
November 01, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA recommended decision from the Magistrate Judge of the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado found there was no coverage for the subcontractor's faulty workmanship, but recognized that Colorado finds consequential damages to be property damage. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Houston Cas. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117857 (D. Colo. July 5, 2022).
The insured, Tripp Construction, was a subcontrator for contructing balconies at an apartment complex. The owner complained that Tripp failed to properly install balconies. The defective installation of certain balcony components damaged other, non-defective components.
The general contractor had an OCIP policy issued by Houston Casualty Company (HCC). The general contractor also had a Subcontractor Default policy issued by Indian Harbor.
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
Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Kept Climbing in January
April 06, 2016 —
Victoria Stilwell – BloombergHome values in 20 U.S. cities kept climbing in January, a sign the limited supply of available properties may push prices out of reach for some buyers.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values increased 5.7 percent from January 2015, following a 5.6 percent gain in the year ended in December, the group said Tuesday in New York. That matched the median projection of 26 economists surveyed by Bloomberg. Nationally, prices rose 5.4 percent year-over-year.
Home values that are rising more quickly than incomes could pose a problem for the housing recovery, as they put purchases out of reach for first-time and low-income buyers. A wider selection of available homes will be needed to help keep price increases in an accessible range.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Negligence Claim Against Flood Insurer
December 22, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer successfully moved to dismiss the insured's negligence claim and demand for jury trial, leaving only the insured's breach of insurance contract claim under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). La Mirage Homeowners Association Inc. v. Wright National Flood Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147667 (S.D. Tex. Aug 29, 2019).
Hurricane Harvey damaged three of insured homeowner's association condominium's buildings. Wright National Flood Insurance Company was the insurer pursuant to the NFIP when the hurricane damaged the insured's property. The insured alleged that Wright breached the policy by underpaying on the flood loss claims and by not initiating the appraisal the insured demanded. The insured sought recovery for negligence, consequential damage, statutory penalties, attorney's fees and pre-and-post judgment interest.
Wright moved to dismiss the extra-contractual claims and to strike the jury demand.
The NFIP's regulations allowed homeowners to purchase policies either directly from FEMA or from private insurers that functioned as Write Your Own (WYO) providers and fiscal agents of the United States. The Fifth Circuit had previously held that state law tort claims arising from claims handling by a WYO were preempted under federal law. The court, therefore, was faced with the issue of whether the insured's claims of negligence, attorney's fees, statutory penalties, and interest were policy-handling claims which were preempted by federal law.
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
