#12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn his article, “Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered,” attorney
Tred R. Eyerly analyzed the Am. Home Assur. Co. case that involved a dispute between a developer and a subcontractor over fractured tiles: “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court first found that the fracturing of the stone floor tiles caused by the subcontractor's defective installation was the result of an 'occurrence.' There was no evidence that the subcontractor knew that its tile installation work was defective before the tiles fractured. Instead, the fracturing was an unexpected consequence of the defective installation.”
Everly continues, “But there was no ‘property damage.’ For the subcontractor to prevail, the defective installation work had to be considered separate and distinct from the physical manifestation of the defective work. Under California law, coverage resulted from construction defects that involved physical injuries to other parts of the construction project.” Everly concludes, “Because there was no genuine issues of material fact as to the potential for coverage, there was no duty to defend.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lien Law Change in Idaho
December 05, 2022 —
Grace Maldonado - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogJuly 1, 2022, the Idaho Legislature’s amendments to I.C. 45-507 came into effect. This statute regulates the steps and requirements to sustain a valid mechanics and materialmen lien. There were three changes to the statute: (1) clarification as to who may personally serve a notice of lien; (2) additional contents that must be included in a lien claim; and (3) authorization for attorney fees.
Prior to the amendments, any person could, on behalf of the entity (contractor) seeking to establish a lien, personally serve the owner of the property with a claim of lien. Now, for personal service to be considered effective, the owner or reputed owner must be personally served by an officer “authorized by law” to serve process. Essentially, a process server needs to be employed for personal service. A contractor may still serve an owner via certified mail
The second change relates to required disclosures. Now, in order to have a valid lien, a contractor must attach a copy of the required disclosures and acknowledgement of receipt of said disclosures with the claim of lien. If the claim does not contain the required documents, it will be considered invalid. This is an important change, because even if the contractor provides all required documents to the owner if there is no copy of the documents attached to the claim of lien the contractor will lose their lien rights – assuming the deficiency is not corrected prior to the statute of limitations running.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Grace Maldonado, Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Maldonado may be contacted at
gmaldonado@grsm.com
Just Decided – New Jersey Supreme Court: Insurers Can Look To Extrinsic Evidence To Deny a Defense
September 05, 2022 —
Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLPLast week, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Norman International, Inc. v. Admiral Insurance Company, No. 086155 (N.J. Aug. 11, 2022). At issue was coverage for a work-site injury and the interpretation of a policy exclusion for operations or activities performed by an insured in certain counties in New York. The case is significant in terms of addressing causation for purposes of the application of exclusions. But the more wide-reaching issue has nothing to do with the scope of the exclusion.
The real story from Norman is the New Jersey high court’s pronouncement that an insurer, in certain circumstances, can use extrinsic evidence to deny a defense to its insured. New Jersey duty to defend law has been a jungle land and in need of more supreme court guidance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLPMr. Maniloff may be contacted at
maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com
Engineer and CNA Dispute Claim Over Dual 2014 Bridge Failures
December 15, 2016 —
Scott Van Voorhis – Engineering News-RecordAn engineering company whose error led to two pedestrian bridge collapses in North Carolina in 2014 that left one worker dead and caused costly damage contends it is being unfairly denied $2 million in potential insurance coverage by its carrier due to what it claims is an “ambiguous” wording of the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Indiana Federal Court Holds No Coverage for $50M Default Judgment for Lack of Timely Notice of Class Action
August 26, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIn Greene v. Kenneth R. Will, a CGL insurer recently prevailed in a declaratory judgment action arising from an underlying class action alleging pollution and nuisance claims against the insured, VIM Recycling LLC, an Indiana-based waste-recycling facility.[1] “[T]his case has some whiskers on it,” the Indiana federal district court recounted in its exhaustive decision granting the insurer relief. The court relieved the insurer of indemnifying a $50 million default judgment against the insured, which, the court observed, “proved to be a bad neighbor” and “nuisance in both the legal and colloquial sense.” The court held that the insured failed to provide timely notice of the class action.
“The judgment against the [insured] came about when a group of nearby homeowners decided that they had had enough of VIM’s polluting behavior and brought this class action to recover damages for environmental violations, nuisance and negligence based on the impact of the waste facility on their homes and property,” the court explained. Eventually, the court entered a default judgment against the insured for $50,568,750, plus an award of $273,339.85 in attorney’s fees. Because the insured was “judgment-proof,” the class action plaintiffs “aligned” with the insured “hoping to collect on their monumental judgment” from the insured’s CGL insurer. Within a few weeks’ time, the class action plaintiffs sued the insurer seeking a declaration of coverage for the default judgment against the insured.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Panel Declares Colorado Construction Defect Laws Reason for Lack of Multifamily Developments
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDennis Huspeni writing for the Denver Business Journal provided reactions from panelists at a ULI Colorado event on January 9th at the Embassy Suites Denver – Downtown/Convention Center hotel regarding a report on “Emerging Trends in Real Estate.” According to Huspeni’s article, panelists discussed “the lack of for-sale multifamily development and attributed it to Colorado’s construction defect laws.”
John Beeble, chairman and CEO of Saunders Construction, one of the panelists, said that Saunders does not build condos because of Denver’s construction defect laws: “We’ve been in business for 42 years and never been sued for construction defects,” Beeble said, according to the Denver Business Journal. “But the odds are close to 100 percent that we’d be in court defending ourselves if we did condos.”
Jeff Hawks, principal at ARA Colorado, claimed, “Colorado has some of the worst construction defect laws in the country. It’s stupid to try and build a condo development until that changes,” as reported by the Denver Business Journal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NJ Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision that Exxon Has No Duty to Indemnify Insurers for Environmental Liability Under Prior Settlement Agreement
November 29, 2021 —
Patricia B. Santelle & Laura Rossi - White and WilliamsOn November 1, 2021, in a single-sentence Order, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied a request for review of a decision that ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon) did not have to indemnify certain of its insurers over environmental liabilities as required by a previous settlement agreement. The case, entitled Home Insurance Company v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Incorporated, et al., has a unique and convoluted procedural history but, in short, the denial of review leaves standing a holding by the intermediate appellate court that the insurers’ “untimely notice actually prejudiced Exxon, violated the no-prejudice rule, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” The court declined to consider the question framed by the insurers: whether the importance of enforcing settlement agreements outweighs New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine.
The matter dated back almost thirty years, when the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection notified the Appearing London Market Insurers (ALMI) of the potential liability of Cornell-Dublier Electronics (CDE), a former indirect subsidiary of Exxon, for pollution at a site in New Jersey. Coverage litigation followed in New Jersey, which ALMI defended under policies issued to CDE. Exxon was not named in the CDE suit nor were the policies which ALMI issued to Exxon at issue in that case; Exxon instead had its own pollution coverage case pending in New York. In June 2000, Exxon and its insurers, including ALMI, entered into a settlement agreement which (a) required Exxon to indemnify the insurers for any environmental liability claims involving its subsidiaries, and (b) provided for application of New York substantive law and litigation in New York City court for any dispute between the parties under it.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and
Laura Rossi, White and Williams
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders
January 23, 2023 —
Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & SleightOn October 27, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a decision which could have a substantial impact on the enforceability of contract clauses that require litigation to be commenced within a stated period of time from project completion. In Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.,the Supreme Court held that the contractual one-year statute of limitations for bringing claims against the contractor was substantively unconscionable and reversed the Court of Appeals.
In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract included a one-year claim limitations clause that required claims to be raised within a one year period from project completion and that any claims not raised during the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls.
The Tadychs moved into the home on April 8, 2014, and the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development conducted its final site inspection on April 15 and approved the residence for occupancy on April 23. In January or February of 2015, the Tadychs began to notice a shift in their home. In February of 2015, the Tadychs engaged the Construction Dispute Resolution (CDR) to review NRC’s work. CDR raised concerns about the adequacy of the home’s construction and prepared a written report in March 2015 indicating several deviations from the architectural plans and building codes. The Tadychs sent this report to NRC, who assured the Tadychs that NRC’s work followed all requirements and rejected any claims that there were deviations from the plans. The Tadychs continued to notice issues with the home through October 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Ingram may be contacted at
cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com
