Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement
October 21, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015).
Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired.
After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
California Clarifies Its Inverse Condemnation Standard
December 30, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn City of Oroville v. Superior Court, 446 P.3d 304 (Cal. 2019), the Supreme Court of California considered whether the City of Oroville (City) was liable to a dental practice for inverse condemnation damages associated with a sewer backup. The court held that in order to establish inverse condemnation against a public entity, a property owner must show that an inherent risk in the public improvement was a substantial cause of the damage. Since the dental practice did not have a code-required backwater valve — which would have prevented or minimized this loss — the court found that the city was not liable because the sewage system was not a substantial cause of the loss. This case establishes that a claim for inverse condemnation requires a showing of a substantial causal connection between the public improvement and the property damage. It also suggests that comparative negligence can be a defense to inverse condemnation claims.
In December 2009, a dental practice, WGS Dental Complex (WGS), located in the City, incurred significant water damage as a result of untreated sewage from the City’s sewer main backing up into WGS’ building. WGS submitted a claim to its insurance carrier, The Dentists Insurance Company (TDIC) and, in addition, sued the City for its uninsured losses, alleging inverse condemnation and nuisance. TDIC joined the litigation, alleging negligence, nuisance, trespass and inverse condemnation. Under California law, when a government entity fails to recognize that an action or circumstance essentially amounts to a taking for public use, a property owner can pursue an inverse condemnation action for compensation. The City filed a cross-complaint against WGS for failing to install a code-required backwater valve on their lateral sewer line, which would have prevented or minimized the backup.
The City filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. WGS then sought a judicial determination on the issue of inverse condemnation. The City presented evidence that the sewage system was designed in accordance with industry standards, and that WGS failed to comply with the City’s plumbing code by failing to install a backwater valve on its private sewer lateral. The trial court found the City liable for inverse condemnation because the blockage that caused the backup originated in the City’s sewer line. The court held that the blockage was an inherent risk of sewer operation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the City would have had to prove that the WGS’s lack of a backwater valve was the sole cause of the loss in order to absolve itself of liability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
A Performance-Based Energy Code in Seattle: Will It Save Existing Buildings?
August 11, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogThe City of Seattle has one of the most stringent energy codes in the nation. Based upon the Washington State Energy Code (which has been embroiled in litigation over its high standards), the code demands a lot from commercial developers. But, does it prevent developers from saving Seattle?s classic and old buildings? Perhaps.
The general compliance procedure requires buildings to be examined during the permitting process. This means that buildings are examined before they begin operating. The procedure is not malleable and is applicable to all buildings, old and new, big and small.
The downside of this procedure is that it eliminates awarding compliance to those buildings exhibiting a number of passive features, such as siting, thermal mass, and renewable energy production. This problem has prevented a number of interesting and architecturally pleasing existing building retrofits from getting off the ground. The cost of complying with the current system can be 20% more, and it might prevent builders from preserving a building?s historical integrity.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decision
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Are We Having Fun Yet? Construction In a Post-COVID World (Law Note)
June 20, 2022 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaRemember how I said to never assume? Yeah, about that…… even when you plan for failures, mistakes, and other problems, sometimes things get so outside the realm of what you considered that it can leave your construction project spinning. Take, as a random example, a world-wide pandemic that shuts down supply chains, shuts down job sites, and limits the labor pool. Just as an example.
What does construction law say about pandemics? They fall under an “Act of God” that you may have read about in your contracts, or in the contracts of the contractors working your projects. An “Act of God” is an event that is not foreseeable, and as such not something the parties could have anticipated when they drafted the contract. Acts of God generally excuse a party’s failure– for example, a contractor’s failure to complete the project on time can be excused when an “act of God” has occurred.
By now, you’ve dealt with the practical fall out, one way or another. Many projects no longer made financial sense for your clients. Others may have been modified, reduced in scope, or had substitute materials put in place.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Sixth Circuit Finds No Coverage for Property Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship
October 21, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's order granting summary judgment to the insurer who denied a defense for a construction defect claim. Steel Supply & Eng'g Co. v. Illinois Nat'. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14363 (6th Cir. Aug. 13, 2015).
Steel Supply contracted with the Carmel Redevelopment Corporation to fabricate and erect steel for a construction project in Carmel, Indiana. After the steel was erected, an iron worker at the site discovered defects in the steel. Subsequent investigations revealed additional defects.
Carmel filed suit against Steel Supply for breach of contract. The complaint alleged that a critical connection that Steel Supply designed was inadequate to handle the forces coming onto it. Carmel claimed that the immediate need to remediate the steel damaged Carmel directly, and that other contractors sought damages from Carmel for harm caused by the delays.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision
February 11, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent opinion came out that held that even though an indemnification provision in a subcontract was unenforceable per Florida Statute s. 725.06, the unenforceable portion is merely severed out of the indemnification clause leaving the rest of the clause intact. In essence, an otherwise invalid indemnification clause is bailed out by this ruling (which does not even discuss whether this subcontract had a severability provision that states that if any portion of any provision in the subcontract is invalid, such invalid portion shall be severed and the remaining portion of the provision shall remain in full force and effect).
This opinion arose from a construction defect case, CB Contractxors, LLC v. Allens Steel Products, Inc.,43 Fla.L.Weekly D2773a (Fla. 5thDCA 2018), where the general contractor, sued by an association, flowed down damages to subcontractors based on the contractual indemnification provision in the subcontracts. Subcontractors moved to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim because it was not compliant with Florida Statute s. 725.06. The indemnification provision required the subcontractors to indemnify the general contractor even for the general contractors own partial negligence, but failed to specify a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification as required by Florida Statute s. 725.06. (The indemnification clause in the subcontract was the standard intermediate form of indemnification that required the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for claims regardless of whether the claims were caused in part by the general contractor.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Wildfire Smoke Threatens to Wipe Out Decades of Air Pollution Progress
August 28, 2023 —
Linda Poon & Immanual John Milton - BloombergThe US is on track to experience its worst year for smoke exposure in decades, after wildfires in Canada sent toxic plumes drifting across the border to the Midwest and the East Coast earlier this summer.
In June and July, New York and Chicago saw more “very unhealthy” and “hazardous” air quality days for fine particle pollution (PM2.5) than in the same months every year since the Environmental Protection Agency began tracking PM2.5 nationally in 2000, a Bloomberg CityLab analysis of federal data found. In Washington, DC, the number of “very unhealthy” days reached the highest in over a decade.
On the EPA’s air quality index scale, these days correspond with the highest levels of public health concern. Extensive exposure to PM2.5 particles, the main pollutant found in smoke, can increase the risk of a variety of problems, including heart and respiratory disease, as well as premature death.
Reprinted courtesy of
Linda Poon, Bloomberg and
Immanual John Milton, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
