Ensuing Loss Provision Salvages Coverage for Water Damage Claim
September 16, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's finding of no coverage and found that the ensuing loss provision provided coverage for water damage. 3524 East Cap Venture, LLC, et al. v. Weschester Fire Ins. Co., et al., 104 F. 4th 193 (D.C. Cir. 2024).
Plaintiff 3534 East Cap Venture, LLC, a real-estate developer, hired plaintiff McCullough Construction, LLC, to build a residential and retail complex. Defendants Westchester Fire Insurance Company and Endurance American Insurance Company issued identical builders' risk policies, which covered the building while it was under construction. Each insurer was responsible for half of any qualifying losses.
The policies covered loss caused by or resulting from water damage. The policies, however, excluded loss caused by "dampness of atmosphere" or by "[e]xtremes or changes in temperature." But the exclusions contained an exception if "loss by an insured peril ensues."
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
Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued
March 28, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiFaced with an issue of first impression in California, the Court of Appeals held that a broker was not liable for failing to reveal the insurer's insolvency occurring after issuance of the policy. Pacific Rim Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Ins. Serv. West, Inc., 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 232 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2012).
The developer for a construction project in downtown San Diego retained Aon as its broker to secure coverage. Aon procured a general liability policy for the project with Legion Indemnity Company. Legion was solvent when it issued the policy.
The developer hired Pacific Rim (“PacRim”) as one of several subcontractors on the project. The parties entered into a contract in which the developer agreed to provide PacRim with liability insurance through an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”). Aon was not a party to the contract and PacRim was never its client. PacRim, however, enrolled in the OCIP by contacting Aon and providing all necessary paperwork.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Tips for Contractors
December 08, 2016 —
Patrick McNamara - Porter Law GroupMany contractors contentedly accept the insurance policies presented to them by their insurance carriers. However, it is a much better practice to be an active participant in choosing the most appropriate coverage for your business and the specific jobs that you are performing. Use the following tips to be sure your company has the best and most comprehensive coverage.
- Never purchase a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy with a “sunset” provision limiting coverage under Products & Completed Operations liability (P&CO) to a 2, 3 or 4-year term. Why? Because the California statute of limitations for construction defect claims is generally 10 years.
- Never consider a “Claims-made” or “Modified Occurrence” coverage form which also have a built-in limitation as to the length or term of P&CO coverage. Example: If you purchase a claims-made policy and decide to “switch” your insurance to the preferred “occurrence” coverage form, unless a special provision is made prior to the new purchase, the claims-made coverage would become worthless after the sixty (60) day claims-reporting period.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McNamara, Porter Law GroupMr. McNamara may be contacted at
pmcnamara@porterlaw.com
White House Proposal Returns to 1978 NEPA Review Procedures
November 15, 2021 —
Karen C. Bennett - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (October 15, 2021) - The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has requested comments, by November 22, 2021, on proposed revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations. The proposal is Phase I in a two-phased approach that will eventually undo a final rule, effective September 2020, that updated NEPA regulations to reflect decades of agency experience and caselaw interpreting the 1969 Act.
Phase I proposes to reinstitute 1978 definitions for key terms used to determine the scope of review and the range of alternatives required when undertaking any major federal action. Phase II is expected to be an extensive rewrite of the 2020 regulations to incorporate climate change and environmental justice objectives. Businesses with projects, now or in the future, that require federal authorizations will need to pay close attention to these regulatory revisions.
The 2020 update rule intended to scale back the time and cost of producing NEPA analyses by focusing agency resources on evaluating effects that are within the agency’s ability to control and studying only those alternatives that would meet the project purpose. CEQ’s proposal eliminates these efficiencies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Karen Bennett, Lewis BrisboisMs. Bennett may be contacted at
Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Montana Federal Court Upholds Application of Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
November 08, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiInterpreting Montana law, the federal district court found that the policy's anti-concurrent causation clause prevented coverage for the insured's damaged home. Ward v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149051 (D. Mont. Aug. 9, 2021).
Plaintiff was advised by her tenants that water was bubbling up from the ground. It was determined that water was leaking from a main pipe serving the property. Subsequently, this old pipe was abandoned, left in the ground, and replaced with a new pipe in a new path with new excavation. Nevertheless, the insured reported the incident to her agent under her Landlord Protection Policy issued by Safeco, but reported there was no damage to the property.
Two months later, it was discovered a pipe burst again. The insured called her agent, who maintained the loss would not be covered, but agreed to submit a claim to Safeco. Safeco hired an inspector. A report stated that a portion of cracks found in the concrete perimeter of the home were not new and that the shape of the structure on which the house sat could explain their presence. The report noted that new cracks in the foundation could have been caused by a lack of care to make sure that the foundation was sufficient supported by consolidated soil during the excavation of the new water line. Based upon this report, Safeco denied coverage based upon the earth movement and water damage exclusions.
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
Illinois Appellate Court Address the Scope of the Term “Resident” in Homeowners Policy
April 11, 2022 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Cheekati, 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, the 4th District Court of Appeals for the State of Illinois addressed whether the term “resident” in a homeowners policy included a tenant leasing the insured premises. The Insureds owned property which was insured through Farmers under a homeowner’s policy. Unable to sell the property, the Insureds entered into a two-year lease agreement with a tenant. Several months after entering into the lease agreement, the tenant allegedly sustained physical injuries inside of the rented premises when a staircase collapsed. The tenant sued the Insureds and the matter was tendered to Farmers. Thereafter, Farmers denied coverage based on an exclusionary provision in the homeowner’s policy. Specifically, the policy contained a "Liability Exclusions" section, which provided:
"Coverage E (Personal Liability) *** and personal injury coverage, if covered under this policy, do not apply to: Any insured or other residents of the residence premises. We do not cover bodily injury or personal injury to: (a) any insured; or (b) any resident of the residence premises, whether resident in the dwelling or a separate structure." (Emphases in original.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Connecticut Crumbling Concrete Cases Not Covered Under "Collapse" Provision in Homeowner's Policy
July 01, 2019 —
Kerianne E. Kane - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.What do you do when your house falls out from underneath you? Over the last few years, homeowners in northeastern Connecticut have been suing their insurers for denying coverage for claims based on deteriorating foundations in their homes. The lawsuits, which have come to be known as the “crumbling concrete cases,” stem from the use of faulty concrete to pour foundations of approximately 35,000 homes built during the 1980s and 1990s. In order to save their homes, thousands of homeowners have been left with no other choice but to lift their homes off the crumbling foundations, tear out the defective concrete and replace it. The process typically costs between $150,000 to $350,000 per home, and homeowner’s insurers are refusing to cover the costs. As a result, dozens of lawsuits have been filed by Connecticut homeowners in both state and federal court.
Of those cases, three related lawsuits against Allstate Insurance Company were the first to make it to the federal appellate level.1 The Second Circuit Court of Appeals was tasked with deciding one common issue: whether the “collapse” provision in the Allstate homeowner’s policy affords coverage for gradually deteriorating basement walls that remain standing.
The Allstate policies at issue were “all-risk” policies, meaning they covered “sudden and accidental direct physical losses” to residential properties. While “collapse” losses were generally excluded, the policies did provide coverage for a limited class of “sudden and accidental” collapses, including those caused by “hidden decay,” and/or “defective methods or materials used in construction, repair or renovations.” Covered collapses did not include instances of “settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Kane may be contacted at
kek@sdvlaw.com
The Unwavering Un-waivable Implied Warranty of Workmanship and Habitability in Arizona
January 23, 2023 —
Robert A. Henry & Emily R. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Arizona Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on the scope of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability (the “implied warranty”) in contracts between homebuyers and builder/vendors that provides clear guidance of the law in this area, specifically on the issue of whether the implied warranty can be waived or disclaimed. It is also an interesting and helpful read for those who engage in new home residential sales and real estate transactions generally.
The case:
Zambrano v. M & RC, II LLC, 254 Ariz. 53 (2022). The takeaway holding: the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability cannot, under any circumstances, be disclaimed or waived.
From a practice perspective, the foregoing is likely all one needs to ultimately know. However, the majority opinion (authored by Justice Timmer) and the dissent (authored by Justice King, and joined by Justice Bolick) are in these authors’ opinions worth a read for those who want a better understanding of the contours of how “public policy” plays into the analysis of the enforceability of contract terms, especially in the real estate context and even more particularly in connection with contracts for the sale of new homes. The careful analysis of both the majority opinion and the dissent provides an excellent history of the implied warranty, the public policy behind it, and its scope and application in the context of competing public policies, most notably the freedom to contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. Henry, Snell & Wilmer and
Emily R. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Henry may be contacted at bhenry@swlaw.com
Ms. Parker may be contacted at eparker@swlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
