Cause Still Unclear in March Retaining Wall Collapse on $900M NJ Interchange
June 07, 2021 —
Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-RecordA probe continues by construction engineer Hardesty and Hanover LLC into what caused the late March collapse of a retaining wall that is part of one of New Jersey's largest roadbuilding projects—the already late-running effort called Direct Connection, which aims to untangle the convoluted interchange of north-south I-295 and east-west Route 42 in Camden County.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage Denied for Ensuing Loss After Foundation Damage
February 07, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insureds attempt to secure coverage for ensuing losses after foundation damage was properly denied by the insurer. Walker v. Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6683 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014).
Two provisions excluding coverage under Nationwide's homeowner's policy were key to the court's decision. Exclusion 3 (e) barred coverage for "continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water or stem over a period of time . . . ." Exclusion 3 (f) (6) precluded coverage for settling, cracking, shrinking, bulging or expansion of pavements, patios, foundations, walls, floors, roof or ceiling.
The policy also included a Dwelling Foundation Endorsement which covered settling, cracking, bulging of floor slabs or footings that supported the dwelling caused by seepage or leakage of water or steam. This endorsement stated the limit of liability would not exceed an amount equal to 15% of the limit of coverage for the dwelling.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports Wounded Warrior Project at WCC Seminar
May 01, 2015 —
CDJ STAFFIn just two weeks, the 22nd West Coast Casualty (WCC) Construction Defect Seminar returns to the Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California. The annual event begins on Thursday, May 14th, with breakfast and registration starting at 7:30am. Panel discussions on various construction defect related topics begin at 8:30am and continue through the morning and afternoon, followed by a cocktail reception in the early evening. The following day includes break-out sessions with the event concluding in the afternoon. Attendees can enhance their seminar experience with the WCC Construction Defect Seminar Mobile App. The event schedule, speaker information, product information, sponsor details, and interactive floorplan can all be accessed through the app. Furthermore, registered attendees will have access to session presentations.
The designated charity for this years’ event is the
Wounded Warrior Project and there are several ways for attendees to support this honorable cause. In addition to the opportunity to purchase a “Buy A Banner” to hang in the seminar hall, there will be a traditional raffle for two American Themed quilts donated by Marianne Cutcher. Bert L. Howe and Associates, Inc. has also stepped up to support Wounded Warriors, and attendees will get the chance to help raise money for this cause in the following manner:
If you stop by the Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) booth at the seminar and try their “Sink A Putt For Charity” not only will you have the chance to win a $25 Best Buy gift card, but you’ll also have the opportunity to help raise funds for Wounded Warriors. For every hole-in-one made at their booth, BHA will also make a $25.00 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the Wounded Warrior Project. BHA strongly supports the goals and principles of Wounded Warriors, and is honored to assist the organization in fulfilling its mandate of assisting our returning military heroes who are in need.
Download an invitation and register for WCC Seminar...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Courts Reject Insurers’ Attempts to Recoup Defense Costs Expended Under Reservation of Rights
April 11, 2022 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo Meta - White and WilliamsIn situations where there is a dispute over a duty to defend, an insurer may provide a defense to its insured, subject to a reservation of rights, to not only deny coverage for a defense, but also to file a declaratory judgment action and recoup defense costs in the event it is determined there is no duty to defend. But are defense costs recoupable? Last week, federal trial courts in Georgia and Pennsylvania answered this question with a resounding “no”.
In Chemical Equipment Labs, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Case No. 19-3441, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61298 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 31, 2022), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was called to determine whether Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) was entitled to reimbursement of defense costs after it was determined that it had no duty to defend its insured in an arbitration for breach of a charter agreement. The Travelers’ policies did not contain an express reimbursement provision. The court found that Travelers was not entitled to reimbursement because under Pennsylvania law, “[r]eimbursement of defense costs requires an express provision in the written insurance contract.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Margo Meta, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the case Phillips v. Parmelee, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled “that an asbestos exclusion in a liability policy barred a duty to defend and indemnify a building seller for claims that the seller failed to disclose that the building contained asbestos,” according to an article in Mondaq by Ruth S. Kochenderfer and Deanna P. Cook, both from Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The policyholder received a building report stating that the “heating ducts likely contained asbestos,” however, the buyers alleged that the policyholder never provided them the report. After the buyers purchased the property, contractors “cut through the heating ducts, unknowingly dispersing asbestos throughout the building.”
According to Kochenderfer and Cook’s article, “The insurer intervened in the buyers' suit and sought summary judgment against the policyholder and buyers, arguing that an asbestos exclusion precluded coverage for the buyers' suit against the policyholder.” The buyers took the case to the Wisconsin Supreme court and “attacked the asbestos exclusion,” but the court rejected every argument.
Kochenderfer and Cook stated that the “decision is significant because three courts, including Wisconsin's highest court, squarely rejected attempts to narrow a broad, clearly-worded asbestos exclusion. Further, it confirms that such an asbestos exclusion will apply to all causes of action, including an alleged failure to disclose the presence of asbestos.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (06/29/22)
July 11, 2022 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogHousing market activity is on the downtick, the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment launches, the SEC proposes a climate rule that signals a new era for real estate, and more.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage
March 14, 2018 —
Alan Packer and Graham Mills - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPUnfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in
Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense.
In
Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage.
After the
Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense.
The key issue before the
Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued.
In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the
Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may
potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid.
While
Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs.
Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under
Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later.
Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com.
Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com.
ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review’s AV Preeminent® highest rating.
For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Freddie Mac Eases Mortgage Rules to Limit Putbacks
May 13, 2014 —
Clea Benson and Jody Shenn - BloombergFreddie Mac, which along with Fannie Mae has forced home lenders to buy back tens of billions of dollars of flawed mortgages, said the companies are loosening rules that made banks more cautious about extending credit.
The government-backed companies will expand the pool of loans that become exempt from putback requests, Freddie Mac (FMCC) said in a memo to lenders today. Under the new rules, loans will typically be spared from such demands if borrowers make 34 of their first 36 scheduled monthly payments. Previously, borrowers needed to avoid delinquency for the first three years.
Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clea Benson and Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
