New York Court Narrowly Interprets “Expected or Intended Injury” Exclusion in Win for Policyholder
May 16, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine, Kevin V. Small & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogNL Industries recently prevailed against its commercial general liability insurers in the New York Appellate Division in a noteworthy case regarding the meaning of “expected or intended” injury and the meaning of “damages” in a liability insurance policy. In Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. NL Industries, Inc., No. 2021-00241, 2022 WL 867910 (N.Y. App. Div. Mar. 24, 2022) (“NL Indus. II”), the Appellate Division held that exclusions for expected or intended injury required a finding that NL actually expected or intended the resulting harm; not merely have knowledge of an increased risk of harm. In addition, the court held that the funding of an abatement fund designed to prevent future harm amounted to “damages” in the context of a liability policy because the fund has a compensatory effect. NL Industries II is a reminder to insurers and policyholders alike that coverage is construed liberally and exclusions are construed narrowly towards maximizing coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The 411 on the New 415 Location of the Golden State Warriors
June 10, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogYou can feel the buzz here in the Bay Area as the Golden State Warriors enter Game 4 of the NBA Playoffs following a 35 point upset over the Houston Rockets on Saturday, and a chance tonight to sweep the series and head to the NBA Finals for the first time since 1975.
Formerly the Philadelphia Warriors from 1946 to 1962, and later the San Francisco Warriors from 1962 to 1971, the Golden State Warriors have played in Oakland’s currently named Oracle Arena since 1966 (except for one year when they played in San Jose while the Oracle Arena was being remodeled).
Starting next year, however, construction will begin on the Warriors’ new stadium in the Mission Bay area of San Francisco with completion scheduled for the 2018-2019 season. Although details are just emerging – and even the conceptual plans have changed after some said that the initial design looked like a toilet – here’s the 411 we know on the new 415 location of the Warriors:
- The cost of the new arena is estimated to be $1 billion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
California Restricts Principles of “General” Personal Jurisdiction
April 01, 2015 —
Kristian B. Moriarty and R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn BNSF Railway Company v. Superior Court (Kralovetz) (Filed 3/27/2015, No. B260798), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held a Delaware railroad corporation, with its principal place of business in Texas, was not subject to “general” personal jurisdiction in California, despite California housing 8.1% of the corporation’s total workforce, accounting for 6% of the corporation’s revenue, and containing just under 5% of its total track mileage.
Plaintiff, Vicki Kralovetz, filed suit in California Superior Court against defendant, BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”), and others, for wrongful death. Plaintiff contended her husband was exposed to asbestos products manufactured by BNSF in Kansas while working at a dismantling facility owned by BNSF’s predecessor in interest. Plaintiff claimed the exposure caused her husband to contract mesothelioma, which resulted in his death.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at mmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amazon Feels the Heat From Hoverboard Fire Claims
January 20, 2020 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:18CV166-M-P, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189053 (Oct. 31, 2019), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Amazon argued that, because it was a “service provider” who cannot be held liable under Mississippi’s Product Liability Act (MPLA), Miss. Code § 11.1.63, the negligence and negligent failure to warn claims filed against it by plaintiff State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (State Farm) failed as a matter of law. The court, looking beyond the MPLA, held that State Farm’s complaint stated a claim against Amazon.
In State Farm, Taylor and Laurel Boone (the Boones), State Farm’s subrogors, purchased two hoverboards from third parties in transactions facilitated by Amazon. They purchased the first hoverboard on October 31, 2015 and the second on November 10, 2015. The Boones started using the hoverboards on or about December 25, 2015. On March 16, 2016, the hoverboards caught fire and the fire spread to destroy the Boones’ home. As alleged in the amended complaint, the hoverboards were “manufactured by unknown manufacturers from China.” State Farm, as the Boones’ subrogee, filed suit asserting negligence and negligent failure to warn claims against Amazon.
Amazon filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, arguing that State Farm’s claims against it were governed by the MPLA and, as a service provider, it was not liable under the MPLA. In response, State Farm argued that Amazon was liable because it acted as a “marketplace” and that, rather than MPLA claims, Amazon is subject to common law negligence and failure to warn claims. The District Court agreed with State Farm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Colorado House Bill 17-1279 – A Misguided Attempt at Construction Defect Reform
March 29, 2017 —
David McClain - Colorado Construction LitigationOn March 17th, House Bill 17-1279, concerning the requirement that a unit owners’ association obtain approval through a vote of unit owners before filing a construction defect action, was introduced and assigned to the House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. The bill is currently scheduled for its first committee hearing on March 29th, at 1:30 in the afternoon. While, on its face, this appears to be a step in the right direction towards instituting “informed consent” before an HOA can file a construction defect action, the bill actually restricts the ability of developer to include more stringent requirements in the declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for an association, thereby lowing the threshold of “consent” required to institute an action.
House Bill 17-1279 would amend C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 to require an association’s executive board to mail or deliver written notice of the anticipated commencement of a construction defect action to each unit owner and to call a meeting of the unit owners to consider whether to bring such an action. Any construction professional against which a claim may attend the unit owners’ meeting and have an opportunity to address the unit owners and may include an offer to remedy any defect in accordance with C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5(3). The conclusion of the meeting would initiate a 120-day voting period, during which period the running of any applicable statutes of limitation or repose would be tolled. Pursuant to this bill, an executive board may only institute a construction defect action only if authorized by a simple majority of the unit owners, not including: 1) any unit owned by any construction professional, or affiliate of a construction professional, involved in the design, construction, or repair of any portion of the project; 2) any unit owned by a banking institution; 3) any unit owned in which no defects are alleged to exist, and/or 4) any unit owned by an individual deemed “nonresponsive.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s
July 05, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner.
The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Forethought Is Key to Overcoming Construction Calamities
February 10, 2020 —
Mitch Cohen - Construction ExecutiveWithout warning, an under-construction structure in the southern United States suffered a catastrophic collapse. The tragedy resulted in the death of several people. As a result, engineering and construction post-collapse forensics experts engaged in an 18-month investigation.
Those involved in the design and build project included the general contractor hired by the owner, a prime engineer, a consulting peer-review engineer and a prime structural design firm supported by a sub-consulting structural engineer. Although significant cracking was noticed several weeks before the failure, no one sounded the alarm or deemed the cracking worthy of corrective action.
In their findings, forensic experts found the collapse resulted from the combined failure of the general contractor, engineers and even the owner, who all failed to shut down the work once the cracking reached unacceptable levels and/or take the appropriate actions needed to secure the public safety and mitigate the risk. This was even after the general contractor requested that the engineer-of-record and design manager assess the structure’s extreme cracking. Consequently, the choice to not seriously investigate the crack or seek an independent peer review to design a rectification plan contributed directly to the tragedy. This is typically referred to within the industry as a “negligent professional design error.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Mitch Cohen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at
mitch.cohen@rtspecialty.com
Work without Permits may lead to Problems Later
September 10, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Los Angeles Register, “Southern California homeowners often have repairs or improvements done to their property without getting the required building permits,” which sometimes, may be fine, but other times it leads to disastrous problems.
The Register used an example of a San Clemente couple who had issues selling their home when a building inspector found that weep screeds were covered up by a cement deck installed by a contractor. The contractor also failed to get building permits for the work that was done. The buyer stated that repairs needed to be done prior to the sale.
According to Mac MacKenzie, an agent at Coldwell Banker in Irvine, the situation is not uncommon: “We’ve had (permit problems) kill deals before, and we’ve had them almost kill deals. If it’s serious enough, it can stop a transaction from closing.”
Permits are generally required “for any alteration, major repairs or new construction,” according to the Register, while they are not necessary “for minor repairs, such as fixing leaky pipes, painting, new carpeting or new kitchen countertops.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
