Court of Appeals Upholds Default Judgment: Serves as Reminder to Respond to Lawsuits in a Timely Manner
October 02, 2023 —
Anna Basnaw - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn
Cyrus Way Partners, LLC. (“Cyrus”) v. Cadman, Inc. (“Cadman”), the primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in denying Cadman’s motion to vacate the default judgment under Civil Rules 55 and 60. A default judgment is a legal ruling that can be entered in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit. If that happens, the court may resolve the lawsuit without hearing from the other side. In Washington, a party typically has 20 days to appear in a suit before being at risk for default judgment. If a default judgment is entered for the plaintiff, the defendant can move to vacate the default judgment, meaning the defendant hopes the court will set aside the default judgment as if it never happened. In this case, Cadman, the defendant, presents several ultimately unsuccessful arguments for why the default judgment in favor of Cyrus, the plaintiff, should be vacated.
Cyrus and Orca Beverage Inc. (“Orca”) are under common ownership. In 2018, Cyrus began a project to build a warehouse for Orca, which included the construction of a large concrete slab. Cadman was hired to supply the concrete. Cyrus hired Olympic Concrete Finishing Inc. (“Olympic”) to finish the concrete. On April 1, 2018, Cadman poured the concrete, and Olympic finished the slab. The next day, Cyrus noticed several problems with the slab, which experts hired by both Cyrus and Cadman opined were caused by an abnormally high air content in the concrete.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Court Adopts Continuous Trigger for Construction Defect Claims
November 15, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, adopted the continuous trigger for establishing which insurers were on the risk for construction defect claims. Air Master & Cooling, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 2017 N.J. Super. LEXIS 144 (N.J. Super. Ct., App. Div. Oct. 10, 2017).
The insured, Air Master, worked as a subcontractor on the construction of a condominium building. Air Master performed HVAC work in the building between November 2005 and April 2008. Air Master's work consisted of installing condenser units on rails on the building's roof, and also HVAC devices within each individual unit.
Starting in early 2008, some of the unit owners began to notice water infiltration and damage in their windows, ceilings, and other portions of their units. On April 29, 2010, an expert consultant, Jersey Infrared Consultants, performed a moisture survey of the roof for water damage. A report identified 111 spots on the roof damaged by moisture from water infiltration. The report noted it was impossible to determine when moisture infiltration occurred. The expert recommended that these damaged areas of the roof be removed and replaced.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Locals Concerns over Taylor Swift’s Seawall Misdirected
January 13, 2014 —
CDJ STAFFHomeowners in Westerly, Rhode Island have been concerned about alterations made to a seawall below Taylor Swift’s seaside home in Rhode Island, particularly in that some large boulders have been moved to the shore. But officials with Rhode Island’s Coastal Resource Management Council have assured residents that the work is being done at their request, according to the Westerly Sun.
In addition to moving boulders, the project repairs an existing seawall which was damaged by Hurricane Sandy. The cost is estimated to be $2 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert
June 10, 2019 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistIn
In re City of Dickinson, 568 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2019), the Supreme Court of Texas recently assessed whether a client’s emails with its counsel were subject to disclosure after the client was designated as a testifying expert witness. In re City of Dickinson involved a coverage dispute between a policyholder and its insurer. The policyholder moved for summary judgment on the issue of causation, essentially alleging that its insurer did not pay all damages caused by Hurricane Ike. In responding to the motion, the insurer relied upon an affidavit by one of its employees, a claims examiner, that included both factual testimony and expert witness testimony.
The policyholder subsequently filed a motion to compel, seeking the production of emails between the claims examiner and the insurer’s counsel that were generated while the affidavit was being drafted. The emails contained numerous revisions of the affidavit. The insurer objected, asserting that the emails were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were generated in the course of the rendition of legal services.
The trial court granted the motion to compel, ordering production. Ultimately, after a series of appeals, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the documents in dispute were subject to discovery. In resolving this issue, the court examined the rules pertaining to expert disclosures. As noted by the court, the rules authorize the production of all documents provided to a testifying expert witness. Thus, the court was faced with determining if its rules required the disclosure of documents that are also subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and WilliamsMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?
June 13, 2018 —
Richard Borden, Sedgwick Jeanite & Joshua Mooney - White and Williams LLPThe ramp-up of cybersecurity regulation, albeit in a patchwork fashion through state-level legislation, has begun. On May 18, 2018, South Carolina enacted the Insurance Data Security Act (Act), becoming the first state to pass legislation based upon the Insurance Data Security Model Law that was approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) last October. The Act makes very little change to the model law’s text, which in turn, is based on 23 NYCRR § 500, et seq., the cybersecurity regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Financial Services in March 2017. The Act establishes stringent standards for both data security programs, and an entity’s response to a “cybersecurity event” through an organized and methodical investigation and notification to the state’s Department of Insurance. Like New York’s cybersecurity regulations, the Act requires insurers to submit to the Department of Insurance annual certification of compliance and has a ratcheted implementation of portions of the legislation on insurers and brokers operating or otherwise licensed to do business in the state. It does not create a private cause of action.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Richard Borden,
Sedgwick Jeanite and
Joshua Mooney
Mr. Borden may be contacted at bordenr@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Jeanite may be contacted at jeanites@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Mooney may be contacted at mooneyj@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer
June 21, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesI harp on notifying a liability insurer in writing once a claim is asserted against you. As soon as possible. I harp on this because as an insured you want to remove any doubt or argument that the insurer was prejudiced due to a lack of timely notice.
In a recent opinion, Zurich American Insurance Co. v. European Tile and Floors, Inc., 2017 WL 2427172 (M.D.Fla. 2017), the insurer moved for summary judgment in a coverage action arguing that its insured failed to provide it timely written notice. Specifically, the insurer argued that the insured violated the clause in the liability policy that states:
2. Duties in the Event of Occurrence, Offense, Claim or Suit
b. If a claim is made or “suit” is brought against any insured, you must:
- Immediately record the specifics of the claim or “suit” and the date received; and
- Notify us as soon as practicable.
You must see to it that we receive written notice of the claim or “suit” as soon as practicable.
c. You and any other insured must:
- Immediately send us copies of any demands, notices, summonses or legal papers received in connection with the claim or “suit”;
- Authorize us to obtain records and other information;
- Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the claim or “suit”; and
- Assist us, upon our request, in the enforcement of any right against any person or organization which may be liable to the insured because of injury or damage to which this insurance may also apply.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Homeowners Sued for Failing to Disclose Defects
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Madison-St. Clair Record reports that a Wisconsin homeowner has sued the former owners of her home, alleging that they failed to disclose a defect. According to the lawsuit, David and Doris Stephens informed Jennifer Davies that a basement window well had previously leaked, but that the problem had been fixed and not recurred in three years. Ms. Davies had problems with the leaks after she moved in.
And while the window was the only defect the Stepehenses reported, Ms. Davies found problems with the home’s heating and air conditioning as well. Though she paid only $112,000 for the home, Ms. Davies is suing for $400,000 for the repairs, loss of property value, and the court fees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
