Policy's One Year Suit Limitation Does Not Apply to Challenging the Insurer's Claims Handling
October 07, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Supreme Court held that the policy's suit limitation of one year, consistent with the statute requiring suit be file within twelve months after a loss, did not apply to claims alleging violation of the state's unfair competition law (UCL). Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2024 Cal. LEXIS 3806 (Cal. July 18, 2024).
Plaintiff held a homeowners policy issued by State Farm that provided coverage for all risks except those specifically excluded under the policy. The suit limitation provision provided, "Suit Against Us. No action shall be brought unless there has been compliance with the policy provision.The action must be started within one year after the date of loss or damage."
On two occasions in late 2018 or early 2019, plaintiff's neighbor stumble and fell as she descended a staircase at plaintiff's residence. Plaintiff discovered that the pitch of the stairs had changed, and replacement of the stairs was required to fix the issue. She contacted State Farm on or around April 23, 2019. On August 9, 2019, plaintiff submitted a claim to State Farm, seeking reimbursement for what she paid to repair the staircase. State Farm denied the claim, advising there was no coverage and identifying several exclusions as potentially applicable.
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
Why Insurers and Their Attorneys Need to Pay Close Attention to Their Discovery Burden in Washington
March 28, 2018 —
Neal Philip – Insurance Law BlogAs previously reported in this blog, Washington case law generally affords insureds a broad right to the discovery of claim file materials, including information that should be protected from disclosure by attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine.
Cedell v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P. 3d 239 (2013). The discovery pitfalls created by
Cedell were on full display in a recent Western District of Washington decision that granted an insured’s motion to compel production of work product and attorney/client communications from an insurer’s claims file.
Westridge Townhomes Owners Ass’n v. Great American Assur. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27960 (W.D. Wash. February 21, 2018)
The background facts are somewhat unclear, but it appears that the insured in this case made a claim for coverage under two insurance policies and there was an allegedly inadequate response from the insurers. The insured sued its insurers for coverage in 2016 before the insurers issued a declination of coverage letter. The two insurers retained the same attorney to represent them, and that attorney subsequently wrote a declination letter on behalf of the insurers, which was sent to the insured on April 12, 2017. The insured ultimately sought production of the entire claim file, which had not been split between the claim investigation and the coverage litigation. The insurers argued, among other things, that the insured was not entitled to anything after the litigation commenced in 2016 on work product grounds, and certainly was not entitled to communications with their attorney.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Neal Philip, Gordon, Reese, Scully, & MansukhaniMr. Philip may be contacted at
nphilip@grsm.com
Claim for Punitive Damages Based on Insurers' Alleged Bad Faith Business Practices Fails
September 05, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the bad faith claim based upon allegations of a general business practice of acting recklessly toward an insured's rights under the policy. Sandpiper Isle Condo. Ass'n v. Empire Indem. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114279 (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2022).
Sandpiper suffered property damage from Hurricane Irma. Empire accepted the claim but there was disagreement on the value of the damage. An appraisal issued an award in favor of Sandpiper but Empire failed to pay the benefits for two years.
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
Professor Senet’s List of 25 Decisions Every California Construction Lawyer Should Know:
January 17, 2022 —
Ted Senet - Gibbs Giden- Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 627 – economic loss rule
- Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks ( (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 228 – abandonment does not apply to public works – total cost theory is allowed
- Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 568 – architect liable in absence of privity
- Cates Const., Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28 – no tort recovery on bonds – performance bonds can cover contract warranties
- Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist., 149 Cal. App. 4th 1384 – liability for concealed conditions
- Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 803 – mechanic lien remedy is constitutional
- Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 541 – indemnity implies obligation to defend [now limited to commercial contracts under CCP 2782 (c)–(h)]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ted Senet, Gibbs GiddenMr. Senet may be contacted at
tsenet@gibbsgiden.com
Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do
August 26, 2019 —
Michael Studenka – Newmeyer DillionCalifornia employers need to pay heed to the recently announced California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) emergency regulation related to their duty to protect employees from the potential harm caused by wildfire smoke. As of July 29, 2019, employers are required to actively monitor their local Air Quality Index (AQI) and take steps to protect their employees from the harmful particulate matter contained within wildfire smoke.
Which Workplaces Are Impacted?
The regulation applies to all workplaces exposed to wildfire smoke with an AQI level of 151 or greater (ranging from "unhealthy" to "hazardous"). "Exposed" workplaces are those that are not in enclosed buildings, structures, or vehicles with mechanical ventilation and the ability to close all windows and doors. Outdoor occupations including construction, agriculture, landscaping, maintenance, commercial delivery, and others that expose the worker to the outside air for more than one hour will be the most impacted by this new regulation, although firefighters engaged in fighting wildfires are expressly exempt from the statute.
What If I Have A Potentially Exposed Workplace?
Employers with outdoor workplaces that are exposed to wildfire smoke are required to monitor the AQI before each shift, and "periodically throughout the day," all to ensure that the Air Quality Index for PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller) remains below 151. This can be done by visiting certain governmental websites, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's AirNow website (www.airnow.gov), which allow for regular email alerts to be issued to the employer. An employer with a potentially exposed workplace must also set up a communication system capable of communicating to all affected employees (in a language readily understood) the status of wildfire smoke hazards. The communication system must also provide the employees a process to inform the employer of worsening air quality and/or any adverse symptoms that they may be experiencing (e.g., asthma or chest pain).
Finally, employers are required to add to their Injury and Illness Protection Program (IIPP) the provision of effective training and instruction (i.e., approximately 15 minutes) regarding:
- the health effects of wildfire smoke;
- the right to obtain medical treatment without fear of reprisal;
- how employees can obtain the current AQI for PM2.5;
- the requirements of this regulation;
- the employer's communication system regarding wildfire smoke;
- the employer's methods for protecting employees from wildfire smoke;
- the importance, limitations, and benefits of using a respirator when exposed to wildfire smoke; and
- the proper use and maintenance of respirators.
The Required Provision of Respiratory Protective Equipment
Employers with exposed workplaces are required to provide effective NIOSH-approved respirators (e.g., N95 filtering facepiece respirators) when AQI for PM2.5 levels are 151-200 (unhealthy), 201-300 (very unhealthy), or 301-500 (hazardous). The N95 respirator typically costs less than a dollar per mask and can be easily purchased online. Employers are also required to clean, store, and maintain these respirators for times of need. Employees are free to decide whether to use a respirator when the AQI for PM2.5 level is between 151-500, although employers must be prepared to offer the equipment at an AQI level of 151 or higher. Use of the respirator by an employee exposed to an AQI for PM2.5 level that exceeds 500, however, is required by law.
What Should Potentially Exposed Employers Do Now?
Employers should immediately begin supplementing their IIPP platforms to include this regulation's prescribed training regarding wildfire smoke. Companies should also develop an adequate monitoring and communication plan regarding wildfire smoke hazards and effectively train their supervisors on the same. Finally, acquiring an adequate supply of N95 filtering respirators now will help ensure that employers are prepared for the next wildfire.
Michael Studenka is a partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Labor & Employment practice group. His practice focuses on the life cycle of Employment law. Mike advises and trains companies on proactive measures to keep them protected and in compliance, and leverages his significant trial experience when faced with litigation. You can reach out to him at michael.studenka@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defects Not Occurrences under Ohio Law
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFConcluding the “claims of defective construction or workmanship brought by a property owners are not claims for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence’ under a commercial general liability policy,” the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled in Westfield Insurance Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. In the underlying case, Custom Agri Systems, Inc. built a grain bin as a subcontractor to Younglove Construction, LLC. Younglove had been contracted by PSD Development, which withheld payment, claiming it had suffered damages due to defects in Custom Agri System’s work. Younglove filed a complaint against Custom Agri, which filed complaints against its subcontractors. Custom Agri also requested that its insurer, Westfield Insurance Company, defend and indemnify it. Westfield claimed that it had no such duty. The Ohio Supreme Court concurred.
The decision notes that “Custom was being sued under two general theories: defective construction and consequential damages resulting from the defective construction.” Westfield argued that none of the claims were “for ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘occurrence” and therefore none of the claims were covered under the CGL policy.” Further, Westfield argued that “even if the claims were for property damage caused by an occurrence, they were removed from coverage by an exclusion in the policy.”
The case was filed in the US District Court which issued a summary judgment for Westfield. The plaintiff appealed and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the questions to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
The court noted that “all of the claims against which Westfield is being asked to defect and indemnify Custom relate to Custom’s work itself.” And so, the court concluded that they “must decide whether Custom’s alleged defective construction of and workmanship on the steel grain bin constitute property damage caused by an ‘occurrence.’” However, the court noted that under the terms of the insurance contract, an occurrence is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions,” and the court noted that the “natural and commonly accepted meaning” of “accident” is something “unexpected, as well as unintended.”
The Ohio Supreme Court also looked at court decisions in other places, and found that in many similar cases, courts have concluded that construction defects are not occurrences.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Pfeifer argues that “if the defective construction is accidental, it constitutes an ‘occurrence’ under a CGL policy.” Justice Pfeifer characterized the majority’s definition of “accidental” as “broad, covering unexpected, unintentional happenings.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 20, 2011 in the case of Arundel Homeowners Association v. Arundel Green Partners, a construction defect case involving a condominium conversion in San Francisco. Eight years after the Notice of Completion was filed, the homeowners association filed a lawsuit alleging a number of construction defects, including “defective cabinets, waterproofing membranes, wall-cladding, plumbing, electrical wiring, roofing (including slope, drainage and flashings), fire-rated ceilings, and chimney flues.” Three years of settlement negotiations followed.
Negotiations ended in the eleventh year with the homeowners association filing a lawsuit. Arundel Green argued that the suit should be thrown out as California’s ten-year statute of limitations had passed. The court granted judgment to Arundel Green.
The homeowners then filed for a new trial and to amend its complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations should not apply due to the doctrine of equitable estoppel as Arundel Green’s actions had lead them to believe the issues could be solved without a lawsuit. “The HOA claimed that it was not until after the statute of limitations ran that the HOA realized Arundel Green would not keep its promises; and after this realization, the HOA promptly brought its lawsuit.” The trial court denied the homeowners association’s motions, which the homeowners association appealed.
In reviewing the case, the Appeals Court compared Arundel to an earlier California Supreme Court case, Lantzy. (The homeowners also cited Lantzy as the basis of their appeal.) In Lantzy, the California Supreme Court set up a four-part test as to whether estoppel could be applied. The court applied these tests and found, as was the case in Lantzy, that there were no grounds for estoppel.
In Arundel, the court noted that “there are simply no allegations that Arundel Green made any affirmative statement or promise that would lull the HOA into a reasonable belief that its claims would be resolved without filing a lawsuit.” The court also cited Lesko v. Superior Court which included a recommendation that the plaintiffs “send a stipulation?Ķextending time.” This did not happen and the court upheld the dismissal.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Examining Construction Defect as Occurrence in Recent Case Law and Litigation
February 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn Lexology, Stephen M. Prignano and Nora A. Valenza-Frost of Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP examined recent case law and litigation to discuss whether or not construction defects are construed as an occurrence in the current legal climate.
Prignano and Valenza-Frost stated, “The determination of whether there is coverage under a CGL policy for a construction defect claim requires an insurer to carefully examine the law of the relevant jurisdiction. Courts and legislatures continue to reach different conclusions respecting coverage, and some states have a more well-developed body of law on these issues than others.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
