Fires, Hurricanes, Dangerous Heat: The US Is Reeling From a String of Disasters
August 22, 2023 —
Will Wade & Brian K Sullivan - BloombergFrom deadly wildfires to floods, the US is reeling from several natural disasters in quick succession — and more are likely on the way.
Torrential rains from the remnants of Hurricane Hilary are inundating parts of California. Two tropical storms, one post-tropical cyclone and two potential storms are lined up in the Atlantic Ocean. Almost 100 wildfires are burning across 15 states as officials in Hawaii investigate the deadliest US blaze in more than a century. And record heat will test Midwest power grids this week.
All of this, all at once, is a lot — and it’s not just bad luck. Climate change has triggered heat waves around the world, leading to ideal fire conditions in forests across the Northwest and Canada. It’s also boosting Atlantic water temperatures, which can intensify storms as the peak of hurricane season approaches. And unusually warm Pacific Ocean waters fueled Hilary, which in turn will contribute to scorching heat in the Midwest.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
South Carolina Homeowners May Finally Get Class Action for Stucco Defects
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFLast year, Judge J. Michael Baxley approved a class action lawsuit over stucco problems in Sun City Hilton Head. The lawyers from S.C. State Plastering have already settled with about 140 defendants in that community, and they are trying to prevent the plaintiff’s lawyers from communicating with other residents. In June, a judge dismissed S.C. State Plastering’s request to block this communication, but the company has appealed.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has heard the case regarding the notices and has yet to rule. The Chief Justice has recused herself, stating that she has a connection to the case, although she has not elaborated.
Many homeowners have waited to repair their homes, hoping to receive compensation. Pulte Homes, the builder of the project, has also repaired some homes. It is not clear if those homeowners are eligible for the class action lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere have been changes recently in how courts interpret commercial general liability policies. Writing for Claims Journal, Burke Coleman, who is legal counsel and Compliance Manager for Demotech, looks at five recent cases and how they show changing views of CGL policies and construction defect claims.
He notes that the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that “defective construction itself does not trigger coverage.” The court’s view in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. was that a CGL policy does not protect contractors from every risk, but instead covers damage to other property that occur due to its work.
But, conversely, the Georgia Supreme Court found that construction defect claims could be covered under a commercial general liability policy, noting that “the limits of coverage do not have to be found in the word ‘occurrence,’ inasmuch as the other words of the insuring agreement — as well as the policy exclusions — have their own roles to play in marking the limits of coverage.” This decision was reached in Taylor Morrison Services v. HDI-Gerling America.
The Connecticut Supreme Court also concluded that defective construction could trigger coverage from a CGL policy, however, as Mr. Coleman notes, “only damage to non-defective property may be entitled to coverage.” He concludes that the North Dakota Supreme Court “has taken an even broader approach to the issue.” That court found that construction defects were covered “if the faulty work was unexpected and unintended.”
Finally, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that faulty work can be property damage. He notes “the policy at issue included a ‘your work’ exclusion that excluded coverage for work performed by the insured, but subcontractors were excepted from the exclusion.” However, another clause excluded work performed on the behalf of the insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How the California and Maui Wildfires Will Affect Future Construction Projects
October 30, 2023 —
Susan Doering - Construction ExecutiveJust like any kind of fire, wildfires are caused by the presence of fuel and a spark. In the case of the
2017 fires in the wine country of California, along with the state's 2018
Camp Fire, the fuel was dry leaf litter, branches and downed trees. And the spark, in some cases, resulted from electric utility lines and, in other cases, due to contractor’s work.
More recently, this summer's Maui fires have taken hundreds of lives—deceased and missing—and burned more than 2,500 acres. Lahaina’s historic sites cannot be replaced, and estimates of the rebuild costs are near $5 billion. In Hawaii, the fuel was the same as in California: dried forest debris. It is alleged that the spark was from a powerline downed by extreme winds from Hurricane Dora. While sparks were present, it is the increased volume of fuel that has been the true source of the disastrous recent wildfires.
The increased presence of fuel is the result of recent changes in forestry-management practices, coupled with accelerated climatic shifts in recent years toward hotter, drier weather from 2011 to 2020 in California and 2022 to 2023 in Maui, increasing both frequency and severity.
Reprinted courtesy of
Susan Doering, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insured's Expert Qualified, Judgment for Coverage Affirmed
December 15, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiAddressing a host of issues on appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment against the insurer for property damage caused by Hurricane Ike. Nat'l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Henriquez, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11391 (Tex. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2016), withdrawn and substituted by 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 12766 (Tex. Ct. app. Dec. 1, 2016).
The insureds alleged property damage to their home caused by the hurricane. The roof was damaged, resulting in interior water damage. Sheetrock, exterior bricks, windows, walls cabinets and insulation throughout the entire home were damaged. The insureds also alleged that the home shifted during the storm, causing the foundation to not be level and the ceilings and walls to crack. Personal property within the dwelling was also damaged.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Does “Faulty Workmanship” Constitute An Occurrence Under Your CGL Policy?
January 08, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere is nothing more scintillating than an insurance coverage dispute, right? Well, some folks would agree with this sentiment. Others would spit out their morning coffee in disagreement. Regardless of where you fall in the spectrum, they are always important because maintaining insurance is a NECESSARY part of business, particularly in the construction industry. The ideal is to have insurance that covers risks you are assuming in the performance of your work.
Sometimes, insurance coverage disputes provide valuable insight, even in disputes outside of Florida. Recently, the Western District of Kentucky in Westfield Insurance Co. v. Kentuckiana Commercial Concrete, LLC, 2023 WL 8650791 (W.D.KY 2023), involved such a dispute. While different than how Florida would treat the same issue, it’s still noteworthy because it sheds light into how other jurisdictions determine whether “faulty workmanship” constitutes an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Congratulations to Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Associate Shanna B. Carter on Obtaining Another Defense Award at Arbitration!
January 14, 2025 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPThe case arose from an incident at Plaintiff’s residence where she alleged that a failure to properly diagnose an issue with her HVAC unit led to its destruction, displacement from her home, and damage to her roof and kitchen, resulting in a diminution of value to her house. Jeff and Shanna represented the HVAC contractor, who denied any wrongdoing during the two-day arbitration at which a total of six witnesses were examined. Jeff and Shanna utilized Plaintiff’s own experts’ testimony to successfully challenge liability and bring forth a motion for spoliation, resulting in a complete defense award for Jeff and Shanna’s client, which included an award of costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
