Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Michigan Court Waives Goodbye to Subrogation Claims, Except as to Gross Negligence

March 13, 2023 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
In Ace American Insurance Company, et. al. v. Toledo Engineering Co., Inc., et. al., No. 18-11503, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15222 (Ace American), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan determined whether insurers could pursue their subrogation claims against the defendants despite a waiver of subrogation in each of the contracts the insured had with the respective defendants. Based on the language of the contracts and the circumstances leading up to the loss, the court held that the insurers could not pursue their subrogation claims – other than their claims for gross negligence – due to waivers of subrogation in the applicable contracts. In Ace American, the insured, Guardian Industries, LLC (Guardian), retained Toledo Engineer Co., Inc. (TECO) and Dreicor, Inc. (Dreicor) to renovate a glass furnace in the insured’s glass manufacturing plant. Guardian and TECO entered into a contract on December 6, 2016. Guardian and Dreicor entered into a contract on September 29, 2013, that the parties later updated on June 3, 2016. Both defendants began work on the project in the spring of 2017 and were finished with the portion of the work known as the “Cold Tank Repair” prior to the loss. On June 3, 2017, there was an explosion and fire at the plant that caused significant property damage. The plaintiff insurers (Plaintiffs) made payments in the amount of $80 million and became subrogated to its insured’s rights. Plaintiffs then initiated this action. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance: An Exception to the Four Corners Rule

October 29, 2014 — Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction Litigation
In Colorado, the “complaint rule,” also known as the “four corners rule,” requires an insurer to provide a defense when an underlying complaint alleges any set of facts that may fall within an insurance policy. This can result in a situation where an insurer has a duty to defend although the underlying facts ultimately do not fall within the policy. In KF-103 v. American Family Mutual Insurance, 2014 WL 4409876, District Court Judge Richard P. Matsch recognized an exception to the complaint rule. In doing so, Judge Matsch determined that a court may look beyond the complaint to judicial orders preceding the filing of the complaint to determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend. Therefore, a party may not be able to assert unsupported facts in a complaint for the sole purpose of triggering an insurance policy. KF 103 v. American Family arose out of an underlying easement dispute. In the underlying case, KF 103-CV, LLC (“KF 103”) purchased a piece of property from the Infinity Group. As a condition of the purchase agreement, Infinity Group was required to complete improvements to boundary streets and the intersection of Ski Lane and Sorpresa Lane. Several adjoining property owners (the “neighbors”) objected to the modification of the intersection because it violated an express easement (the “easement”) that provided access to their properties. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLeroy may be contacted at McLeroy@hhmrlaw.com

New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

October 07, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work. The court’s opinion follows prior New Jersey state court precedent, including Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Island Pool & Spa, Inc., 12 A.3d 719 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011) (Island Pool), but also provides additional guidance on the elements which can make the Ongoing Operations Exclusion applicable to exclude coverage. In PJR Construction, a commercial property owner engaged a construction company to build a 26,000 square foot swim club and related 3,000 square foot pavilion building in New Jersey. After about 75% of the work was completed, the property owner fired the construction company and denied it access to the property. The owner later sued the construction company in New Jersey state court alleging “shoddy workmanship” in, among other things, sealants, flashing, water resistant barriers, masonry and the handicap ramps. The construction company sought coverage from its CGL insurer, which denied coverage based on, among other things, the j.(5) Ongoing Operations Exclusion. After the denial of coverage, the company sued the insurer in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaration of coverage. Reprinted courtesy of Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit

January 28, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, filed 1/27/15), a California appeals court held that the use of a mailing address to send policies and renewals into California did not support jurisdiction for a California resident's bad faith lawsuit against a Michigan insurer over property coverage for a fire loss to a building in Arkansas. In Greenwell, the insured was a California resident engaged in real estate investment. He purchased an apartment building in Little Rock, Arkansas. Using the services of an insurance broker in Little Rock, he purchased a package of general liability and commercial property insurance for the building from Auto-Owners Insurance Company, a Michigan insurer not licensed in California. The policy listed the insured's business address in California, the policy was mailed there, and renewed three times via the insured's California address. Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com, Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Measure Of Damages for Breach of Construction Contract

October 18, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
How do you determine damages for a breach of a construction contract? If you are interested in pursing a breach of a construction contract action, this is something you NEED TO KNOW! The recent Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Cano, Inc. v. Judet, 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2083b (Fla. 4th DCA 201) explains:

Where a contractor breaches a construction contract, and the owner sues for breach of contract and the cost to complete, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the reasonable cost to perform the contract. See Grossman Holdings Ltd. v. Hourihan, 414 So. 2d 1037, 1039-40 (Fla. 1982). In Grossman, the supreme court adopted subsection 346(1)(a) of the Restatement (First) of Contracts (1932), which it concluded was “designed to restore the injured party to the condition he would have been in if the contract had been performed.” Id. at 1039. In other words, the owner will obtain the benefit of his bargain [and this is known as benefit of the bargain damages]. But where there is a total breach of the contract as opposed to a partial breach, an injured party may elect to treat the contract as void and seek damages that will restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract or the party may seek the benefit of his bargain. See McCray v. Murray, 423 So. 2d 559, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).

In Judet, an owner entered into a fixed price contract with a contractor to repair damage from a lightning strike. The contract amount was $300,000 payable in $30,000 installments. A few months after the contractor commenced performance, the owner terminated the contractor because the owner learned the contractor had not obtained required electrical and plumbing permits. At this time, the owner had paid the contractor $90,000. The contractor recorded a $40,000 lien for an amount it claimed it was owed and filed a lawsuit to foreclose its construction lien. The owner counter-sued the contractor to recover a claimed over-payment and a disgorgement of monies for unpermitted work. The owner was NOT claiming benefit of the bargain damages, but rather, damages for the contractor’s total breach “to restore him to the position that he was in prior to entering into the contract.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Minnesota Supreme Court Dismisses Vikings Stadium Funding Lawsuit

January 22, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit that had alleged that funding for the new Vikings stadium was unconstitutional, according to KARE. "We were so hopeful the courts would deal with this expeditiously and they did," said Michele Kelm-Helgen, chair of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority told KARE. "And they would be definitive in their result and they were." Doug Mann, former Minneapolis mayoral candidate, had been the one to file the lawsuit. Mann told KARE 11 that “the courts made their ‘political stance loud and clear’ and said he did not know if he would pursue any other legal action. But he maintained his position the stadium funding wasn't legally vetted.” Minnesota Vikings spokesperson Lester Bagley declared, “This was the last remaining hurdle that we see in front of us. We are pleased with the Supreme Court's and Court of Appeals' action,” KARE reported. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Defect Leads to Death of Worker

January 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The family of a Florida man has received $2.4 million in damages as a result of his death. Victor Lizarraga was killed when a steel column fell due to the anchor bolts being improperly secured. The general contractor on the project, R. L. Haines, told subcontractors that the epoxy had sufficient time to cure. An OSHA investigation determined that the epoxy was not used properly. Mr. Lizarraga worked for a subcontractor on the project. Mr. Lizarraga and his coworkers were hired to erect steel columns. The epoxy failed, sending a 1,750-pound column down onto Mr. Lizarraga. According to the lawsuit, "due to the sudden and unexpected nature of this incident Mr. Lizarraga had no ability, opportunity or time to get out of the way of the falling column." Other parties in the lawsuit settled with the family. R. L. Haines was the only defendant to go to a jury trial. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties

April 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Jonathan Massell of the firm Nexsen Pruet explained how a “recent holding by the North Carolina Court of Appeals is threatening to render many long-term express warranties ineffective,” in the online publication Lexology. In Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc., “the court held that the six-year North Carolina statute of repose for improvements to real property trumps the bargained-for duration terms of an express warranty.” In the Christie case, this meant that even though the homeowners had a twenty year warranty, because of the statute of repose, the warranty effectively expired after six years. Massell stated to “be mindful of jurisdiction.” If the express warranty is in a state other than North Carolina, it’s possible that the claim could be filed in that state instead of North Carolina. For instance, according to Massell, South Carolina’s “statue of repose does not expire until eight years after the date of substantial completion for an improvement to real property.” Furthermore, “long-term warranties are not trumped by the South Carolina statute of repose.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES