New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim
August 03, 2020 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanIn Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion:
"This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities."
Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly.
At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
Consequential Damages From Subcontractor's Faulty Work Constitutes "Property Damage" and An "Occurrence"
September 03, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe New Jersey appellate court found that the unintended and unexpected consequential damages caused by the subcontractor's defective work constituted "property damage" and an "occurrence." Cypress Point Condo. Ass'n v. Adria Towers, L.L.C., 2015 WL 4111890 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 9, 2015).
The insured developer hired subcontractors to perform all of the construction work at a condominium project. The subcontractors failed to properly install the roof, flashing, gutters and leaders, brick and EIFS facade, windows, doors and sealants. The AOAO sued the developer, who served as the general contractor, its insurers, and various subcontractors.The AOAO conceded that replacement costs did not constitute "property damage" and an "occurrence" under the policy.
The faulty workmanship, however, also caused consequential damages to the common areas and unit owners' property, including damage to steel supports, exterior sheathing and interior sheathing and sheetrock, insulation and other interior areas of the building. Nevertheless, the trial judge determined there was no property damage or "occurrence", and granted summary judgment to the insurers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
COVID-19 Response: Recent Executive Orders Present Opportunities for Businesses Seeking Regulatory and Enforcement Relief and Expedited Project Development
June 15, 2020 —
Karen C. Bennett, Jane C. Luxton & Amanda L. Tharpe - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (June 8, 2020) - Two recent Executive Orders (EO) aimed at promoting economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis offer regulatory and enforcement relief and encourage agencies to expedite infrastructure project approvals. The May 19, 2020 EO 13924, “Regulatory Relief to Support Economic Recovery,” directs agencies to determine whether previous regulatory reforms would promote economic recovery if made permanent and encourages compliance assistance through exercising enforcement discretion, including declining enforcement. And the June 4, 2020 EO 13927, “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities,” aims to speed up the permitting process for infrastructure projects to strengthen the national economy. As businesses look to move forward and recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, they should closely review these EOs for opportunities to take advantage of streamlined treatment and faster project approvals.
EO 13294 supplements the Administration’s efforts to address the economic crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic by encouraging federal agencies to rescind, modify, waive, or provide exemptions from federal regulations that may inhibit economic recovery and to provide guidance to businesses, particularly small businesses, on what is required of them under federal law for reopening. Specifically, the EO directs agency heads to identify regulatory standards that may inhibit economic recovery and consider rescinding or waiving those regulations, exempting regulated entities from compliance, exercising enforcement discretion, or extending regulatory compliance and enforcement deadlines. It also allows for compliance assistance through accelerated regulatory procedures to receive a pre-enforcement ruling and directs agencies to assess previous regulatory reforms to determine whether making them permanent would promote economic recovery. Since taking office, the Trump Administration has made regulatory reform a cornerstone of its agenda. This Executive Order is a continuation of the aggressive steps taken by the Administration to reduce the regulatory burden faced by American businesses that many argue increases operating costs, inhibits job creation, and stifles economic growth.
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys
Karen C. Bennett,
Jane C. Luxton and
Amanda L. Tharpe
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Tharpe may be contacted at Amanda.Tharpe@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
9 Basic Strategies for Pursuing Coverage for Construction Accident Claims
September 05, 2022 —
William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Construction accidents happen all the time. Accidents involving worker injuries or damage to property can shut down a job site and cause significant losses. Contractors should be diligent and aggressive in examining all of the available options for recovery under their different insurance policies and bonds. This article will provide a refresher on some basic tips to help policyholders improve claims practices with respect to construction accidents.
1. Identify relevant insurance policies:
Identifying what policies exist that might cover the loss can sometimes be easier said than done. Construction accidents come in many different forms and can involve many different parties who suffer various types of losses. The general contractor, owner, subcontractors, and vendors could all be involved or affected in some way. Each of these parties has its own insurance coverage and will have promised each other various forms of risk transfer through those policies and through their contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
Courthouse Reporter Series: Nebraska Court of Appeals Vacates Arbitration Award for Misconduct
November 18, 2024 —
Brendan J. Witry - The Dispute ResolverVacating an arbitration award is often seen as an uphill battle. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that “courts may only vacate an arbitrator’s decision ‘only in very unusual circumstances.’” Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 568 (2013). The Federal Arbitration Act provides limited grounds to seek the vacatur of an arbitration award. In Lund-Ross Constructors v. Duke of Omaga, LLC, ___ N.W.3d ___, 33 Neb.App.73, the Nebraska Court of Appeals found that an arbitrator’s conduct warranted the partial vacatur of the award, which granted relief to a subcontractor who filed a counterclaim after the arbitration hearing had closed.
Lund-Ross contracted with Duke of Omaha to build an apartment complex in Omaha. Lund-Ross, in turn, sub-contracted with A Raymond Plumbing. Following completion of the building, Owner withheld payment from Lund-Ross, who in turn, withheld payment from Raymond. Both Lund-Ross and Raymond filed mechanics liens and initiated suits; Raymond’s suit ultimately was dismissed for want of prosecution. Lund-Ross proceeded to arbitration with Owner, naming Raymond as a respondent. Raymond did not participate in the arbitration as a claimant at the time of the hearing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brendan J. Witry, Laurie & Brennan LLPMr. Witry may be contacted at
bwitry@lauriebrennan.com
Congratulations to Haight’s 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers
August 06, 2019 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight congratulates San Francisco Partner Steven M. Cvitanovic who has been selected to the 2019 Northern California Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at
scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Wisconsin High Court Rejects Insurer’s Misuse of “Other Insurance” Provision
March 04, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Wisconsin Supreme Court held last week in Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co. that two insurers must contribute proportionally to the defense of an additional insured under their comprehensive liability policies.
In 2008, torrential rainstorms battered the Milwaukee area for two days. The downpour overwhelmed the city’s sewer system, causing significant flooding in homes throughout the region. Out of those floods sprang several lawsuits against the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (“MMSD”) for negligent inspection, maintenance, repair, and operation of Milwaukee’s sewage system.
MMSD was an additional insured under liability policies covering two other water service providers responsible for the city’s sewer systems. The first policy was issued by Greenwich Insurance Company for United Water Services Milwaukee, LLC, and the second was issued by Steadfast Insurance Company for Veolia Water Milwaukee, LLC. After learning of the lawsuits, MMSD tendered its defense of the sewage suits to both insurers. Steadfast accepted the defense; but Greenwich refused, claiming that its policy was excess to Steadfast’s based on an “other insurance” clause in Greenwich’s policy.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Costello may be contacted at dcostello@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations
January 21, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIf you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances.
Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE.
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
