Seventh Circuit Confirms Additional Insured's Coverage for Alleged Construction Defects
August 10, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Seventh Circuit held that the underlying complaint alleged an occurrence by asserting that the painting subcontractor was negligent in causing damage to the building. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Decorating Serv., Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12516 (7th Cir. July 13, 2017).
McHugh Construction, the general contractor for construction of a 24 story condominium building in Chicago, retained National Decorating Service, Inc. as a subcontractor to perform all of the painting work. This meant National Decorating would paint the exterior of the building with a protective coating that was a waterproof sealant.
After completion, the building's board of managers sued McHugh, National Decorating, and others for damages resulting from faulty workmanship. The third amended complaint alleged: (1) significant cracking of the exterior concrete walls, interior walls, and ceilings; (2) significant leakage through the exterior concrete walls, balconies, and windows; (3) defects to the common elements of the building; and (4) damage to the interior ceilings, floors, interior painting, drywall, and furniture in the units.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Louisiana Couple Claims Hurricane Revealed Construction Defects
January 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Louisiana couple has sued the company that raised their home, claiming that faults with the work were revealed after Hurricane Isaac hit the home. Crescent City Construction raised the Marcev’s home in 2006. They were satisfied with the work until the 2012 hurricane. The Marcevs claim in their suit that the work is covered by a ten-year warranty.
They are suing for a full refund of their payments to Crescent City Construction, as well as architectural fees, damages, interest, and attorney costs. Their claim is that as a result of the work, their home now has structural defects and fails to meet building codes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
DOE Abruptly Cancels $13B Cleanup Award to BWXT-Fluor Team
February 01, 2021 —
Mary B. Powers & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. Energy Dept. has cancelled a $13-billion, 10-year contract awarded just a few months ago to a team led by BWXT Technical Services and Fluor Federal Services to manage millions of gallons of radioactive waste stored underground at its Hanford, Wash., former weapons site—confirming plans for a major scope expansion and lengthy reprocurement but sharing few details.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Case Is a Reminder That Not All Insurance Policies Are Alike Regarding COVID-19 Losses
April 05, 2021 —
Neal I. Sklar & Joshua A. Morehouse - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.A recent case from the Central District of California reminds us that not all insurance policies are alike. Depending on the particular policy, losses from the COVID-19 outbreak could qualify as property damage and therefore could be recoverable under an all-risk insurance policy.
COVID-19 has in many cases imposed significant costs on contractors, and in a host of ways. Contractors’ attempts to recover these costs from owners or insurers have at times been frustrated by contractual or policy language written after a lengthy time, during which the risk of a pandemic on the scale of COVID-19 was not as much of a concern as it is now. This has led contractors to explore new, often creative legal theories in their attempts to recover costs flowing from COVID-19.
A recent Complaint filed in the Central District of California focuses on all-risk property insurance policies and the potential for contractors who have purchased such policies to classify contamination from COVID-19 as an insurable property loss.
In AECOM v. Zurich Insurance Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00237-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal), a contractor purchased “all-risk” property insurance from Zurich. This policy covered “economic losses from all risks not expressly excluded.” According to the Complaint, the presence of COVID-19 on its properties “physically alter[ed] air, airspace, and surfaces preventing… (the contractor) from using its properties for their intended purpose and function.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Neal I. Sklar, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Joshua A. Morehouse, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Sklar may be contacted at nsklar@pecklaw.com
Mr. Morehouse may be contacted at jmorehouse@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses
September 28, 2017 —
C. Lily Schurra & K. Alexandra Byrd – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Second Circuit recently affirmed a district court decision that an insured bears the burden of establishing what portion of a jury verdict constitutes covered damages1.
The case arose out of claims for property damage resulting from construction defects in a homebuilding project. The homeowners fired the construction manager, J. Barrows, Inc. (“JBI”), who then sued the homeowners in state court for unpaid fees (the “Underlying Action”). The homeowners counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and negligence. JBI’s commercial general liability insurer, Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company (“Harleysville”), agreed to defend JBI under a reservation of rights.
Reprinted courtesy of
C. Lily Schurra, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Schurra may be contacted at cls@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Potential Problems with Cases Involving One Owner and Multiple Contractors
January 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Matthew Devries’ blog, Best Practices Construction Law, problems can arise in a case with one owner and multiple contractors: “Increasingly, two or more contractors may each have a separate contract with the owner for different portions of the work on a single project.”
The problems occur when contractor responsibilities or storage sites become entangled, “for example, from one contractor’s storage of materials on a site where the other has work to perform, or from one contractor’s failure to progress with work that is preliminary to the other’s work.”
Devries adds that in “addition to claims against the other contractor, claims may also be made against the owner for failure to coordinate the work.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New California "Construction" Legislation
November 08, 2018 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerGovernor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate Bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings late last month. These Bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to be caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists the repair of which were deferred by the property manager, despite indications of water damage.
SENATE BILL 721 ESTABLISHES HEIGHTENED “LOAD-BEARING” INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
On August 21, 2018, the California State Senate passed SB 721, one of two bills by Senator Jerry Hill introduced this year seeking to address the safety of multifamily rental residences. Now that the Governor has signed the Bill, a new section will be added to the California Health and Safety Code, requiring that every 6 years, destructive testing be performed on at least 15% of each type of load-bearing, wood framed exterior elevated element (such as balconies, walkways, and stair landings) in apartment buildings with 3 or more units. Interestingly, prior to being passed by the State Senate, SB 721 was revised in June 2018, such that the inspection requirements do not apply to common interest developments (i.e., condominiums).
As set forth in the new Health and Safety Code Section 17973:
"the purpose of the inspection is to determine that exterior elevated elements and their associated waterproofing elements are in a generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from any hazardous condition caused by fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered."
The inspection must be paid for by the building owner and performed by a licensed contractor, architect, or civil or structural engineer, or a certified building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association. Emergency repairs identified by the inspector must be made immediately. For non-emergency repairs, a permit must be applied for within 120 days and the repair completed within 120 days of the permit’s issuance. If repairs are not completed within 180 days, civil penalties of $100-$500 per day may be imposed.
The required inspection must be completed by January 1, 2025 and every 6 years thereafter, unless an equivalent inspection was performed during the 3 years prior to January 1, 2019, the effective date of the new law. For a building converted to condominiums that will be sold after January 1, 2019, the inspection required by Health and Safety Code Section 17973, must be performed prior to the first close of escrow.
SENATE BILL 1465 SETS CONTRACTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Governor also signed SB 1465, adding Sections 7071.20, 7071.21, and 7071.22 to the California Business and Professions Code. The new law requires that a contractor licensed with the Contractors’ State License Board "report to the registrar in writing within 90 days after the licensee has knowledge of any civil action resulting in a final judgment, executed settlement agreement, or final arbitration award in which the licensee is named as a defendant or crossdefendant, filed on or after January 1, 2019," that meets certain and specific criteria, including that it is over $1 million and arises out of an action for damages to a property or person allegedly caused by specified construction activities of the contractor on a multifamily rental residential structure.
Where more than one contractor was named as a defendant or cross-defendant, each of the contractors apportioned more than $15,000 in liability must report the action. Importantly, the new statute also imposes similar reporting requirements on insurers of contractors. SB 1465 also addresses an impacted party’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements.
COMMENT
Both SB 721 and SB 1465 are potentially significant and seek “legislative reform” to address construction issues by placing a greater burden on apartment owners as well as builders and subcontractors. How pragmatic and what impact they will have on the industry is obviously developing. If you are interested in receiving further detail concerning the Bills, please contact us. We are analyzing the new legislation and its intent and will be providing our ongoing comments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. CHELSEA L. ZWART, ESQ., CGDRBChelsea L. Zwart may be contacted at
czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Federal Judge Dismisses Insurance Coverage Lawsuit In Construction Defect Case
December 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA federal judge dismissed a coverage lawsuit brought by Mid Continent Casualty Company against its insured, Greater Midwest Builders Ltd.
Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action in response to a suit filed in Johnson County District Court, seeking a judicial determination that it had no coverage obligation for claims asserted against its insured. This case was stayed until the state court action entered judgment against the insured. The prevailing parties then commenced a garnishment action against the plaintiff, and another insurance company, in state court in Missouri. The court was asked whether it should lift the stay and proceed with the case, or decline jurisdiction in favor of resolution in the Missouri state court.
The court granted the motion to dismiss holding that proceeding with the case would lead to protracted, piecemeal litigation, while deferring to the Missouri state court would decide all the claims involved in the dispute.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
