Association Insurance Company v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC: Federal Court Reaffirms That There Is No Duty to Defend or Indemnify A Builder For Defective Construction Work
December 20, 2017 —
David M McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn a case that squarely confronts the juxtaposition of an insurer’s duty to defend or indemnify its insured for construction related defects, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado recently granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment on both matters against a construction subrogee, in Ass’n Ins. Co. v. Carbondale Glen Lot E-8, LLC, No. 15-cv-02025-RPM, 2016 WL 9735743, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 10. 2017).
Mountainview Construction Services, LLC (“MCS”) served as the general contractor for the construction of a residence on a lot owned by Glen Lot E-8, LLC (“E-8”). MCS took out a Commercial General Liability Policy (“Policy”) with Association Insurance Company (“AIC”) that provided coverage to MCS for the relevant time period for the construction of the residence. E-8 then asserted a series of claims against MCS, based on the allegation that MCS and its subcontractors defectively constructed the home by, among other things, building the residence two feet too high in violation of applicable codes. E-8 also argued that MCS and its subcontractors made significant alterations and/or deviations from the original project specifications without obtaining E-8’s consent or approval from relevant authorities. MCS tendered the claim to AIC for defense and indemnity. In turn, AIC declined coverage on the argument that the Policy precluded any coverage for defective work MCS may have performed on the project, absent damage to person or other property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Portion of Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Statute Struck Down … Again
July 04, 2023 —
Brett Hill & Mason Fletcher - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn 2018, the Washington Legislature amended its prevailing wages statute adopting S.S.B 5493 and codified as RCW 39.12.015(3). RCW 39.12.015(3) changed how the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ industrial statistician set the prevailing wages for employees on public works projects, from a county-by-county basis to a “geographic jurisdiction” basis established in collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) or if multiple CBAs, the CBA with the higher wage would prevail. This change proved problematic for contractors since it allowed a minority of employees to determine the prevailing wage through side agreements and limited meaningful wage negotiations by industry trade groups. Contrary to the previous rule wherein wages were set by the average or majority wage rate in a certain county (which was normally the collectively bargained wage) and provided some flexibility to the industrial statistician in determining the prevailing wage, now, RCW 39.12.015(3)(a) directs the industrial statistician to “establish the prevailing rate of wage by adopting the hourly wage … paid for the geographic jurisdiction established in [CBAs],” removing flexibility, and requiring the inclusion of CBA (which could encompass multiple counties) wage rates as a part of the prevailing wage formula.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brett Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight and
Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Termination for Convenience Clauses: Maybe More Than Just Convenience
June 06, 2022 —
Robert C. Shaia - ConsensusDocsA contractor begins work on a project and everything is going well, until one day the owner informs the contractor that it is being terminated for convenience. Possibly, there is no discussion about alleged defects, reasons for the termination, or any damages the owner might seek against the contractor. In that moment, the contractor may be unaware of any perceived wrongdoing or problems with its work.
The industry has typically accepted that, in this scenario, the owner implicitly waives the right to any remedies against the contractor, except those expressly set forth in the contract. Reasonable minds might assume that, if the owner believed it needed to seek further remedies, it would terminate the contractor for cause instead of convenience. And often overlooked during contract negotiations are the benefits of including an express “waiver of remedies” in the termination for convenience section.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert C. Shaia, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Mr. Shaia may be contacted at
rshaia@watttieder.com
Withholding Payment or Having Your Payment Withheld Due to Disputes on Other Projects: Know Your Rights to Offset
January 04, 2021 —
Christopher C. Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
The right to offset refers to the common sense ability to reduce or eliminate your payment obligations to a party who owes you money on another contract. With offsets, common law largely tracks common sense. The right of offset is recognized by statute and court decisions in many states as well as under federal law and the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The right to offset can also be established in the contract or subcontract.
But like many things that may seem simple, the right to offset can easily become complex. This article provides an overview of the extent and limits of the right to offset varies from state to state and with federal government contracts about the extent and limits of the right of offset. Construction trust fund statutes add another layer of complications.
These variations may not be obvious or intuitive, but they have a tremendous impact on your right to get paid or your right to withhold payment. Because of the variations, you must always confirm the law applicable to your contract or subcontract, which may not be where the project or you are located.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher C. Broughton, Jones Walker LLPMr. Broughton may be contacted at
cbroughton@joneswalker.com
Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses
October 21, 2024 —
Edward M. Koch & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLPSeeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies.
While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and
Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Climate Disasters Are an Affordable Housing Problem
October 01, 2024 —
Juan Pablo Garnham & Arjuna Heim - BloombergWhen Maui was devastated by wildfires in August 2023, some residents were initially fortunate. The neighborhood of Makawao, for example, was spared the worst effects of the fire that engulfed Lahaina, 35 miles to the west.
Recently, though, we met a woman in that neighborhood who faces a different kind of threat: Her landlord has now demanded that she pay double her rent or face eviction. As housing advocates in the region, we’ve heard stories like this repeatedly, as residents report an acute fear of displacement and homelessness.
A year after the fires killed more than 100 people, displaced 12,000 and disrupted the economy of the island, the disaster lingers for many in Maui and Hawai'i. Rents across the island have increased sharply, offering a cautionary tale for the rest of the US about how climate change, a housing crisis and the lack of adequate public policies can multiply the suffering of a community already in pain.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
Mississippi exclusions j(5) and j(6) “that particular part”
June 07, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Lafayete Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, No. 3:10cv336 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011), claimant homeowner Peerboom hired insured contractor Absolute to raise Peerboom’s house two feet to avoid future flooding. While Absolute was raising the house, it fell, resulting in physical injury to the home. Peerboom sued Absolute for negligence, breach of contract, and fraud, seeking damages for the destruction of the home. Absolute’s CGL insurer Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed a declaratory judgment action.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Supreme Court Limits Reach of Implied Warranty Claims Against Contractors
April 10, 2019 —
Thomas Cronin - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogIn a recent decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a purchaser of a newly constructed home could not assert a claim for breach of the implied warranty of habitability against a subcontractor where the subcontractor had no contractual relationship with the purchaser. Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n v. Champion Aluminum Corp., 2018 IL 122022, ¶ 1. The decision overruled Minton v. The Richards Group of Chicago, which held that a purchaser who “has no recourse to the builder-vendor and has sustained loss due to the faulty and latent defect in their new home caused by the subcontractor” could assert a claim of a breach of the warranty of habitability against the subcontractor. 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 855 (1983).
In Sienna Court Condo. Ass’n, the plaintiff alleged that the condo building had several latent defects which made individual units and common areas unfit for habitation. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 3. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that privity should not be a factor in determining whether a claim for a breach of the warranty of habitability can be asserted. Id. at ¶ 19. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that claims for a breach warranty of habitability should not be governed by contract law but should instead be governed by tort law analogous to application of strict liability. Id.
The Court reasoned that the economic loss rule, as articulated in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69, 91 (1982), refuted the plaintiff’s argument that the implied warranty of habitability should be covered by tort law. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 20. Under the economic loss rule, a plaintiff “cannot recover for solely economic loss under the tort theories of strict liability, negligence, and innocent misrepresentation.” National Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d at 91. The Court explained that the rule prevented plaintiffs from turning a contractual claim into a tort claim. 2008 IL 122022 at ¶ 21. The Court further noted that contractual privity is required for a claim of economic loss, and an economic loss claim is not limited to strict liability claims. Id. Because the plaintiff’s claim was solely for an economic loss, it was a contractual claim in nature; therefore, the Court concluded that “the implied warranty of habitability cannot be characterized as a tort.” Id. at ¶ 22.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas Cronin, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Cronin may be contacted at
tcronin@grsm.com
