CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded

January 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court determined that a conditional judgment on replacement costs was appropriate after the insurer denied coverage. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2014). Stephens operated a large industrial warehouse. It initially purchased a commercial liability policy from Fireman's Fund when an tenant occupied the building. After the tenant left, Stephens purchased from Fireman's Fund property coverage on June 28, 2007. On July 1, Stephens discovered that burglars had caused more than $2 million in damage to the property. All conductive material was stripped from the building and taken away. There was water damage throughout the building. The estimated cost of repair exceeded $1 million. Stephens notified Fireman's Fund. The insurer paid emergency repairs, but it neither accepted nor denied coverage for the loss. Finally, five years after the incident and on the eve of trial, Fireman's Fund denied coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York

March 09, 2020 — Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Insurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation? Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967). Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Nelson may be contacted at rgn@sdvlaw.com

---

Faulty Workmanship may be an Occurrence in Indiana CGL Policies

April 07, 2011 — Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFF

The question of whether construction defects can be an occurrence in Commercial General Liabilities (CGL) policies continues to find mixed answers. The United States District Court in Indiana denied the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of General Casualty Insurance v. Compton Construction Co., Inc. and Mary Ann Zubak stating that faulty workmanship can be an occurrence in CGL policies.



Judge Theresa L. Springmann cited Sheehan Construction Co., et al. v. Continental Casualty Co., et al. for her decision, ”The Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment, which had been granted in favor of the insurer in Sheehan, holding that faulty workmanship can constitute an ‘accident’ under a CGL policy, which means any damage would have been caused by an ‘occurrence’ triggering the insurance policy’s coverage provisions. The Indiana Supreme Court also held that, under identically-worded policy exclusion terms that are at issue in this case, defective subcontractor work could provide the basis for a claim under a CGL policy.”



As we reported on April 1st, South Carolina’s legislature is currently working on bill S-431 that would change the wording of CGL policies in their state to include construction defects. Ray Farmer, Southwest region vice president of the American Insurance Association spoke out against the bill. “CGL policies were never meant to cover faulty workmanship by the contractor,” he said. “The bill’s supplementary and erroneous liability provisions will only serve to unnecessarily impact construction costs in South Carolina.”

 

Read the Opinion and order... 
Read the court’s ruling... 
Read the American Insurance Association statement...

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Coverage for Negligent Misrepresentation without Allegations of “Bodily Injury” or “Property Damage”

February 10, 2012 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Jeff City Industries was the general contractor for a sewer system improvement project in Branson, Missouri. Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. United HRB Gen. Contractors, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145666 (W.D. Mo. Dec. 19, 2011). Branson sued Jeff City, alleging breach of the construction contract for the project. The claims included improperly bedded sewer piping, improper aligning portions of trenching for the sewer piping, improper service line connections to the sewer piping, etc.

Read the full story…

 

Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

No Additional Insured Coverage Under Umbrella Policy

March 12, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The additional insured was not covered under a property policy for an injury occurring after work was completed. Lewark v. Davis Door Servs., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 341 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2014). Public Storage, Inc. hired Davis Door Service Inc. to perform work at its facilities. The master agreement required Davis Door to maintain a CGL policy that insured Public Storage "during the entire progress of the work." Davis Door secured a CGL policy with American Economy. It also took out an umbrella liability policy with American States. After Davis Door completed work on a door, Terrie Lewark injury her back opening the door. She sued Public Storage and Davis Door. Lewar and Public Storage settled. Public Storage assigned to Lewark its rights under the umbrella policy with American States. Lewark then sued Davis Door and American States. The trial court found that Public Storage was not an additional insured under the American States umbrella policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Insurer's Denial of Coverage to Additional Insured Constitutes Bad Faith

May 21, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer's unreasonable denial of a defense and indemnity to a lessor/additional insured was found to be in bad faith. Seaway Props. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55998 (W.D. Wash. April 22, 2014). Seaway leased restaurant space to Ciao Bella Food, LLC. In January 10, 2010, the underlying plaintiff was on her way to the restaurant when she attempted to step down from a concrete platform between the building parking lot and the entrance to the restaurant. Seaway's lease gave Ciao Bella the right to use the common areas, including the parking lot, but did not grant Ciao Bella exclusive control over the common areas. The plaintiff suffered injuries and claimed both Ciao Bella and Seaway were liable. Seaway's lease required Ciao Bella to maintain a CGL policy and to name Seaway as an additional insured. Ciao Bella did so by securing a policy with Fireman's Fund. Fireman's Fund had notice of the plaintiff's claim by November 2010. Seaway demanded in March 2012 that Fireman's Fund indemnify and defend it. In September 2012, two years after it first learned of the plaintiff's injury, Fireman's Fund denied coverage, asserting that Seaway was not an insured under the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Shaken? Stirred? A Primer on License Bond Claims in California

July 14, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Shaken? Stirred? A bit hot under the tuxedo collar perhaps? Maybe it’s time for a martini. Or two. When your project’s a mess, your contractor isn’t returning your calls, and you don’t have a license to kill it’s only natural that you would want to go after that other license: the contractor’s license bond. However, except for smaller claims, or situations where you discover that the contractor is or might be judgment-proof, going after a contractor’s license bond isn’t necessarily the panacea many might hope it to be. Read on to learn why. What is a license bond? First, a license bond is not insurance. While insurance is typically limited to property damage and personal injury, a license bond covers a contractor’s violation of the Contractors State License Law. All California contractors are required to have on file a license bond (or, alternative, such as a cash deposit) with the California Contractors State License Board (“CSLB”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

When Must a New York Insurer Turn Over a Copy of the Policy?

December 23, 2023 — Nicholas P. Hurzeler - Lewis Brisbois
New York, N.Y. (December 7, 2023) - It has long been the rule in New York that a defendant should disclose all insurance policies that might provide coverage to the plaintiff for an underlying claim. McKiernan v Vaccaro, 168 AD3d 827 [2d Dept 2019]; Keenan v Harbor View Health & Beauty Spa, 205 AD2d 589 [2d Dept 1994]. This rule applies to all tort cases, including motor vehicle; however, it does not apply to lawsuits seeking to recover No Fault expenses (see, CPLR 3101(f)(5)). Frequently, a plaintiff will demand a copy of the policy even when the claim is still pre-suit. This raises the question of when the insurer must comply with this specific type of discovery demand in New York. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas P. Hurzeler, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Hurzeler may be contacted at Nicholas.Hurzeler@lewisbrisbois.com

---