New York Labor Laws and Action Over Exclusions
February 01, 2021 —
Theresa A. Guertin & Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.One of the most important methods for shifting risk in the construction context is insurance coverage. Upstream parties such as owner/developers and general contractors typically require that their downstream subcontractors who perform work on their properties or projects bring specific insurance to the table. These insurance requirements have a twofold purpose: protect the upstream parties, through additional insured coverage, from liabilities caused by the subcontractor; and protect the downstream parties by ensuring that they have adequate insurance for their own potential liabilities.
In New York, subcontractor insurance coverage can have some surprising terms which frustrate risk transfer. Numerous policies contain “Action Over” exclusions, which bar coverage for one of the most significant exposures faced by owner-developers and general contractors: bodily injury lawsuits brought by subcontractor employees. It is critical that upstream parties understand the unique impact of New York’s labor laws on the insurance market and be prepared to identify and request removal of Action Over exclusions on subcontractor insurance policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at TGuertin@sdvlaw.com
Ms. McWilliams may be contacted at AMcWilliams@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CalOSHA Updates its FAQ on its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Regulations
March 22, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAs we reported in early December, CalOSHA adopted emergency temporary regulations requiring, among other things, that employers implement a written COVID-19 prevention program, that notice be given by employers to employees in the event of potential COVID-19 exposure, and that employers continue to pay employees who have been exposed to COVID-19 even if the employee has no paid time off available. In conjunction with the emergency temporary regulations, CalOSHA posted a FAQ on the emergency regulations.
On February 26, 2021, CalOSHA updated its FAQ. Among other things, the updated FAQ updates the following sections of the FAQ:
- Scope of Coverage: Clarifies that the emergency regulations apply even to workplaces with only one employee but that it does not apply to employees working remotely.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Rhode Island Finds Pollution Exclusion Ambiguous, Orders Coverage for Home Heating Oil Leak
March 06, 2023 —
Kayla S. O'Connor - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Rhode Island case of Regan Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Insurance Company, Inc., et. al.1 provides much-needed guidance regarding ambiguity and the term “pollution.”
In Regan, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a pollution exclusion contained in the Plaintiff’s “Commercial Package Policy” was ambiguous as to whether home heating oil that escaped into a customer’s basement constituted a “pollutant” under the policy.
This case stems from a 2015 incident wherein Regan was in the process of removing an older heating system and installing a new heating system in a customer’s home when that customer discovered 170 gallons of home heating oil in his basement. The customer sued Regan, alleging negligence and demanding remediation for the property damage caused by the oil leak.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kayla S. O'Connor, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. O'Connor may be contacted at
KOconnor@sdvlaw.com
“Pay When Paid” Provisions May Not Be Dead, at Least Not Yet
August 24, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogSophisticated contractors know that in California contractual “pay when paid” provisions are enforceable but that “pay if paid” provisions are not.
“Pay If Paid” v. “Pay When Paid” Provisions
A “pay if paid” provision is one in which a higher tier party agrees to pay a lower tier party “if” it is paid in turn by a still higher party. Most commonly they are found in subcontracts between general contractors and subcontractors and provide that the general contractor will pay the subcontractor “if” the general contractor is paid by the project owner. However, they can also be found in subcontracts between higher and lower tiered subcontractors and between subcontractors and material suppliers and equipment lessors. In California, such provisions, which create a condition precedent to payment, namely, a condition that must precede payment to a lower tiered party, are void as a matter of law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.
Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.
The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”
Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”
The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”
Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”
The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.
Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.
Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”
The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Unfortunate Event Test Leads to Three Occurrences
December 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Second Circuit affirmed the finding of three occurrences in a highway accident after applying the unfortunate event test. Nat'l Liability & Fire Ins. Co. v. Itzkowitz, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 16387 (2nd Cir. Sept. 15, 2015).
A dump box attached to a dump truck struck and damaged an overpass. The dump box then separated from the truck and landed in the right lane of the highway. Some thirty seconds to five minutes later, the Itzkowitz vehicle struck the detached dump box. Then, at some point between a few seconds and twenty minutes later, the Hershkowitz (second) vehicle struck the dump box.
The insurer for the dump truck owner, National, argued there was one accident, or at most two separate accidents, under the policy. The district court found there were three occurrences and National appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Former UN General Assembly President Charged in Bribe Scheme
October 21, 2015 —
Patricia Hurtado & Greg Farrell – BloombergA former president of the United Nations General Assembly and a billionaire Macau developer were accused of taking part in a four-year corruption scheme that included bribes to help fund a campaign for the post at the organization in exchange for the promotion of Chinese businesses.
John Ashe, president of the UN General Assembly from September 2013 to September 2014, accepted more than $1 million in payoffs from developer Ng Lap Seng and an associate to help persuade the international body to build a multibillion-dollar conference center in Macau and promote Chinese businesses, including a bank, in Antigua, according to the U.S.
The new charges, announced Tuesday, relate to an earlier case against Ng, 68, who has a personal net worth of about $1.8 billion. He’s been held in a federal jail in Manhattan since he was arrested Sept. 19, accused of bringing $4.5 million into the country and lying about its purpose to U.S. authorities.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia Hurtado, Bloomberg and
Greg Farrell, Bloomberg
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage For Wind And Flood Damage Suffered From Superstorm Sandy
July 27, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the policy's anti-sequential clause barred coverage for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Estate of Doerfler v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2020 N.J. Sup. Unpub. LEXIS 920 (May 14, 2020).
The insureds held identical homeowners policies from Chubb and Federal Insurance Company. Damage resulting from flood was not covered. The policies' "surface water exclusion" stated,
[W]e do not cover any loss caused by: flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of water from a body of water . . . or spray from any of these even if driven by wind.
The insureds also had separate flood insurance policies, insuring the structure of each home for $250,000.
Superstorm Sandy created wind gusts as high as eighty miles per hour. A severe storm surge caused tides to rise between nine and eleven feet. The storm surge caused surface water to flood onto plaintiffs' properties and their homes ultimately collapsed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
