Morrison Bridge Allegedly Crumbling
February 05, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Portland Mercury reported that the Portland, Oregon Morrison Bridge’s structure is breaking into pieces.
"The bridge is crumbling," Joel Mullin, attorney from Stoel Rives representing the county told a Multnomah County judge, according to the Portland Mercury. "The deterioration has accelerated more than anticipated."
Newly released documents seem to imply that the bridge “project was doomed well before it started, and county officials should have known it,” the Portland Mercury reported.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Deescalating Hyper Escalation
July 05, 2023 —
Paul F. Williamson - Construction Executive Recent years have seen the construction industry get hit by a perfect storm of rising costs, workforce shortages, delivery delays, supply-chain issues, inflation, interest-rate hikes and materials price escalation. The cost of construction has become more expensive, leaving all parties to grapple with the sufficiency of their risk-management strategies and the ramifications of contracts that are ill-equipped to deal with unprecedented cost increases. Of particular concern to industry participants are the volatile price fluctuations that construction materials have undergone and how to appropriately mitigate the risks they present.
Although owners, general contractors and subcontractors may seek to mitigate future risks, many who are party to an existing contract all too often must scramble to divine how to absorb significantly more financial risk than they expected pre-pandemic. Contracts that were bid and entered into prior to the pandemic may have seen, in some instances, double- and triple-digit percent increases in prices due to hyper escalation, with little recourse to address such situations. While parties to private contracts are free to mitigate their risk through contract negotiations, parties to federal or state public procurements are somewhat more constrained.
Reprinted courtesy of
Paul F. Williamson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute
July 09, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Washington Court of Appeals found there was no duty to defend the insured under a strict liability statute for alleged contamination when no action was threatened by the agency. Gull Indus., Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1338 (Wa. Ct. App. June 2, 2014).
Gull leased a gas station to the Johnsons from 1972 to 1980. In 2005, Gull notified the Department of Ecology (DOE) that there had be a release of petroleum product at the station. DOE sent a letter acknowledging Gull's notice of suspected contamination. In 2009, Gull tendered its defense to its insurer, Transamerica Insurance Group. Gull also tendered its claims as an additional insured to the Johnson's insurer, State Farm. Neither insurer accepted the tenders.
Gull then sued the insurers, arguing they had a duty to defend. Gull contended that because the state statute imposed strict liability, the duty to defend arose whether or not an agency had sent any communications about the statute or cleanup obligations. The insurers moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of 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
When Construction Contracts Go Sideways in Bankruptcy
February 16, 2017 —
Tracy Green - California Construction Law BlogThe contractor on a project files a bankruptcy case. How should the property owner and subcontractors proceed? When a party to a contract files bankruptcy, the other party’s actions are constrained by the bankruptcy code.
Types of Bankruptcies
The typical bankruptcy case involves a chapter 7 complete liquidation, chapter 13 reorganization for an individual, or a chapter 11 reorganization or liquidation. In a chapter 7 the business ceases to operate and a panel trustee is appointed immediately upon the filing of the case. The chapter 7 trustee’s duties are to liquidate assets for the benefit of creditors and to prosecute litigation that can result in assets for the creditors. In a chapter 13, the individual debtor continues to operate, and there is a trustee, but the trustee’s roll is limited to reviewing the chapter 13 plan and making sure that the plan is performed. In a chapter 11, the debtor retains control of its assets and continues to operate its business until a plan is confirmed. During the chapter 11 period before a plan is approved, the debtor will decide which contracts it wants to assume or reject, all while operating the company and preparing a plan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tracy Green, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMs. Green may be contacted at
tgreen@wendel.com
Enforceability of Contract Provisions Extending Liquidated Damages Beyond Substantial Completion
April 15, 2024 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverThis post takes a look at the enforceability of contract provisions providing for liquidated delay damages after substantial completion. Typically, the assessment of liquidated delay damages ends at substantial completion of a project. However, various standard form contracts, including some of the ConsensusDocs and EJCDC contracts, contain elections allowing for the parties to agree on the use of liquidated damages for failing to achieve substantial completion, final completion, or project milestones. The standard language in the AIA A201 leaves it up to the parties to define the circumstances under which liquidated damages will be awarded.
Courts are split on the enforceability of provisions that seek to assess liquidated damages beyond substantial completions. Courts in some jurisdictions will not impose liquidated damages after the date of substantial completion on the ground that liquidated damages would otherwise become a penalty if assessed after the owner has put the project to its intended use. Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479, 610 A.2d 364 (1992). When the terms are clear, other jurisdictions will enforce contract terms providing for liquidated damages until final completion, even if the owner has taken beneficial use of the facility. Carrothers Const. Co. v. City of S. Hutchinson, 288 Kan. 743, 207 P.3d 231 (2009).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
“Other Insurance” and Indemnity Provisions Determine Which Insurer Must Cover
September 01, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA policy’s “other insurance” clause and a contractual indemnity provision were at the root for determining which of two insurers had to cover for injuries at a construction site. Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2011 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 76061 (N.D. Calif. July 14, 2011).
Hathaway was the general contractor at a demolition and construction project. Hathaway was insured by Zurich. Reinhardt Roofing was the roofing subcontractor. Reinhardt was insured by Valley Forge under a policy which named Hathaway as an additional insured. The subcontract also required Reinhardt to indemnify Hathaway for acts or omissions arising from Reinhardt’s work unless Hathaway was solely negligent.
Four of Reinhardt’s workers were injured when a canopy roof on which they were working collapsed. At the time of the accident, Hathaway’s on-site supervisor was inspecting a gap in the canopy roof, but did not order Reinhardt’s workers to stop working.
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 decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Coverage Summary 2013: The Business Risks Shift To Insurers
January 13, 2014 —
John Husmann and Adam Fleischer, BatesCarey LLP, Chicago, ILIn 2013, courts examining insurance coverage for construction defect claims departed from earlier precedent and trended toward allowing construction companies to shift the costs of their faulty workmanship to their insurers, thereby reversing the previous public policy trend against coverage for such claims.
The tension in all construction defect insurance disputes is typically over which party—the insured or insurer—should bear the cost of the repair and replacement work to fix or complete the job that the insured was hired to do. For some time, courts have recognized that there is a public policy against allowing construction companies to get paid to perform faulty workmanship, and then to force their insurers to be the financers for the repair and replacement costs. Such courts issued landmark decisions precluding insurance coverage for construction defects in these situations. This trend against allowing insurance coverage for the repair of faulty workmanship was alive and well in 2012.
However, in 2013, court decisions focused more on the hyper-technical interpretation of policy wording and strayed from those public policy considerations upon which previous decisions relied. This 2013 trend was seen in three areas of construction defect insurance decisions in particular:
1. Decisions addressing whether an insured’s faulty workmanship can be considered a covered “occurrence.”
2. Even when faulty workmanship may not be an “occurrence” as it relates to the insured’s work, some decisions found that the same faulty workmanship to one part of the insured’s project could be an “occurrence” if it caused damage to other non-defective parts of the insured’s project.
3. Decisions addressing whether a policy’s exclusion for damage to the particular part of property on which the insured was working can be applied as intended to prevent coverage for the repair and replacement costs resulting from the insured’s faulty work.
The 2013 decisions in each of these areas are addressed in the three sections below. The overall trend to be derived from these cases is that courts have gotten away from analyzing the common sense public policy considerations behind earlier precedent and have instead seized on the technical application of policy wording to allow insureds to shift more of their business risk and increase insurers’ overall exposure.
I. IS FAULTY WORKMANSHIP AN “OCCURRENCE”? SEVERAL MORE STATES SAY YES.
In 2013, while the Supreme Court of Alabama adhered to the idea that an insured cannot obtain insurance to pay the cost of repairing its own work, the highest courts in West Virginia and North Dakota went the opposite direction, even overturning their own recent precedent to make the insurance company responsible for bearing the cost to repair and replace its insured’s faulty work. In order to transfer the risk of faulty construction from builder to insurer, these courts ruled that, if the defective construction was not expected or intended by the insured, then the “occurrence” requirement of the policy’s insuring agreement is satisfied. Of course, the practical failing of these rulings is that it gives construction companies a “double recovery”: they get paid once by the consumer to build the project, and then the cost of repairing the project gets paid by insurance. This very economic disincentive was at the heart of the early legal trend precluding coverage for such construction defects; a trend that is now slowly being reversed with almost no discussion of the economic and business havoc that will result.
A. Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 231 W. Va. 470, 745 S.E.2d 508 (March 27, 2013)
The Supreme Court of West Virginia overturned previous precedent to find that defective workmanship causing the need to repair the construction itself constitutes an “occurrence” under a CGL policy.
In Cherrington, a homeowner sued a builder for the costs to repair defects in a newly-constructed residence. There was no damage alleged to anything but the project itself. The builder’s insurer denied coverage arguing, among other reasons, allegations of defective construction do not constitute an “occurrence.” The insurer’s position was grounded in several West Virginia Supreme Court decisions that found that poor workmanship, standing alone, does not constitute an occurrence. Webster Cnty. Solid Waste Auth. v. Brackenrich & Associates, Inc., 217 W. Va. 304, 617 S.E.2d 851 (2005); Corder v. William W. Smith Excavating Co., 210 W. Va. 110, 556 S.E.2d 77 (2001); Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Pioneer Home Improvement, Inc., 206 W. Va. 506, 526 S.E.2d 28 (1999).
In an about-face, the West Virginia Supreme Court overruled its prior decisions and found that faulty workmanship can constitute an occurrence if it was not intended or expected by the insured. The court observed that a majority of other jurisdictions found that faulty workmanship is covered by a CGL policy, either in judicial decisions or by legislative amendments to state insurance codes. On this point, we note that on November 25, 2013 a bill was introduced before the New Jersey Assembly that would require CGL policies issued to construction professionals to define “occurrence” so as to include claims for faulty workmanship.
The court reasoned that, by defining occurrence, in part, as “an accident,” the policy must be interpreted to provide coverage for damages or injuries that were not deliberately or intentionally caused by the insured. The court also noted that the policy contained an exclusion property damage to “your work” (exclusion l.), which implies that damage to the insured’s work must be within the policy’s basic insuring agreement, or there would not have been the need for the exclusion. Thus, the court reasoned that a finding that faulty workmanship is not an occurrence would be inconsistent with the “your work” exception. Therefore, the court expressly overruled its prior decisions and found that the builder’s insurer had a duty to defend.
B. K & L Homes, Inc. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 ND 57, 829 N.W.2d 724 (April 5, 2013)
The Supreme Court of North Dakota changed course and held that faulty workmanship may constitute an “occurrence” so long as the faulty work and the resulting damage was not anticipated, intended, or expected.
Homeowners sued the insured homebuilder alleging that their house suffered damage because of substantial shifting caused by improper footings and inadequately compacted soil under the footings and foundation that had been constructed by a subcontractor of the insured.
The main issue before the North Dakota Supreme Court was whether inadvertent faulty workmanship constitutes an accidental “occurrence” potentially covered under the CGL policy. The court examined the drafting history of the standard ISO CGL form and surveyed cases nationwide. The court concluded that faulty workmanship may constitute an “occurrence” if the faulty work was “unexpected” and not intended by the insured, and the property damage was not anticipated or intentional, so that neither the cause nor the harm was anticipated, intended, or expected.
In reaching its conclusion, the North Dakota Supreme Court specifically rejected its own prior decision in ACUITY v. Burd & Smith Constr., Inc., 721 N.W.2d 33, 2006 ND 187 (N.D. 2006), which held that faulty or defective workmanship, standing alone, is not an accidental “occurrence.” The court explained that the prior decision incorrectly drew a distinction between faulty workmanship that damages the insured’s work or product and faulty workmanship that damages a third party’s work or property. The court found that there is nothing in the definition of “occurrence” that supports the notion that faulty workmanship that damages the own work of the insured contractor is not an “occurrence.” The North Dakota Supreme Court’s change in approach, like the decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court in Cherrington, is marked by a narrow focus on whether the faulty work was purposeful, without regard to the broader concepts that insurance coverage is not meant to satisfy the insured’s contractual business obligations.
C. Capstone Building Corp. v. American Motorists Insurance Co., 308 Conn. 760, 67 A.3d 961 (June 11, 2013)
The Supreme Court of Connecticut found as a matter of first impression that defective workmanship causing defects in the insured’s own project can constitute an “occurrence.”
The insureds, a general contractor and project developer, settled construction defect claims against them brought by the University of Connecticut involving the allegedly negligent construction of a dormitory building. The settlement was for repairs necessary to correct the insured’s own work and not for any other incidental property damage. After the settlement, the insured sought coverage for the settlement amount from the insurer that had issued an Owner Controlled Insurance Program policy for the dormitory project. In a matter of first impression in Connecticut, the Supreme Court of Connecticut held that defective workmanship necessitating repairs can indeed constitute an insured “occurrence,” reasoning that, because the negligent work was unintentional from the point of view of the insured, such negligent work may constitute an accident or occurrence. Similar to the approach in Cherrington and K & L Homes, the court reasoned that insurance policies are designed to cover foreseeable risks, and that a deliberate act of constructing a project, when performed negligently, does indeed constitute a covered accidental “occurrence” if the effect is not intended or expected.
D. Taylor Morrison Servs., Inc. v. HDI-Gerling Am. Ins. Co., 746 S.E.2d 587 (Ga., July 12, 2013)
The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that an “occurrence” does not require damage to the property or work of someone other than the insured.
A class of 400 homeowners in California sued the insured homebuilder for negligently constructing the foundation of their homes, resulting in damage to the homes due to the cracked and buckling foundations. The homebuilder’s insurer defended the class action and filed a declaratory judgment action in Georgia federal court, arguing that the claims against the insured did not allege an “occurrence” because the damages at issue were simply the repairs to the insured’s faulty work. The Eleventh Circuit certified the question of whether Georgia law requires there to be damage to property other than the insured’s own work for an “occurrence” to exist under a CGL policy.
The Supreme Court of Georgia found that negligent construction which damages only the insured’s own work can indeed constitute an accidental “occurrence.” Like the recent decisions discussed above, the court observed that the term “accident” meant an unexpected or unintended event, and, therefore, the identity of the person whose interests were damaged is irrelevant. However, in a lengthy series of footnotes, the court further observed in dicta that defectively constructed property cannot be said to be physically injured by the work that brought it into existence. However, the court did not attempt to define the precise line of demarcation between defective and non-defective work when both are a part of the same project.
E. Owners Ins. Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilder, LLC, 1120764, 2013 WL 5298575 (Ala., Sept. 20, 2013)
The Supreme Court of Alabama confirmed that faulty workmanship, standing alone, does not constitute an “occurrence.”
The insured homebuilder sought coverage for an adverse arbitration award wherein it was determined that the insured had defectively constructed a home resulting in damages due to water infiltration, causing “significant mental anguish” to the homeowner. The insurer defended the insured in the arbitration, but denied indemnity coverage for the award.
The Supreme Court of Alabama agreed with the insurer, finding that, because the insured was hired to build the entire house, any property damage or bodily injury (mental anguish) that resulted from the insured’s faulty workmanship was not caused by an “occurrence.” The court indicated only damage to something other than the insured’s own work (which was not present in this case) can be considered damage caused by an “occurrence.” The implication of this case is that either property damage or bodily injury that results from faulty workmanship is not caused by an “occurrence,” although the court did not expressly discuss this issue it its holding.
II. AN INSURED’S FAULTY WORKMANSHIP TO ONE PART OF A PROJECT MAY BE AN “OCCURRENCE” IF IT CAUSES DAMAGE TO OTHER NON-DEFECTIVE PARTS OF THE INSURED’S PROJECT.
Even in jurisdictions where the costs to repair faulty workmanship is typically not an “occurrence,” courts do recognize that, if the same faulty workmanship of the insured damages another part of the insured’s project which was not otherwise defective, then this does qualify as an occurrence. See French v. Assurance Co. of Am., 448 F.3d 693, 706 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that a CGL policy does not provide coverage to correct defective workmanship but that the policy provides coverage for the cost to remedy property damage to the contractor's otherwise non-defective work-product).
Examining the issue of how to treat one part of the insured’s project that was damaged by a different, defective part of the same insured’s project, the Sixth Circuit, predicting Kentucky law, found in 2013 that the insured subcontract’s faulty workmanship that damages otherwise non-defective part of the project is not an “occurrence” if the damage was of the type the insured was hired to prevent or control. However, the Colorado U.S. District Court went the opposite direction in ruling that the insured’s faulty workmanship to one part of the project that damages other non-defective parts of the same project does indeed qualify as an occurrence.
A. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Kay & Kay Contracting, LLC, Case No. 12-5791 (C.A.6 (Ky.) Nov. 19, 2013)
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals predicted that, under Kentucky law, faulty workmanship that results in damage to other parts of a project is not an “occurrence” if the kind of damage that results is what the insured was hired to control or prevent.
The insured, a foundation subcontractor, performed site preparation and constructed a building pad for a Wal-Mart store. After the store was built, cracks in the building’s walls were noticed. Wal-Mart alleged that the fill under one corner of the building had settled, resulting in the structural problems. Wal-Mart demanded that the general contractor remedy the problem, who in turn demanded the same from the insured. The insured subcontractor sought coverage from its CGL carrier, which denied coverage and filed a declaratory judgment action based, in part, on basis that there was no “occurrence” because there was only faulty workmanship in need of repair.
The court observed that under Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co., 306
S.W.3d 69, 73 (Ky. 2010) the faulty construction of the building pad (the insured’s own work) was not an “occurrence.” However, the court observed that the claimed damage included more than just the building pad. The court noted that the Kentucky Supreme Court had not decided the issue of whether damage to parts of a construction project other than the insured’s faulty work constitutes an “occurrence.” The court reasoned that even if the Kentucky Supreme Court would determine that collateral damage to property other than the insured’s work is an “occurrence,” it would not adopt a version of such a rule that would apply when the damage at issue was the obviously and foreseeable consequence of the insured’s faulty work.
The court observed that in Cincinnati, the Kentucky Supreme Court emphasized the significance of the insured’s control over the work in analyzing the whether an “occurrence” took place. Specifically, in Cincinnati, the Kentucky Supreme Court opined that events that are within the control of the insured are not truly accidental or fortuitous. The court reasoned that the alleged damage to the Wal-Mart was due solely to the soil settlement—work that was within the insured’s control. The entire reason the insured was hired was to prevent the soil from settling in a manner that would cause damage to the structure. Thus, the court predicted that the Kentucky Supreme Court would not find that an “occurrence” takes place when the damage to a project that is allegedly caused by the defective workmanship of a subcontractor hired to control against that very damage from happening. Therefore, the court ordered that summary judgment be granted in favor of the insurer.
We also note that an opinion earlier this year, McBride v. ACUITY, 510 Fed.Appx. 451, 2013 WL 69358 (C.A.6 (Ky.) Jan. 7, 2013), The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals predicted that, under Kentucky law, the insured’s faulty workmanship to any parts (including non-defective parts) of the insured’s own project does not qualify as an “occurrence.”
B. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Creek Side at Parker Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 2013 WL 104795 (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2013)
Colorado U.S. District Court found faulty workmanship of a subcontractor potentially qualified as an “occurrence” where the subcontractor’s faulty workmanship caused damage to other, non-faulty parts of the project.
A homeowners association sued the developer/builder of a residential development project seeking damages allegedly caused by construction defects. The homeowners association alleged that the developer/builder’s subcontractors performed defective work that caused consequential damage to other, non-faulty parts of the project.
The district court found that the underlying lawsuit alleged an “occurrence.” Citing Greystone Constr., Inc. v. Nat’l Fire & Mar. Ins. Co., 661 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011) (Colo. law), the district court explained that “[f]aulty workmanship can constitute an occurrence that triggers coverage under a CGL policy if … the damage was to non-defective portions of the contractor’s or subcontractor’s work.” The district court also found that at least some of the alleged property damage was to non-defective portions of its or its subcontractors’ work on the same project. Accordingly, the district court held that there was at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there had been an “occurrence.”
III. EXCLUSION FOR DAMAGES TO PART OF PROPERTY ON WHICH INSURED IS WORKING.
One frequently discussed exclusion with regard to coverage for construction defect claims, is the exclusion for property damage to that part of real property on which the insured or any subcontractors are performing operations. This exclusion (along with several other “business risk” exclusions) embodies the notion that the cost of repairing or replacing the consequences of shoddy workmanship or paying for the fulfillment of a contractual commitment is not covered. In standard general liability forms, this provision appears as exclusion j(5) and states that the insurance does not apply to property damage to:
"That particular part of real property on which you or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the "property damage" arises out of those operations."
In 2013, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the exclusion applies if the insured’s subcontractor is still performing operations—even though the insured’s own operations are complete. However, in a different case, the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts held that exclusion j(5) only applies if there is a sufficient connection between the scope of the insured’s work and the damaged property. Finally, the South Dakota Supreme Court confirmed that the exclusion applies to damage while the insured’s subcontractor is working, but does not bar coverage to construction materials not yet incorporated into a project. These cases illustrate the varied applicability and interpretation of exclusion j(5) reached by different courts.
A. Bennett & Bennett Const., Inc. v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 405 S.C. 1, 747 S.E.2d 426 (2013)
The Supreme Court of South Carolina found that exclusion j(5) applies if the property damage takes place while the insured’s subcontractor’s operations are ongoing.
A general contractor hired a masonry subcontractor to construct a brick wall. After completion of the wall, the general contractor observed mortar and slurry dried on the face of the wall and instructed the subcontractor to correct the appearance of the wall. The subcontractor hired a power washing company to clean the bricks, which resulted in discoloration and removal of the decorative finish on the bricks. The general contractor was forced to replace the damaged wall on its own, after which the general contractor sued and obtained a default judgment against the subcontractor. The general contractor then sued the subcontractor’s insurer in a declaratory judgment action.
The insurer relied in part on exclusion j(5) to deny coverage, arguing that there was no coverage for the damage to the wall because it was damage “to that part of the real property on which the insured was performing operations.” The general contractor argued that the exclusion did not apply because the damage took place after the insured’s operations (the construction of the brick wall) were over. The court held that whether the brick wall installation (work performed by the insured itself) was completed was irrelevant to the applicability of exclusion j(5) because the insured’s operations for the purposes of the exclusion include work performed by any of the insured’s subcontractors. That is, the exclusion barred coverage so long as the power washing company hired by the insured was still performing operations on the insured’s behalf at the time the damage took place. Because the damage occurred during the insured’s operations, exclusion j(5) barred coverage for the damage to the bricks.
B. Gen. Cas. Co. of Wisconsin v. Five Star Bldg. Corp., CIV.A. 11-30254-DJC, 2013 WL 5297095 (D. Mass. Sept. 19, 2013)
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts determined that exclusion j(5) only applies to damage to “that particular part of real property” that was within the scope of the insured’s work, and not other portions of the overall structure.
An insurer filed a declaratory judgment action against its insured relating to a claim for damages at a university science center that arose from the insured’s work in upgrading the center’s HVAC system. The insured’s work included puncturing the weather membrane in the roof and installing temporary patches at the puncture sites until the new HVAC system was complete. Heavy rain caused some of the patches to fail and water to enter the building. The insurer agreed to pay for the damage caused to the interior of the center, but refused to pay for damage to the roof, in part based on exclusion j(5), arguing that the entire roof was the “particular part” of the building on which the insured was performing operations.
The court rejected the insurer’s argument, reasoning that puncturing the roof was incidental to the ventilation system upgrade. The court noted that the roof accounted for only a small part of the total work on the project and that there was an insufficient nexus between the scope of the insured’s HVAC work and the damage to the roof. Unfortunately, the court seemed to ignore the fact that the temporary roof patches which failed were clearly part of the insured’s work and, presumably, a necessary part of the HVAC upgrade. Nevertheless, the court concluded that exclusion j(5) was not a bar to coverage for the damage to the roof as well as the rest of the structure damaged by water intrusion.
C. Swenson v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 2013 S.D. 38, 831 N.W.2d 402 (May 15, 2013)
The South Dakota Supreme Court found that building material yet to be installed at a project is not “real property” and exclusion j(5) did not apply.
Finally, in a 2013 decision of the South Dakota Supreme Court, the court held that a “your work” exclusion in a homebuilder’s policy did not bar coverage for damage to building materials that were negligently left exposed to the elements because the materials were not installed and, therefore, not yet “real property.” However, the court applied the exclusion to completed parts of the structure damaged because they were left open to rain and snow. Consistent with the decision in Bennett (part A. above), the court observed that the exclusion applies because the insured or its subcontractor(s) were actively performing the construction work when the damage took place. As the entire structure (a new home) was the insured’s work, the court was not faced with the issue in Five Star (part B. above).
CONCLUSION
There is a single insurance issue at the heart of most construction defect coverage disputes: when construction work is performed negligently, is the resulting defect simply part of the business risk that the insured must pay to repair, or is the resulting defect true damage to a third party’s property that may be insured under a general liability policy? During 2013, legal rulings in different states continue to demonstrate the evolution of the answer to this question. An increasing number of states appear to be ignoring the economic reality surrounding insured’s responsibility for its faulty workmanship. In these states, courts focused on the term “accident” to find coverage for the repair and replacement costs arising from defective construction claims. Furthermore, even in cases where the insured’s faulty workmanship itself does not constitute an “occurrence,” some courts are creating an exception where the insured’s negligence on one part of the project caused damage to a different non-faulty part of the same insured’s project.
The legal landscape for construction defect claims appears to be shifting rapidly and posing new challenges to insurers and claims professionals, who are faced with an increasing number of lawsuits and claims alleging faulty workmanship. Perhaps 2014 may bring a renewed legal focus on the public policy and intent behind the construction defect insurance provisions, and thereby shift the risk of correcting faulty construction away from insurers and back onto the insured parties that contracted for, controlled and were compensated for the work itself.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Weedo v. Stone-E-Brick, Inc., 81 N.J. 233, 405 A.2d 788 (N.J. 1979) (finding that a liability policy “does not cover an accident of faulty workmanship but rather faulty workmanship which causes an accident”); Bor-Son Bldg. Corp. v. Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co. of Am., 323 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1982) (reasoning that CGL is meant to cover tort liability for damage to others, and not for the insured’s contractual liability for economic loss because the insured’s work is less than that for which the damaged person bargained); Monticello Ins. Co. v. Wil-Freds Const., Inc., 277 Ill. App. 3d 697, 661 N.E.2d 451 (Ill.App.Ct. 1996) (construction defects that are the natural and ordinary consequences of faulty workmanship are not an “occurrence” unless there has been damage to third party property.)
2. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auchter Co., 673 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012); Nautilus Ins. Co. v. JDL Dev., IX, LLC, 10 C 3435, 2012 WL 1156917 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2012), appeal dismissed (June 12, 2012); Aquatectonics, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 10-CV-2935 DRH ARL, 2012 WL 1020313 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2012)
3. See Colorado Revised Statutes Section 13-20-808, effective May 21, 2010 (requires courts to presume that work resulting in property damage, including to the work itself, is accidental and an “occurrence”); Arkansas Code Annotated Section 23-79-155, effective July 27, 2011 (requires general liability policies to have a definition of “occurrence” that includes property damage or bodily injury resulting from faulty workmanship); South Carolina Code Annotated Section 38-61-70, effective May 17, 2011 (mandates that property damage resulting from faulty workmanship meeting the policy’s definition of “occurrence”); Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 431:1-217, effective June 3, 2011 (after a 2010 Hawaii appellate court ruling holding that construction defect claims do not constitute an occurrence, this statute was effectuated which requires courts to apply case law that was in effect at the time a policy was placed—such that pre-2010 policies may cover construction defects whereas post-2010 policies may not.)
You may contact Mr. Husmann at jhusmann@batescarey.com. Mr. Fleischer can be contacted at afleischer@batescarey.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Limiting Plaintiffs’ Claims to a Cause of Action for Violation of SB-800
November 18, 2011 —
Samir R. Patel, Esq., Lorber, Greenfield, & Polito, LLPThere has been a fair share of publicity about the SB-800 amendments to the Civil Code (Civil Code section 896, et seq.) that codified construction defect litigation in 2002. Most of the publicity is geared toward the pre-litigation standards allowing a builder the right to repair before litigation is commenced by a homeowner. Less focus and attention has been given to the fact that violation of the SB-800 performance standards is being used by plaintiff’s counsel as an additional tool in the plaintiff’s pleading tool box against builders. Closer scrutiny to SB-800 reveals that those provisions should in fact act as a limitation to the pleading tools available to plaintiffs and an additional tool for builders in the defense of cases governed by SB-800.
The typical construction defect complaint contains the boiler plate versions of numerous causes of action. These causes of action include Strict Liability, Negligence, Negligence Per Se, Breach of Contract, Breach of Contract – Third-Party Beneficiary, Breach of Express Warranties, Breach of Implied Warranties, among others. The wide array of causes of action leave a defendant “pinned to the wall” because they require a complex defense on a multitude of contract and tort related causes of action. Furthermore, the statutes of limitations as to these claims widely differ depending upon if the particular defect is considered latent or patent. The truth of the matter remains, no matter what the circumstances, if a construction defect matter ultimately goes to trial, it is inevitable that plaintiffs will obtain a judgment on at least one of these causes of action.
On its own, the Strict Liability cause of action can be a thorn in a defendant’s side. A builder is obviously placing a product into the stream of commerce and strict liability is a tough standard to defend against, particularly when it concerns intricate homes comprised of multiple components that originally sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. A Negligence cause of action can also be difficult to defend because the duty of care for a builder is what a “reasonable” builder would have done under the circumstances. An interpretation of this duty of care can easily sway a jury that will almost always consist of sympathetic homeowners. A Negligence Per Se cause of action can also leave a defendant vulnerable to accusations that a builder violated the Uniform Building Code or a multitude of other obscure municipal construction-related code provisions during the construction of the home. Lastly, the Breach of Contract cause of action leaves a builder relying on dense and intricate purchase and sale agreements with dozens of addenda which leave the skeptical jurors turned off by what they view as one-side, boilerplate provisions. Ultimately, when a matter is about to go to trial, the complexity of these complaints can benefit a plaintiff and increase a plaintiff’s bargaining power against a defendant who is attempting to avoid a potentially large judgment.
Enter the SB-800 statutes. The SB-800 statutes apply to all homes sold after January 1, 2003. Civil Code section 938 specifically states that “[t]his title applies only to new residential units where the purchase agreements with the buyer was signed by the seller on or after January 1, 2003.” (Civil Code §, 938.) As time progresses, more residential construction defect cases will exclusively fall under the purview of SB-800. Slowly but surely more SB-800 governed litigation is being filed, and its exclusive application is looming on the horizon.
On its surface, this “right to repair” regime has left builders with a lot to be desired despite the fact that it is supposed to allow the builder the opportunity to cure any deficiencies in their product before litigation can be filed by potential plaintiffs. However, the application of the time line for repair has shown to be impractical for anything but the most minor problems involving only small numbers of residential units. Moreover, the fact that the fruits of the builder’s investigation into the claimed defects in the pre-litigation context can freely be used as evidence against it in litigation makes builders proceed with trepidation in responding with a repair. For these reasons, more SB-800 litigation can be expected to result due to the shortcomings of the pre-litigation procedures, and savvy defense counsel should anticipate the issues to be dealt with in presenting the defense of such cases at trial.
This fact should not necessarily be met with fear or disdain. Within the SB-800 statutes, the legislature made it clear that they were creating a new cause of action for construction defect claims, but it further made it clear that this cause of action is a plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. The legislature giveth, but at the same time, the legislature taketh away. Throughout numerous provisions within the SB-800 statutes, the Civil Code states that claims for construction defects as to residential construction are exclusively governed by the Civil Code, and that the Civil Code governs any and all litigation arising under breaches of these provisions. Civil Code section 896 specifically states:
In any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … the claimant’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of, the following standards, except as specifically set forth in this title. (Civil Code §, 896.)
Civil Code section 896 then provides approximately fifty-plus standards by which a construction defect claim is assessed under that provision. Civil Code section 896 covers everything from plumbing to windows, and from foundations to decks, and in several instances expressly dictates statutes of limitations as to specific areas of construction that severely truncate the 10-year latent damage limitations period. As for any construction deficiencies that are not enumerated within Civil Code section 896, Civil Code section 897 explicitly defines the intent of the standards and provides a method to assess deficiencies that are not addressed in Civil Code section 896. Civil Code section 897 states:
Intent of Standards
The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure. To the extent that a function or component of a structure is not addressed by these standards, it shall be actionable if it causes damage. (Civil Code §, 897.)
Therefore, Civil Code section 897 acts as a catch-all by which defects that are not covered within Civil Code section 896 can be evaluated on a damage standard mirroring the Aas case (damages must be present and actual). The result of sections 896 and 897 being read in combination is a comprehensive, all-inclusive set of performance standards by which any defect raised by Plaintiffs can be evaluated and resolved under a single SB-800 based cause of action.
Civil Code section 943 makes clear that a cause of action for violation of SB-800 performance standards is a plaintiff’s sole remedy for a residential construction defect action. Specifically, Civil Code section 943 states:
Except as provided in this title, no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under 944 is allowed. In addition to the rights under this title, this title does not apply to any action by a claimant to enforce a contract or express contractual provision, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. (Civil Code §, 943.)
Civil Code section 944 provides the method for computing damages within a construction defect action, as follows:
If a claim for damages is made under this title, the homeowner is only entitled to damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set forth in this title, [and] the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts… . (Civil Code §, 944.)
A cursory review of these statutes yields the conclusion that the legislature was attempting to create an exclusive cause of action that trumps all other causes of action where SB-800 applies. The remedy available to plaintiffs is limited to that allowed by the Civil Code. As noted above, “[n]o other cause of action for a claim covered by this title…is allowed.” (Civil Code §, 943.) Therefore, Civil Code sections 896, 897, 943, and 944 specifically prohibit the contract-based and tort-based causes of action typically pled by plaintiffs.
Plaintiff’s counsel has seized upon the language of section 943 to advance the argument that SB-800 still allows a plaintiff to advance typical contract and tort based causes of action. On the surface, this argument may seem compelling, but a minimum of scrutiny of the express language of section 943 dispels this notion. Section 943 says that it provides rights “[i]n addition” to those under the SB-800 Civil Code provisions. Clearly, the language in section 943 is intended to expressly underscore the fact that a plaintiff is not precluded from seeking relief in addition to that allowed under SB-800 for damages not arising from a breach of the SB-800 standards or for damages in addition to those recoverable under Section 944. This language does not provide an unfettered license to bring a Strict Liability, Negligence or other cause of action against a builder where SB-800 applies.
In fact, this language only keeps the door open for plaintiffs to pursue such causes of action not arising from a breach of the SB-800 standards should there be such supporting allegations. For example, if a plaintiff alleges that a builder breached an “express contractual provision” related to the timing of the completion of the home and close of escrow, and the contract specifies damages in this regard, a plaintiff may have a viable separate cause of action for Breach of Contract for recovery of those damages precisely because that is not an issue expressly dealt with in SB-800 in the performance standards under sections 896 and 897, or in the damage recovery terms under 944. As it stands, the vast majority of complaints are seeking redress for violation of the same primary right; that is, defects specifically outlined in Section 896 and 897 or which result in damages as stated in Section 944.
So, how does a builder defend against a complaint that contains multiple causes of action regarding construction defects for a home sold after January 1, 2003? There are numerous ways to approach this. First and foremost, these superfluous and improper causes of action can be attacked by demurrer seeking dismissal of all causes of action other than the cause of action alleging violation of SB-800. If the the time period within which to file a demurrer has passed already, a motion for judgment on the pleadings can be utilized to attack the improper causes of action in the same way as a demurrer can be used for this purpose.
The limitation to a demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings is that the judge is restricted to viewing only the four corners of the pleading when making a ruling. It is typical for plaintiffs’ counsel to cleverly (or one might even say, disingenuously) leave the complaint purposely vague to avoid a successful defense attack on the pleadings by not including the original date the residence was sold. In that instance, a motion for summary adjudication can be used to attack a plaintiff’s complaint. By simply providing evidence that the homes were originally sold after January 1, 2003, the improper causes of action should be subject to dismissal by summary adjudication. If the plaintiff is a subsequent purchaser, the builder still has recourse to enforce the pleading limitations under SB-800. Civil Code section 945 states that “[t]he provisions, standards, rights, and obligations set forth in this title are binding upon all original purchasers and their successors-in-interest.” (Civil Code §, 945.)
Attacking a plaintiff’s complaint to eliminate multiple causes of action can have numerous benefits. The practical result is that a plaintiff will only have one viable cause of action. The advantage is that the SB-800 performance standards include the defined performance standards and shortened statutes of limitations periods with regard to specific issues. Furthermore, as to defects which are not specifically provided for in Civil Code section 896, Civil Code section 897 requires a proof of actual damages. Therefore, a plaintiff must provide evidence of current damages and not simply conditions that may potentially cause damage in the future.
The Appellate Courts have yet to directly address and interpret these SB-800 provisions. The time for that is undoubtedly drawing near. For now, however, plaintiffs will have to find ways to accurately plead construction defect claims within the confines of one cause of action for breach of the performance standards enumerated within the Civil Code.
Printed courtesy of Lorber, Greenfield & Polito, LLP. Mr. Patel can be contacted at spatel@lorberlaw.com and Mr. Verbick at tverbick@lorberlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
