KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFWillowbrook, a condominium complex in Lakewood Ranch, Florida has had problems with water intrusion. Now the builder is having problems with some of the residents. National home builder KB Homes is alleging that a pair of Willowbrook home owners who created a web site about their problems have violated federal cybersquatting laws, as the web site names they have registered are close to that KB Homes. The suit alleges that Andrew Smith and Daniel Koehler hope to either get KB Homes to purchase the web site or to buy back their homes.
The lawsuit also alleges that three other individuals, William Crismon, Patrick McGettigan, and Armando Oyola-Delgado, conspired to intercept e-mails between KB Home and Dueall Construction. KB Homes claims that the three gained access to a WiFi hotspot used by Dueall.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Plaintiffs In Construction Defect Cases to Recover For Emotional Damages?
March 16, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA recent post to the Markusson, Green, Jarvis Blog reports on an important appeals decision which promises to impact construction defect litigation in Colorado.
The post provides analysis on the recovery of inconvenience damages. The focus of the piece is centered on Hildebrand v. New Vista Homes II, LLC, 08CA2645, 2010 WL 4492356 (Colo. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 2010), wherein it was held that " the plain language of Construction Defect Action Reform Act permits recovery of damages for inconvenience, and that the trial court did not err by allowing inconvenience damages to go to the jury".
According to the MGJ Blog "The Hildebrand decision is important because it provides Construction Defect Plaintiffs with a foothold for collecting emotional damages. While several questions of law remain as to who or under exactly what circumstances a Plaintiff may recover these types of damages, the Hildebrand case has clearly set forth that emotional damages may be considered as part of actual damages pursuant to CDARA."
Read Full Story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Cannot Abandon Defense Agreement on Underlying Asbestos Claims Against Insured
June 12, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer continued to be bound by a defense agreement entered with the insured who merged with another company. Continental Ins. Co. v. Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52521 (D. Mass. March 28, 2023).
In 1990, Neles-Jamesbury became the sucessor by merger to the liabilities of Jamesbury Corp. and Neles, Inc. The companies were both in the business of manufacturing and selling valves.
Continental issued two primary CGL policies to Neles, Inc. from 1986 to 1988. After the merger, Neles-Jamesbury was involved in numerous lawsuits that alleged bodily injury from asbestos exposure. Due to the continuing question of whether the policies created duties for Continental, the parties entered into a 2007 Cost Sharing Agreement, which served to clarify and define their respective obligations and coverage in the lawsuits. The agreement noted that Continental wanted to avoid the expense and uncertainties of litigation over defense obligations.
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
New WOTUS Rule
November 13, 2023 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPThe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers amended the regulation to conform the definition of “waters of the United States” to conform to the Supreme Court’s ruling in
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. See the prior blog post about the Supreme Court’s ruling:
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency – Construction and Utility Law | Atlanta | AHC Law
Federal Register :: Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”; Conforming
Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Connecticut Gets Medieval All Over Construction Defects
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut is trying a very old tactic in a construction defect suit. The law library building at the University of Connecticut suffered from leaks which have now been repaired. The state waited twelve years after was complete to file lawsuit, despite that Connecticut has a six-year statute of limitations on construction defect claims. Connecticut claims that the statute of limitations does apply to the state.
The state is arguing that a legal principle from the thirteenth century allows it to go along with its suit. As befits a medieval part of common law, the principle is called “nullum tempus occurrit regi,” or “time does not run against the king.” In 1874, the American Law Register said that nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae “has been adopted in every one of the United States” and “is now firmly established law.”
In the case of Connecticut, Connecticut Solicitor General Gregory D’Auria said that “the statute of limitations does not apply to the state.” He also noted that “the state did not ‘wait’ to file the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed only after all other options and remedies were exhausted.”
Connecticut also argued that “nullus tempus occurrit regi” applied in another construction defect case at the York Correctional Institution. The judge in that case ruled in December 2008 to let the case proceed. But in the library case, Judge William T. Cremins ruled in February 2009 that the statute of limitations should apply to the state as well. Both cases have been appealed, with the library case moving more quickly toward the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Toll Brothers Report End of Year Results
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe largest luxury home builder in the U.S. saw some significant gains in their final quarter for 2013. Their pre-tax income for the year was $150.2 million, up from last year’s $60.7 million, more than doubling. The firm’s revenues went up 65% to $1.04 billion, and the average price of homes was up as well. Toll Brothers is currently selling homes in 232 communities, also increasing over 2012. Due to the upcoming acquisition of Shapell, Toll Brothers projects that at the end of 2014 they will be selling in 250 to 290 communities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Condo Association Settles with Pulte Homes over Construction Defect Claims
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Springton Point Condominium Association has settled its construction defect claims against Pulte Homes for $5.6 million. The residents of the 152-unit condominium community alleged a variety of defects which led to water intrusion, as well as a variety of other problems, including defective fire sprinkler systems and missing insulation.
Pulte filed lawsuits against its subcontractors on the project, however all but one of these were settled before the case went to trial. The lawsuit started in 2007, with Pulte adding the subcontractors in 2009. On October 25, a jury had been selected, but the case settled before opening statements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
