Construction Defect Journal Marks First Anniversary
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFNovember 2011 marked the first anniversary of the Construction Defect Journal. During the first year our staff and contributors in the insurance and legal communities have compiled several hundred articles of interest to the construction defect and claims community.
Each of these articles are maintained in the CDJ archives, and are accessible at http://www.constructiondefectjournal.com/archives.html. Each story in the archives is listed in the order it was posted to the archives. Each story in the archives opens up in its own page, so you can easily locate topics and articles of interest.
If you’re new to Construction Defect Journal, or just want peruse past articles, please take a moment to visit the CDJ Archives page. Also please feel encouraged to submit your firm’s articles or legal publications of interest to the CD community at http://www.constructiondefectjournal.com/submitStory.html.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois Promotes 35 to Partnership
March 15, 2021 —
Lewis BrisboisLewis Brisbois is proud to announce the promotion of 35 of its associates to partner. With these promotions, Lewis Brisbois’ total partnership comes to 933 across its 53 offices. The diverse class of newly promoted attorneys includes 15 women, which brings the total percentage of female partners at Lewis Brisbois to 33%.
Los Angeles Managing Partner Jana I. Lubert expressed her excitement about the recent promotions, stating, “On behalf of the Management Committee, I congratulate these outstanding attorneys on their achievement. They have demonstrated an exceptional level of dedication to Lewis Brisbois and to our clients, especially during this difficult past year. I am particularly proud of the diversity that exists across this group.”
Similarly, San Bernardino and Chief Diversity Partner Rima M. Badawiya shared her enthusiasm over the diversity of the new partners, explaining, “This group of exceptional attorneys, who have been promoted based upon their extraordinary performance, represents the diversity that exists throughout Lewis Brisbois and our commitment to advancing those who achieve at the highest level.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Halliburton to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Spill Lawsuits
September 03, 2014 —
David Wethe, Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Calkins – BloombergHalliburton Co. agreed to pay $1.1 billion to settle a majority of lawsuits brought over its role in the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history.
The agreement is subject to court approval and includes legal fees, the Houston-based company said in a statement today. Halliburton was accused by spill victims and BP Plc of doing defective cementing work on the Macondo well before the April 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Halliburton blamed the incident on decisions by BP, which owned the well.
The settlement comes as the judge overseeing oil-spill cases weighs fault for the disaster. An agreement now averts the company’s risk of a more costly judgment for some spill victims and removes much of the uncertainty that has plagued Halliburton for the past four years as investors waited to see the payout tally. With its biggest piece of liability resolved, Halliburton can refocus its attention on developing new oilfield technology that will help it boost profits worldwide.
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg journalists
David Wethe,
Margaret Cronin Fisk and
Laurel Calkins
Mr. Wethe may be contacted at dwethe@bloomberg.net; Ms. Fisk may be contacted at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; and Ms. Calkins may be contacted at lcalkins@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion
October 26, 2020 —
Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThose of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims.
Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters.
Reprinted courtesy of
Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered
August 19, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that cosmetic damage to the insured's roof was covered. Advance Cable Co., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9805 (7th Cir. June 11, 2015).
The insured submitted a claim to its insurer, Cincinnati, for damage to the metal roof of its building caused by a hail storm. The insured inspected the roof with a claims representative for Cincinnati. Dents were spotted, but there was little other evidence of damage. The loss was estimated at $1,894.74. A check for this amount was sent to the insured.
Six months later, the insured considered selling the building. A potential buyer inspected the roof and found hail damage. At the request of the insured, Cincinnati conducted another inspection of the roof. Again, dents of approximately 1 inch in diameter were found. The inspector noted that the denting would not affect the performance of the roof panels or detract from their life expectancy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill
May 31, 2021 —
Copernicus T. Gaza, Robert S. Nobel, Craig Rokuson, Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanThe New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):
- Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
- Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
- Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or
- Fails to act in good faith by compelling such claimant to initiate a lawsuit to recover under the policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such suit; or
- Fails to timely provide, on request of the policy holder or the policy holder's representative, all reports or other documentation arising from the investigation of a claim; or
- Refuses to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation prior to such refusal.
Reprinted courtesy of
Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman,
Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman,
Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and
Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court of Appeals Finds Additional Insured Coverage Despite “Care, Custody or Control” Exclusion
September 30, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWhen things go wrong on a construction project it’s often a scramble of finger pointing. In McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Case No. D074219 (June 5, 2019), the California Court of Appeals for the 4th District considered whether an additional insured exclusion, excluding “property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured,” precluded a duty to defend by an insurer.
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was the developer and general contractor on a residential project known as Auburn Lane in Chula Vista, California. McMillin subcontracted with Martin Roofing Company, Inc. to perform roofing work. Under the subcontract, Martin was required to obtain commercial general liability insurance naming McMillin as an additional insured.
The commercial general liability insurance policy secured by Martin was issued by National Fire and Marine Insurance Company. As is typical, the policy covered “property damage” and “personal injury” arising out of an “occurrence” during the policy period. McMillin was covered as additional insured under ISO endorsement form CG 20 09 03 97.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Prejudice to Insurer After Late Notice of Hurricane Damage Raises Issue of Fact
January 03, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment on admittedly late notice because prejudice to the insured remained an issue of fact. Guzman v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219625 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2021).
The insured first noticed water leaking into his kitchen from the roof during Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. Various attempts were made by the insured to fix the leak, but none were successful. After the hurricane, the roof continued to leak whenever it rained. Notice was finally given to Scottsdale, the insurer, on April 19, 2020.
Scottsdale retained structural engineer Nazario Ramirez, who inspected the property twice. He also had photographs of the rapids. Ramirez denied being prejudiced during his inspections. Based on the pictures aerial photography and weather research, he determined that the damage was caused by underlayment failing, which could have resulted from age and deterioration or poor construction. When Scottsdale's corporate representative was deposed, he testified that Ramirez was able to determine the cause of the damage to the roof.
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
