Court Finds No Occurrence for Installation of Defective flooring and Explains Coverage for Attorney Fee Awards
January 05, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Navigators Specialty Ins. Co. v. Moorefield Const. (No.G050759, filed 12/27/16), a California appeals court held that the knowing installation of flooring over a vapor-emitting slab was not an accident or occurrence, entitling the insurer to reimbursement of money paid as damages to settle a construction defect suit. But the court further held that there was no right of reimbursement for the portion of money payable under the policy’s supplementary payments coverage as costs for contractual prevailing party attorney’s fees.
Navigators insured Moorefield, the general contractor for a Best Buy store. Testing in construction revealed a vapor emission rate from the concrete slab above the approved standard for the flooring. The contractor’s personnel testified that it was normal to install the flooring regardless. Notwithstanding, the contractor’s personnel testified that they consulted the owner and were directed to proceed. In doing so, the contractor also expressly released the flooring subcontractor from any warranty claims.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot
June 12, 2023 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a brief roundup of recent federal court environmental and regulatory law decisions from the federal courts over the past few months, including the much anticipated ruling in Sackett, et ux., v, Environmental Protection Agency.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Sackett, et ux., v, Environmental Protection Agency
Last year, the Supreme Court issued a significant decision curtailing some of the EPA’s regulatory powers in the Clean Air Act in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. On May 25, 2023, the Court limited EPA’s—and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ authority—under the Clean Water Act. This, too, is a major environmental ruling. The Court held that the EPA could not classify the wetlands located on the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett as “Waters of the United States” on the basis of the “significant nexus” test devised by Justice Kennedy in his separate opinion in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States. Accordingly, the Court unanimously held that their property was not subject to the EPA’s or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting and enforcement power. In 2004, the Sacketts purchased a small lot near Priest Lake in Bonner County, Idaho, on which to build a home. As related by Justice Alito, once they began to fill in their property with dirt and rocks, they were notified by EPA that their backfilling operation violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) because they were affecting protected wetlands. The Sacketts challenged this action, thus beginning a long legal battle with EPA and the federal government. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the federal government’s regulatory authority over these wetlands, holding that the CWA covers “adjacent” wetlands having a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. The Supreme Court decided that this case was suitable for determining whether the Sackett’s wetlands are “waters of the United States” and thus subject to the permitting and regulatory enforcement powers of the EPA and the Corps of Engineers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Biden Administration Focus on Environmental Justice Raises Questions for Industry
March 22, 2021 —
Karen C. Bennett, Jane C. Luxton, Rose Quam-Wickham & William J. Walsh - Lewis BrisboisThe Biden Administration has left no doubt that it intends to prioritize environmental justice (EJ) in implementing energy and environmental policy. While EJ is not new – in fact, President Clinton signed the first EJ Executive Order (EO 12898) in 1994 – the new Administration’s plan to expand the concept to include “climate justice” and “health equity” is both novel and undefined. Similar to actions taken on climate change (see our previous alert from January 28), President Biden has announced plans for elevating EJ by designating new Cabinet level offices, intensifying enforcement, and advocating for Congressional action. Given the likelihood of serious impacts from these sweeping changes, industry will need to step up engagement as these concepts are integrated into regulatory decisions and U.S. positions globally.
Authority for addressing injustice caused by environmental pollution that disproportionately affects certain communities is found in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act imposed a responsibility on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) to ensure that its funds are not being used to subsidize discrimination, based on race, color, or national origin, making EPA’s Office of Civil Rights responsible for the investigation and enforcement of Title VI within the Agency. President Clinton relied on this authority in signing EO 12898, which directed federal agencies to identify and address disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and, going beyond the protections covered by Title VI, low-income populations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois,
Jane C. Luxton, Lewis Brisbois,
Rose Quam-Wickham, Lewis Brisbois and
William J. Walsh, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Quam-Wickham may be contacted at Rose.QuamWickham@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Walsh may be contacted at William.Walsh@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Signature? Potentially No Problem for Sureties Enforcing a Bond’s Forum Selection Clause
March 21, 2022 —
Brian C. Padove - ConsensusDocsOne of the foundational tenets of contract law is that a party may only be bound by terms they agree to, or in other words, if the party did not sign a contract, that party cannot be bound by the terms thereof. While this principle is generally unwavering, there are certain situations in which a non-signatory to a contract may still be bound by the terms of a contract.
In particular, this non-signatory issue may arise when a payment bond claimant makes a bond claim, subsequently files a lawsuit, but the bond contains a forum selection clause different than the venue of the lawsuit and the surety seeks to enforce the bond’s forum selection clause. For example, the claimant may have filed its lawsuit against the surety in federal court, even though the bond provides language specifically mandating that no lawsuit shall be commenced by any claimant other than in a state court where the project is located. Thus, the question then becomes, can the surety enforce the forum selection clause against the claimant when the claimant did not sign the bond and/or never agreed to the terms thereof? The short answer, it depends (yes, that is a very lawyer-like answer). Given recent case law over the past decade, however, the surety has a strong argument in favor of enforcement of the forum selection clause.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian C. Padove, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Mr. Padove may be contacted at
bpadove@watttieder.com
Why Do Construction Companies Fail?
February 14, 2023 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsIf a construction company takes on a lot of work, it’s a good thing, right? Not exactly. In fact, overextension is one of the primary reasons why contractors fail. And it’s something that contractors should consider as a priority for their risk management plan.
Of the 43,277 construction businesses that started in March 2011, only 37.6% of companies survived 10 years later.
1
“The construction industry has a high rate of failure,” explains Tim Holicky, senior executive underwriter in The Hartford’s construction central bond team. “And more often than not, it’s because of too much work, rather than too little of it. The key to a contractor’s long-term survival is knowing when to say no.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law
February 19, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsPreviously in this on-again-off-again series of posts on construction contract basics, I discussed attorney fees provisions and indemnification. In this installment, the topic at hand is venue and choice of law.
As construction professionals (outside of us construction attorneys), you are likely to be focused on things like the scope of work in a construction contract, the price terms, payment, delays, change orders, and the like. However, the venue (where any lawsuit or arbitration will have to happen) and the choice of law (what state’s law applies) can be equally important. You need to know where you will have to enforce your rights under the contract and also what law will apply. Will you need to go to another state to enforce your rights? Even if not, will your local attorney have to learn the law of another jurisdiction? These are important questions when reading and negotiating your prime contract (if with the owner) or subcontract (if with the general contractor).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
No Coverage Under Installation Policy When Read Together with Insurance Application
January 16, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case out of the Eleventh Circuit denied an underground contractor’s claim under what appears to be a commercial property installation floater policy (inland marine coverage) that covers the contractor’s materials. Whereas a builder’s risk policy is more expansive, an installation floater is narrower and can provide protection to a contractor for materials and equipment in transit, stored, or being installed subject to the terms of the installation floater policy. It can provide coverage to a trade subcontractor for materials that aren’t covered by builder’s risk.
In Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Talcon Group, LLC, 2023 WL 8798053 (11th Cir. 2023), an underground utility contractor that had a general contractor’s license had an installation policy that provided coverage “only for underground utility operations and the site development work tied to those operations.” Talcon Group, supra, at *1. The utility contractor was constructing two residential homes that was on land owned by an affiliated family entity. During construction of the residential homes, a wildfire destroyed the homes prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. The utility contractor submitted a notice of loss to its insurance carrier that provided the installation policy. The carrier denied the claim because the construction of the homes was NOT the same type of work as the installation of underground utilities which was covered. An insurance coverage lawsuit ensued.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
John Aho: Engineer Pushed for Seismic Safety in Alaska Ahead of 2018 Earthquake
February 06, 2019 —
Christine Kilpatrick - Engineering News-RecordThe son of a pioneer bush pilot in Alaska, structural engineer John Aho spent decades working toward earthquake preparedness. He helped found a key seismic safety commission in the state, and serves on the City of Anchorage’s geotechnical advisory group. The fruits of his labor were clearly demonstrated on the morning of Nov. 30, when the magnitudes 7.0 and 5.7 earthquakes that struck the city caused limited structural damage, partly due to stringent building requirements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christine Kilpatrick - ENRMs. Kilpatrick may be contacted at
kilpatrickc@enr.com
