Employee Exclusion Bars Coverage for Wrongful Death of Subcontractor's Employee
June 11, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit determined the deceased was a statutory employee of the general contractor under Florida law, thereby barring coverage for the general contractor. Stephens v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., 2014 WL 1623737 (11th Cir. April 24, 2014).
The decedent fell from a ladder while working to install a modular home. Critically injured, he died on the way to the hospital. The decedent was an employee of Team Fritz, a subcontractor hired to set the modular home on its foundation.
The general contractor, Anchorage Homes LLC, had a liability policy with Mid-Continent. Damages relating to injuries to any of Anchorage's employees were excluded under the policy. Mid-Continent denied coverage contending that under Florida law, Team Fritz's employees were "statutory employees" of Anchorage. The law provided that the employees of a subcontractor were deemed to be employees of the contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Seller Cannot Compel Arbitration for Its Role in Construction Defect Case<
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe buyer of a leaky home in Venice, California cannot be compelled to arbitration with the seller in a construction defect lawsuit, according to a decision in Lindemann v. Hume, which was heard in the California Court of Appeals. Lindemann was the trustee of the Schlei Trust which bought the home and then sued the seller and the builder for construction defects.
The initial owner was the Hancock Park Trust, a real estate trust for Nicholas Cage. Richard Hume was the trustee. In 2002, Cage agreed to buy the home which was being built by the Lee Group. Cage transferred the agreement to the Hancock Park Trust. Hancock had Richard Nazarin, a general contractor, conduct a pre-closing walk through. They also engaged an inspector. Before escrow closed, the Lee Group agreed to provide a ten-year warranty “to remedy and repair any and all damage resulting from water infiltration, intrusion, or flooding due to the fact that the door on the second and third floors of the residence at the Property were not originally installed at least one-half inch (1/2”) to one inch (1”) above the adjacent outside patio tile/floor on each of the second and third floors.”
Cage moved in and experienced water intrusion and flooding. The Lee Group was unable to fix the problems. Hume listed the home for sale. The Kamienowiczs went as far as escrow before backing out of the purchase over concerns about water, after the seller’s agent disclosed “a problem with the drainage system that is currently being addressed by the Lee Group.”
The house was subsequently bought by the Schlei Trust. The purchase agreement included an arbitration clause which included an agreement that “any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or any resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.” The warranty the Lee Group had given to Hancock was transferred to the Schlei trust and Mr. Schlei moved into the home in May 2003.
Lindemann enquired as to whether the work done would prevent future flooding. Nazarin sent Schlei a letter that said that measures had been taken “to prevent that situation from recurring.” In February, 2004, there was flooding and water intrusion. Lindemann filed a lawsuit against the Lee Group and then added the Hancock Park defendants.
The Hancock Park defendants invoked the arbitration clause, arguing that Lindemann’s claims “were only tangentially related to her construction defect causes of action against the Lee Group.” On June 9, 2010, the trial court rejected this claim, ruling that there was a possibility of conflicting rulings on common issues of law. “With respect to both the developer defendants and the seller defendants, the threshold issue is whether there was a problem with the construction of the property in the first instance. If there was no problem with the construction of the property, then there was nothing to fail to disclose.” Later in the ruling, the trial court noted that “the jury could find there was no construction defect on the property, while the arbitration finds there was a construction defect, the sellers knew about it, and the sellers failed to disclose it.” The appeals court noted that while Hancock Park had disclosed the drainage problems to the Kamienowiczs, no such disclosure was made to Sclei.
The appeals court described Hancock Park’s argument that there is no risk of inconsistent rulings as “without merit.” The appeals court said that the issue “is not whether inconsistent rulings are inevitable but whether they are possible if arbitration is ordered.” Further, the court noted that “the Hancock Park defendants and the Lee Group have filed cross-complaints for indemnification against each other, further increasing the risk of inconsistent rulings.”
The court found for Lindemann, awarding her costs.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NAHB Examines Single-Family Detached Concentration Statistics
April 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the National Association of Builders’ (NAHB) publication Eye on Housing, the NAHB examined “the share of homeowners living in single-family detached housing” statistics as reported in the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS).
Wausau, Wisconsin had the highest share of homeowners living in single-family detached housing within a metropolitan area. Interestingly, NAHB found that “[w]ith the exception of Modesto, CA, all of the metropolitan areas in the top ten [were] located in the Midwest.”
The New York-White Plains-Wayne (New York) division had the lowest share of homeowners living in single-detached housing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Top 10 Hurricane Preparedness Practices for Construction Sites
September 25, 2018 —
Andrew Gilbert - Construction ExecutiveLast year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recorded that the North Atlantic saw the third highest number of major hurricanes to date. North America alone saw three tropical storms and four hurricanes make landfall, the most since 2005.
As the 2018 hurricane season takes shape (running from June 1 to Nov. 30), it’s imperative to begin construction site hurricane planning efforts early and to be as prepared as possible prior to any storm. Preparing for a storm can help ensure the safety of not only project and onsite teams, but also of the surrounding communities.
1. DEVELOP AND REVIEW A HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS AND SAFETY PLAN
Prior to hurricane season, make sure the project contractor has provided the team with a hurricane preparedness and safety plan. Review this plan with the entire team and the owner. This document outlines the exact timeline and steps the contractor will take to safely secure the project site in the event of a storm. The integrated process is especially important when dealing with renovation projects, exterior upgrades or projects that connect new construction to existing facilities.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Gilbert, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Gilbert may be contacted at
andrew.gilbert@cbre.com
School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty
May 13, 2014 —
Gregory J. Rolen - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP“I could not but wonder at the Queen’s unprecedented civility, until I realized with a flush of shame that it was my own improved behavior that motivated hers. So it is that we in life determine our own treatment.” - Catherine Gilbert Murdock
I. We Must Actively Encourage Board Civility
Over 20 years of experience representing public entities has taught me there is nothing more important than civility. On April 11, 2014, I was a featured presenter on, "How to Keep School Boards Out Of Trouble!" My initial focus was to educate the board members about open meeting laws, public records, and conflict provisions. Instead, I began by addressing board "civility." The discussion became animated. The audience was transfixed, appalled, and even amused at my examples of how uncivilized board behavior led to lawsuits, bad press, wasted resources and low morale. One attendee asked me to define civility. I meekly responded, "The Golden Rule?" "Disagreeing without being disagreeable?" My answers were inadequate. I then had a humbling epiphany. As an education law specialist, and the General Counsel of one of the largest, most diverse school districts in California, I needed to do more to foster civility among the board members I served. I had underestimated the destructive effects of incivility on my district, my colleagues, and my community.
On some level I realized that the coarsening of the discourse was taking its toll. However, I was so involved in performing my duties; I forgot to do my job. I should have taken a step back and implemented training, policies, initiatives and protocols to promote civility. I realize that it is unfortunate that we have to establish standards for adult interactions, especially for people who have promised to place service over self. As I learned, you can never fully anticipate human interactions or the complexities of the human condition. That is why I believe proactive measures to promote civility are so critical. This is not being nice for the sake of being nice. But instead, it is an absolutely vital component of effective governance. Therefore, in this essay I will discuss civility and its importance to school boards and districts. I will address the deleterious effects of board incivility. More importantly, I hope to present no-nonsense methods to cultivate civility. It is my sincere desire that others will learn from my experiences, and this time I want to do better!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory J. Rolen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Rolen may be contacted at
grolen@hbblaw.com
Safety Data: Noon Presents the Hour of Greatest Danger
April 20, 2017 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordUnlike previous research into construction fatalities, a new review of three years of Labor Dept. data found that most occur between 10 am and 3 pm, with a peak at noon.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, ENRMr. Korman may be contacted at
kormanr@enr.com
Tennessee Court of Appeals Holds Defendant Has the Burden of Offering Alternative Measure of Damages to Prove that Plaintiff’s Measure of Damages is Unreasonable
July 18, 2018 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Durkin v. MTown Construction, LLC, 2018 Tenn. App. LEXIS 128, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee considered whether the lower court properly took judicial notice of an alternative measure of damages to the measure of damages advanced by the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that the defendant has the burden of offering evidence of alternative measures of damages if it seeks to argue that the plaintiff’s measure of the damages is unreasonable. The Court of Appeals found that the lower court erred in taking judicial notice of alternative measures of damage when the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof. The court’s holding establishes that, if the defendant does not offer evidence of alternative measures of damage, then the measure of damages introduced by the plaintiff will apply.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage
July 16, 2023 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Dardar v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 2023 IL App ( 5th ) 220357-U, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed an insured’s suit against her property insurer after the carrier denied coverage for a fire loss. The property in question was inherited by the Plaintiff from her brother and was in the process of being renovated at the time of the fire loss. After the fire, the Plaintiff’s homeowners carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not occupying the property at the time of the fire and was therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. It was undisputed that the Plaintiffs never lived in or physically occupied the home. Correspondingly, the carrier denied the claim on the basis that the policy only covered the Plaintiff’s "residence premises," which was defined as: (1) the one-family dwelling where you reside; (2) the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or (3) that part of any other building in which you reside. The carrier determined that the Plaintiff did not “reside” at the property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
