Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief
April 15, 2015 —
Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick, and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property.
In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control.
The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Valerie A. Moore,
Christopher Kendrick and
Colin T. Murphy
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com.
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fifth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Award to Insurer on Hurricane Damage Claim
December 18, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on a property damage claim arising from Hurricane Harvey. Advanced Indicator and Manufacturing, Inc. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 50 F.4th 469 (2022).
After Hurricane Harvey struck southern Texas in 2017, Advanced submitted a claim to Acadia for damage to its building that it claimed was caused by the hurricane's winds. Acadia sent an adjuster, Nick Warren, as well as an engineer, Jason Watson. Watson determined that pre-existing conditions - including ongoing leaks from deterioration and poor workmanship - caused the damage, rather than winds from Hurricane Harvey. Warren adopted these conclusions in his recommendations to Acadia. Acadia denied Advanced's claim based on these reports.
Advanced sued Acadia, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. Advanced filed a motion to remand to state court which was denied. Acadia moved for summary judgment arguing that it did not breach the policy and that Advanced could not segregate any damages caused by hurricane from pre-existing damage. The district court granted Acadia's motion, finding that Acadia's denial of Advanced's claim was based on "extensive consideration of the evidence." Further, Advanced failed to carry its burden of showing that covered and non-covered damages could be segregated as required by Texas's concurrent causation doctrine. Finally, the bad faith claim was dismissed because there was no breach of contract.
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
The NAR asks FAA to Amend their Drone Rules for Real Estate Use
September 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFHousing Wire reported that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) “is pushing for an exception for Realtors in the current rules on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) technology since their motives don’t disrupt safety concerns, according to a letter sent on Tuesday to the FAA.”
According to Housing Wire, the NAR believes that real estate professionals would benefit from UAV technology, more commonly referred to as drones, in a variety of ways, “including, law enforcement, environmental scanning, geographical surveys and disaster recovery assessments.”
The NAR stated, as quoted in Housing Wire, “Use of UAV technology by the real estate industry is simple compared to other applications such as land surveying or law enforcement. The use of UAV technology would be limited in scope to the property itself. Properly written regulation would permit the use of UAV technology within the real estate industry, while maintaining safety in the NAS and privacy of citizens.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Contract Language and Insurance Coverage Must Be Consistent
July 30, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contract AdvisorHow often do you review both the additional insured language in the contract and the insurance policy provided by a subcontractor? My guess is, unless the project has gone off the rails, NEVER. Well, perhaps you should to make absolutely sure the extent of the subcontractor’s insurance obligations and whether those obligations are being fulfilled.
This point was recently addressed in a recent DRI article analyzing the Deepwater Horizon/BP lawsuit. My partner, Anne Marie O’Brien, also blogged on this a few months ago.
As you will recall, Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon oil-drilling rig exploded, killing 11 workers, and polluted the Gulf of Mexico. BP demanded that Transocean’s insurer pay for the loss. Transocean’s insurer said no, and the litigation ensued, in state court, federal court, and the Texas Supreme Court. It was quite an odyssey of litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State
October 14, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. (No. S239510, filed 8/29/19), the California Supreme Court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy in the insurance context, supporting the application of California law under a choice of laws analysis. In addition, the Court held that the rule generally applies to consent (aka “no voluntary payments”) provisions in first party insurance policies but not to consent provisions in third party liability policies.
Pitzer College discovered soils contamination while building a new dormitory. Under pressure to complete construction before the start of the school year, Pitzer proceeded to remediate the soils, incurring $2 million in expense. Pitzer submitted a claim to Indian Harbor, which provided Pitzer insurance covering legal and remediation expenses resulting from pollution conditions discovered during the policy period.
The policy contained a notice provision requiring Pitzer to provide oral or written notice of any pollution condition to Indian Harbor and, in the event of oral notice, to “furnish … a written report as soon as practicable.” In addition, a consent provision required Pitzer to obtain Indian Harbor’s written consent before incurring expenses, making payments, assuming obligations, and/or commencing remediation due to a pollution condition. The consent provision had an emergency exception for costs incurred “on an emergency basis where any delay … would cause injury to persons or damage to property or increase significantly the cost of responding to any [pollution condition],” in which case Pitzer was required to notify Indian Harbor “immediately thereafter.” Lastly, a choice of law provision stated that New York law governed all matters arising under the policy.
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
Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals
December 11, 2023 —
Jason Taylor & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub LiebermanIn this appeal brought before the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurance carrier client (the “Carrier” or “Client”), affirming an award of summary disposition in favor of the Carrier in a coverage lawsuit. The coverage lawsuit involved a priority dispute between the Carrier and another insurer over which company’s policy had responsibility to cover the defense of their mutual insured, a heating and cooling contractor (the “Insured”) in an underlying lawsuit alleging carbon monoxide poisoning. The Carrier issued a contractor’s pollution liability policy and the other insurer issued a commercial general liability policy to the Insurer. Both the Carrier and the other insurer filed cross-motions for summary disposition in the trial court on the priority of coverage issue. The trial court granted the Client’s motion, holding that the CGL carrier was the primary insurer based on the language in the policies’ “other insurance” clauses. The trial court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument to apply the “total policy insuring intent” or “closest to the risk” tests—tests which Michigan courts have not adopted. Specifically, the court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument that the Client’s contractor’s pollution liability policy was more specifically tailored to the loss in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court also rejected CGL carrier’s alternative argument that the “other insurance” clauses in the policies were irreconcilable, requiring a pro rata allocation based on the respective limits of the policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman and
Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New California Standards Go into Effect July 1st
July 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFGarret Murai on his California Construction Law Blog reminded readers that the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the New Listing Law Requirements goes into effect on July 1st of this year.
According to Murai, the new “California Building Energy Efficiency Standards include: (1) the 2013 California Energy Code, Part 6, (2) the 2013 California Administrative Code, Chapter 10, Part 1 and (3) the energy provisions of the 2013 CALGreen, Part II, Title, 25, of the California Code of Regulations.”
Furthermore, Murai pointed out that “Assemby Bill 44, which amended the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, also known as the Listing Law, was signed into law,” which requires prime contractors "to disclose the contractors license numbers of subcontractors performing work in excess of 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid or, in the case of bids for the construction of streets, highways, or bridges, in excess of 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid or $10,000, whichever is greater.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction-Industry Clients Need Well-Reasoned and Clear Policies on Recording Zoom and Teams Meetings
June 19, 2023 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverThe use of Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and similar communication platforms has become increasingly common in the construction industry. While these platforms can greatly facilitate communication between project participants, they potentially create a source of ESI – electronically stored information – that must be understood and considered by the businesses using those systems.
Businesses using Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and similar platforms should have policies in place to address whether and why to record video conferences, how long to preserve any recorded meetings, and retention policies for instant messaging systems. The failure to adopt appropriate policies could prove quite costly in any future litigation or criminal investigation.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) sets out the duty to preserve ESI and provides significant penalties for failing to do so once litigation is anticipated. It is important to note: there is generally no obligation to create ESI, such as recording Zoom or Teams meetings. At the same time, if the ESI is created but litigation is not anticipated, businesses are generally free to establish their own retention policy for that ESI. However, once litigation is anticipated, potential litigants have the obligation to preserve the ESI and, in connection therewith, to conduct a reasonable search for relevant information (to ensure its proper preservation).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
