Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation
November 12, 2019 —
Frank Ingham - Colorado Construction LitigationThe Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019).
In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Ingham may be contacted at
ingham@hhmrlaw.com
The Benefits of Trash Talking: A Cautionary Tale of Demolition Gone Wrong
September 02, 2024 —
Joshua Levy, Anne O'Meara & Kimberly Gutierrez - Construction ExecutiveThat sinking feeling has crossed everyone’s mind at some point: "Did I accidentally throw out...?” It can happen to anyone, from valuable jewelry to uncashed checks or even (in the case of one contractor) to fire-pump control cabinets.
Demolishing the wrong equipment is a concern construction and demolition contractors should review before beginning any project. Recently, one general contractor and its demolition subcontractor would have benefitted from a more detailed “trash” talking session, which could have helped them avoid a dumpster-fire of a legal dispute.
In this case, the general contractor was contracted to renovate a hangar for a military base. The company subcontracted the demolition work to a local, family-owned contractor to demolish aspects of the hangar’s fire-suppression room. The two companies met many times, from planning to daily field walk-downs. They discussed that any equipment that was tagged with bright orange tags would remain in the fire-suppression room. The contractor also reviewed the demolition plans with the demolition company, detailing what should and should not be removed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Levy, Anne O'Meara & Kimberly Gutierrez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Harmon Hotel Construction Defect Trial to Begin
October 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe trial involving the Las Vegas Harmon Hotel, which is currently being demolished piece by piece due to construction defects, is ready to begin six years after the defects were first discovered, reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It’s an unusual case for multiple reasons. The trial is expected to last a year, and the number of attorneys involved in the case required chairs to be removed from the galley to accommodate lawyer tables, which are wired with monitors and microphones. In addition, “two 80-inch monitors are being installed for the jury.”
The Las Vegas Review-Journal further reported that “each party will have its own technology team to display the more than 3 million digitally stored pieces of evidence.” Michael Doan, the court’s information technology director, told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that the “paper list of that evidence fills more than 100 document-storage boxes.”
The case “involves more than $400 million in damage claims.” Construction on the Harmon Tower was stopped after a “structural engineer hired by MGM Resorts determined the building was unsafe and could topple if an earthquake of a magnitude of 7.7 were to hit Las Vegas.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Louisiana District Court Declines to Apply Total Pollution Exclusion
December 15, 2016 —
William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana recently decided that a broad total pollution exclusion in a marine general liability policy did not bar coverage.
The insurer could not unambiguously establish, based on the facts of the underlying case, that waste from a shipyard’s sandblasting activities met the requirements of the exclusion.
The court found that the insurer could not meet Louisiana’s three-part test to determine whether the policy’s total pollution exclusion applied. The Doerr test requires an insurer to refer to the allegations in the underlying complaint to prove 1) the insured is a “polluter”, 2) the injury-causing substance is a “pollutant,” and 3) there was a “discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape” of the pollutant.
Total pollution exclusions are extremely prohibitive for policyholders because they eliminate coverage for virtually all pollution incidents, but this decision reinforces that policyholders may still have a path to coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIs an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action.
In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses.
The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085).
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal District Court Addresses Anti-concurrent Cause Language in Property Policy
February 04, 2025 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Surchi1, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227796 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 17, 2024), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed a carrier’s obligation to cover costs associated with remediating water-related damage to insured property. In July 2022, the insured property experienced water-related damage and resulting repair costs. A claim was submitted for coverage under a property policy issued by Travelers. Travelers denied the claim and the insured initiated an action against Travelers seeking coverage. During the litigation Travelers maintained its position that it was not obligated to cover the water-related damage, because (1) under the policy, Travelers is not obligated to cover damage caused by surface water, even if surface water contributed only in part to the damage, and (2) the pleadings irrefutably establish that surface water contributed, at least in part, to the property damage. The insured took the contrary view arguing that Travelers was obligated to cover water-related damage (1) because the damage was the result of a water or sewage backing up or overflowing from sewers, and (2) this obligation remains, even if surface water contributed in part to the damage.
The court began with a review of the relevant policy language. Under the policy, Travelers "will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by ... surface water." At the same time, under a change endorsement to the policy, Travelers agreed to cover "direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property at the described premises caused by or resulting from water or sewage that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain, or sump." In light of this language, the parties dispute centered on whether Travelers is obligated to cover damages caused concurrently by surface water (an excluded peril) and by water or sewage that backs up or overflows from a sewer, drain, or sump (a covered peril).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct
August 19, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams, & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (filed 8/13/15, Case No. S208130), the California Supreme Court held a government entity is not categorically immune from liability where the plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property caused the plaintiff’s injury, but did not cause the third party conduct which precipitated the accident.
The case arises out of a traffic collision by which the negligent driving of a third party motorist caused another car to careen into a tree planted in the center median owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles (“City”). Of the four occupants in the car that collided with the tree, three died and the fourth was badly injured. The parents of two of the occupants sued the City for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code Section 835. The plaintiffs alleged the roadway was in a dangerous condition because the trees in the median were too close to the traveling portion of the road, posing an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who might lose control of their vehicles.
The City successfully moved for summary judgment, which plaintiffs appealed. On review, the Court of Appeal affirmed holding the tree was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law because there was no evidence that the tree had contributed to the criminally negligent driving of the third party motorist.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Laura C. Williams and
Lawrence S. Zucker II
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com
And Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Negligence Against a Construction Manager Agent
March 22, 2018 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesCan a construction manager-agent / owner’s representative hired directly by the owner be liable to the general contractor in negligence? An argument likely posited by many general contractors on projects gone awry where there is a separate construction manager. Well, here is an interesting case out of Louisiana that supports a negligence claim against a construction manager-agent.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
