Bats, Water, Soil, and Bridges- an Engineer’s dream
December 31, 2014 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaWant to know how bats may affect your engineering plans? Want to hear about cool new bridges? Read on.
Over the past month, I’ve had the pleasure of attending two events hosted by the North Carolina Chapter of the ACEC (American Council of Engineering Companies). The first of these was the Joint Transportation Conference, held in conjunction with the NC DOT. The second was the annual ACEC Engineering Excellence Awards. At both events, I learned interesting information that engineers should know. Today, I will discuss the Transportation Conference, including some new regulations and unusual design methods. I will save the highlights from the Excellence Awards for later this week.
1. It’s a cave, it’s a bat, it’s bats, man!
Did you know that your future bridge project may be affected by the Northern Long-Eared Bat? It’s true. Right now, the federal government is considering listing the bat on the Endangered Species List, due to the 98-99% mortality rate the bats are experiencing due to “white nose syndrome”. Over 1,700 projects in North Carolina could be impacted, including work on bridges, culverts, abandoned buildings, and guardrails–essentially, any activity involving tree clearing, structure demolition/removal, or structure maintenance. On November 26th, 2014, the US Fish and Wildlife Service extended the comment period to discuss the implications of listing the bat on the endangered species list. If the bat is listed, there is no grandfathering of projects. All projects will immediately be required to engage in protective activities. Stay tuned, but be aware that your transportation projects could be affected starting sometime next year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Massachusetts SJC Clarifies “Strict Compliance” Standard in Construction Contracts
January 02, 2019 —
Jacob Goodelman - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogIn Massachusetts, it is well established that a contractor cannot recover damages from a construction contract without first showing that the contractor completely and strictly performed on all of the contract’s terms. Recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court narrowed the rule by concluding that complete and strict performance is only required for contract terms relating to the design and construction itself. The high Court explained that non-design / non-construction contract terms are governing by “ordinary contract principles, including the traditional Massachusetts materiality rule.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jacob Goodelman, Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Goodelman may be contacted at
jgoodelman@grsm.com
Motion to Dismiss COVID Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part
February 06, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's claim for business losses due to COVID-19 was granted in part, denied in part. SRL v Zurich Am. Ins Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210058 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 21, 2022).
Excelsior owned and managed the Westin Excelsior Rome, a luxury hotel in Rome. The hotel suffered business income losses with the onset of the pandemic.While the hotel was not forced to close, its bookings decreased to virtually nothing. The Excelsior's complaint alleged that the COVID-19 virus was present in and around the hotel as multiple guests and at least six employees tested positive for COVID-19. It further alleged that the virus attached to interior property and was in the air.
Excelsior was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Zurich. The court agreed there was no direct physical loss because no structure suffered damage. Among the coverages under the policy, however, was a "Cancellation of Bookings" provision. Zurich agreed there was coverage under this provision, but argued that Excelsior had already reached its annual limit for Cancellation of Bookings claims.
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
Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field
January 15, 2014 —
Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFFThe family of Angel Garcia, a construction worker who fell to his death while working on Texas A&M’s football stadium (Kyle Field), has filed a $100 million lawsuit against six construction companies claiming inadequate safety policies, procedures, and negligence, Jordan Overturf of The Eagle reported.
According to The Eagle, Garcia’s attorneys alleged, “[Garcia] was ‘catapulted off the edge of a fourth-floor ramp’ on the northeast side when a section of concrete fell onto the bucket of the skid steer-loader he was operating. The tractor hit a steel beam during the fall, which exerted enough force to eject Garcia from the tractor.” Garcia did not survive his injuries. The complaint claims the companies involved violated the Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules and regulations. The defendants in the suit were unavailable for comment, according to The Eagle.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?
June 15, 2017 —
Anthony J. Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer to compromise is explained in section 998(c)(1):
If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added).
The Basic Requirements for a Valid 998 Offer
Pursuant to section 998(b), a 998 offer must satisfy three principal conditions: (1) it must be contained in a writing; (2) it must state the terms and conditions of the proposed judgment or award; and (3) it must contain a provision allowing the offeree to accept the offer by signing a statement to that effect. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(b).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires
August 23, 2021 —
Zachary Kessler, Amanda G. Halter & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThroughout the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and local governments have adopted varying moratoria on evictions, enacted as emergency legislative protections for tenants facing eviction. The federal moratorium on eviction, promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is set to expire on July 31. While the Supreme Court recently left the moratorium in place, the Court signaled that it would likely be held unconstitutional if extended and challenged again. With the sole federal moratorium expiring, state and local protections may remain in effect; however, many of these local orders are also beginning to expire. Washington, DC’s eviction moratorium, one of the most tenant-friendly pieces of emergency legislation in the country, is one such example, beginning a phaseout process that allows the pace of evictions to slowly begin throughout 2021 before a final legislative sunset in February 2022.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council of the District of Columbia and Mayor Muriel Bowser enacted a series of public health emergency legislation. Under the Coronavirus Omnibus Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, the Council put a pause on evictions for nonpayment of rent or violations of lease provisions, prohibiting landlords from filing a complaint to evict a tenant who detained “possession of real property without right” or whose “right to possession has ceased.” Under the moratorium, the Council effectively banned residential evictions, unless a court found that a tenant had performed an “illegal act” within the rental unit, that the tenant was causing undue hardship on the health, welfare, and safety of other tenants or neighbors, or that the tenant had abandoned the premises. The moratorium and other tenant-protections were initially set to remain in place indefinitely, expiring 60 days after the end of Mayor Bowser’s declared COVID-19 emergency period.
Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and
Adam Weaver, Pillsbury
Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage Based Upon Your Prior Work Exclusion
October 01, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's determination of no coverage for construction defects based upon the policy's prior work exclusion. Yu v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5966 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2014).
Plaintiff was the owner and developer of a hotel. She contracted with ATMI Design Build to act as general contractor to construct the hotel. C&A Framing Company was a subcontractor to provide rough framing for the project. In May 2003, ATMI fired C&A before it had completed all the work required by the subcontract. After May 2003, C&A never returned to the construction site. Notice of Completion for the project was recorded April 15, 2004.
In September 2004, Landmark issued to C&A a CGL policy for the period September 18, 2004 to September 18, 2005. The policy was later cancelled, effective January 14, 2005. The policy contained an endorsement entitled, "Exclusion - Your Prior Work." The exclusion barred coverage for "'property damage' arising out of 'your work' prior to 9/18/04."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
