Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits
April 03, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Florida law firm of Williams Law Association reminds readers that under the law, homeowners “cannot immediately file a lawsuit against their contractor if they subsequently discover construction defects.” The contractor must first have a chance to fix the defect. Further, there is a waiting period between informing the contractor and actually filing the lawsuit. For individual homeowners, that wait is 60 days, but for associations of more than 20 parcels, it’s 120 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”
While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”
Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”
In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.
The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”
The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.
The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”
The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”
The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”
The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies
October 27, 2016 —
Daniel E. Levin – Florida Construction Law NewsIn Evanston Insurance Company v. Dimucci Development Corportion of Ponce Inlet, Inc., the United states District Court for the Middle District of Florida further clarified the standard CGL policy exclusion (L) – the “Your Work” exclusion, one of the several business risk exclusions in a standard CGL policy which insurers and insureds are most likely to encounter in a typical construction defect claim. No. 6:15-cv-486-Orl-37DAB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123678, at *26 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2016).
The lawsuit between Evanston Insurance Company and DiMucci Development Corp. of Ponce Inlet Inc. (“DiMucci”) arose out of initial claims by the homeowners’ association at the Towers Grande high rise in Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, against DiMucci for various construction defect related issues. The lawsuit alleged that DiMucci’s work was defective on a portion of the high rise condominium project, which caused property damage to other elements of the building that DiMucci was also responsible for constructing. Specifically, pertinent here, the Association alleged water damage as a result of DiMucci’s improper waterproofing of the building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel E. Levin, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Levin may be contacted at
daniel.levin@csklegal.com
No Coverage For Construction Defects Under Alabama Law
September 14, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court found there was no coverage for alleged defects caused by the insured homebuilder. Canal Indem. Co. v. Carbin, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126662 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 10, 2017).
Carbin Construction filed suit against Aaron and Sherry Ford, asserting mechanic's and materialman's liens, and seeking sums allegedly due for work performed under a construction contract. The Fords filed a counterclaim, alleging that over a year had passed since Carbin was to complete construction, and that Carbin refused to do any further work on the house until he was paid an additional $11,771.43. The Fords further contended that Carbin had walked off the job after receiving 96.6 percent of the money owed under the contract although only 88 percent of the construction work had been completed. Carbin tendered the counterclaim to Canal. Canal then filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Rise Most Since February 2006
January 29, 2014 —
Jeanna Smialek – BloombergHome prices in 20 U.S. cities rose in November from a year ago by the most in almost eight years, providing a boost to household wealth.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property prices in 20 cities climbed 13.7 percent from November 2012, the biggest 12-month gain since February 2006, after a 13.6 percent increase in the year ended in October, a report from the group showed today in New York. The median projection of 31 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 13.8 percent advance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeanna Smialek, BloombergMs. Smialek may be contacted at
jsmialek1@bloomberg.net
Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims
January 10, 2018 —
Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterOn December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
“Based On”… What Exactly? NJ Appellate Division Examines Phrase and Estops Insurer From Disclaiming Coverage for 20-Month Delay
August 20, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPOn May 28, 2019, the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division examined the phrase “based on” in an assault-and-battery exclusion, finding that the phrase means “to make, form, or serve as the foundation of any claim, demand or suit.” C.M.S. Investment Ventures, Inc. v. American European Insurance Company, No. A-2056-17T3, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1215, at *8-9 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 28, 2019) (CMS). The CMS case is also notable because the Appellate Division held that a 20-month delay in disclaiming coverage was unreasonable and therefore warranted estoppel.
In CMS, the insured was allegedly warned by its tenant about a faulty ground-floor window that failed to lock properly. Afterward, an intruder broke into the tenant’s apartment and sexually assaulted the tenant, who sued the insured on a premises liability claim. Before she filed suit, the tenant sought payment from the insured’s CGL insurer directly. The insurer denied coverage based on the assault-and-battery exclusion and closed the file, but never informed the insured. Later, the tenant sued the insured, which sought a defense and indemnity from its insurer, which again denied coverage based on the exclusion. The insured then sought a declaration of coverage on grounds that the exclusion was ambiguous, and the insurer “was estopped from denying coverage, because it waited [20] months to inform CMS of its coverage decision.” The trial court ruled in the insured’s favor which led to the appeal in CMS.
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP
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
Hurricane Claim Cannot Survive Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
May 15, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court upheld the insurer's denial of coverage for hurricane damage caused by storm surge. Heritage Motorcoach Resort & Marina Condominium Association, Inc v. Axis Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58931 (S.D. Ala. April 4, 2023).
Heritage operated a resort with a marina, dock and clubhouse. Hurricane Sally caused damage to the property. Heritage submitted a claim to its insurer, Axis. Axis investigated the claim. One investigator reported that the marina structures sustained damage caused by storm tide forces, wave action and debris impact. He opined that the marina structures did not sustain wind damage. When deposed, he testified that there was a combination of vessels and wave action causing damage to the marina. A second investigator found that the storm drove boats and other debris into the marina area causing much of the damage.
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
