Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.
December 31, 2014 —
Heather M. Anderson – Colorado Construction LitigationIn a recent case arising out of a denial of coverage for alleged construction defect claims concerning a pre-fabricated home, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado applied the 10th Circuit’s determination of what can constitute an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. See Wardcraft Homes, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4852117 (D. Colo. September 29, 2014). William and Grace Stuhr sued Wardcraft, which manufactured pre-fabricated homes at a facility in Fort Morgan, Colorado, because their home was not completed as scheduled and contained various defects. The Stuhrs filed suit against Wardcraft alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
Wardcraft tendered the Stuhrs’ complaint to Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”), which denied coverage under its policy and denied any duty to defend. According to EMC, the Stuhrs’ alleged construction defects were not property damages and there was no occurrence in connection with faulty workmanship. Approximately two and a half years after they filed their initial complaint, the Stuhrs filed an amended complaint. Wardcraft did not tender this amended complaint to EMC, and first informed EMC about the amended complaint about a year after it was filed. A month prior, Wardcraft settled with the Stuhrs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather M. Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Anderson may be contacted at
Anderson@hhmrlaw.com
COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage
April 13, 2020 —
Joseph Blyskal, Dennis Brown & Michelle Bernard - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogIs a cash register that is not being used damaged property? When you need to wash a table, a chair, or a section of flooring with readily available cleaning products to make them safe and useable, are you repairing damaged property? Is a spilled cup of coffee waiting to be wiped up actual damage to the premises? If your customers stay home to help stop the spread of a virus, has there been a physical loss inside your shuttered store or restaurant?
The insuring agreements typically found in commercial property insurance policies require “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property as the triggering event. Without establishing direct physical loss or damage a policyholder cannot meet its burden to trigger coverage for a purely economic loss of business income resulting from shuttering its business due to concerns over exposure to—or even the actual presence of—COVID-19. Despite this well-understood policy language, it is already beyond question that insurers will confront creative—albeit strained—arguments from policyholder firms attempting to trigger coverage for pure economic loss. The scope of the human and economic tragedy we all face will be matched by the scope of the effort to force the financial harm onto insurance companies.
The plaintiffs in what appears to be the first-filed case seeking a declaratory judgment in the context of first-party insurance coverage rely on the assertion that “contamination of the insured premises by the Coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces” of its establishment, a New Orleans restaurant, to trigger coverage for business interruption.[1] See Cajun Conti, LLC, et. al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et. al. Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint alleges that the property is insured under an “all risk policy” defining “covered causes of loss” as “direct physical loss.” The plaintiffs rely on the alleged presence of the virus on “the surface of objects” in certain conditions and the need to clean those surfaces. They go so far as to claim that “[a]ny effort by [the insurer] to deny the reality that the virus causes physical damage and loss would constitute a false and potentially fraudulent misrepresentation. . . .”
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys
Joseph Blyskal,
Dennis Brown and
Michelle Bernard
Mr. Blyskal may be contacted at tblatchley@grsm.com
Mr. Brown may be contacted at dbrown@grsm.com
Ms. Bernard may be contacted at mbernard@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Killer Subcontract Provisions
January 20, 2020 —
Patrick McNamara - Porter Law GroupWe are frequently requested by subcontractor clients to review the subcontract that has been prepared by the prime contractor, before our client signs it. While no two agreements are identical, there are a number of problematic contract provisions that appear in many agreements. Here is a list of ten such provisions (and their variations) that are potential “deal breakers”:
- PAY IF/WHEN PAID (e.g. “Contractor shall have the right to exhaust all legal remedies, including appeals, prior to having an obligation to pay Subcontractor.”) “Pay-if-paid” provisions (“Receipt of payment from Owner shall be a condition precedent to Contractor’s duty to pay Subcontractor”) are illegal in California. However, the only legal limit on “Pay-When-Paid” provisions is that payment must be made “within a reasonable time.” The example above, as written, essentially affords the prime contractor a period of several years following completion of the project before that contractor has an independent duty to pay its subcontractors – not a “reasonable” amount of time, to those waiting to be paid. A compromise is to provide a time limit, such as 6 months or one year following substantial completion of the project.
- CROSS-PROJECT SET-OFF (e.g. “In the event of disputes or default by Subcontractor, Contractor shall have the right to withhold sums due Subcontractor on this Project and on any other project on which Subcontractor is performing work for Contractor.”) Such provisions are problematic and likely unenforceable, as they potentially bar subcontractors’ lien rights. Such provisions should be deleted.
- CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN QUALITY (e.g. “Subcontractor warrants that the Work shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”) Unless a subcontractor’s scope of work expressly includes design work, this provision should either be deleted or modified, with the addition of the following phrase: “Subcontractor shall not be responsible for conformance of the design of its work to applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McNamara, Porter Law GroupMr. McNamara may be contacted at
pmcnamara@porterlaw.com
Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims
March 30, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s scary, uncertain times as the world grasps with how to deal with the coronavirus pandemic that has now spread to every continent on the globe with the exception of Antarctica. Although this is a global crisis, it has, and for the immediately future will continue to have, a direct impact on us individually as well our industry.
While the impact of the coronavirus on the construction industry is uncertain, what is certain, is that it will have an impact, whether on the construction labor market, on construction supply chains, on the ability of contractors to deliver projects on time and within budget, and on decisions by owners whether to move forward with projects altogether.
According to Ken Simonson, chief economist with the Associated General Contractors of America, during an interview at the ConExpo conference this past week in Las Vegas, while the coronavirus crises “is a story evolving by the hour . . . the impacts on construction are going to happen, but it’s hard to say how extensive, how long they’ll last, [and] how soon they’ll show up.”
From a legal perspective, the coronavirus, and really any natural disaster, from the “Campfire Fire” in Northern California in 2018 to the “Big One” which can happen anytime, has the potential to adversely impact a construction project or shut it down completely. This in turn raises two different, but interrelated legal concepts: (1) force majeure; and (2) delay and time-impact claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Harborside Condo Construction Defect Settlement Moves Forward
July 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Harborside Condominium Owners Association in Bremerton, Washington, “has an agreement to pursue $2.8 million in settlement costs for construction defects,” according to the Kitsap Peninsula Business Journal. Back in March of 2013, the association “filed a list of defects in its lawsuit against Kitsap County Consolidated Housing Authority [Housing Kitsap]” including water issues, drywall and foundation cracks, uneven cabinets, leaking showers and pipes, as well as other issues.
Housing Kitsap agreed that the association “has the right to pursue a settlement of $2.8 million from the authority’s contractors and insurance companies.” Marlyn Hawkins, the association’s attorney, stated that they have already received a payment for $840,000 from the insurance company “and will be negotiating or filing suit for the rest of the $2.8 million.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
EPA Can't Evade Enviro Firm's $2.7M Cleanup Site Pay Claim, US Court Says
January 25, 2021 —
Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-RecordA Richmond, Va., federal appeals court has restored an environmental consultant's legal fight for $2.7 million in federal funds to cover work at a Superfund cleanup site it managed, rejecting a lower court’s dismissal of its claim over a technicality.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alleging Property Damage in Construction Defect Lawsuit
September 14, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen there is a construction defect lawsuit, there is an insurance coverage issue or consideration. As I have said repeatedly in other articles, it is all about maximizing insurance coverage regardless of whether you are the plaintiff prosecuting the construction defect claim or the contractor(s) alleged to have committed the construction defect and property damage. It is about triggering first, the insurer’s duty to defend, and second, the insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for the property damage.
The construction defect claim and lawsuit begins with how the claim and, then, lawsuit is couched knowing that the duty to defend is triggered by allegations in the lawsuit (complaint). Thus, preparing the lawsuit (complaint) is vital to maximize the insurer’s duty to defend its insured.
In a recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit, Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. MAC Contractors of Florida, LLC, 2020 WL 4345199 (11th Cir. 2020), a general contractor was sued for construction defects in the construction of a custom home. A dispute arose pre-completion and the owner hired another contractor to complete the house and remediate construction defects. The contractor’s CGL insurer originally provided a defense to the general contractor but then withdrew the defense and filed an action for declaratory relief asking for the declaration that it had no duty to defend the contractor because the underlying lawsuit did NOT allege property damage. The trial court agreed with the contractor and granted summary judgment in its favor finding that the underlying complaint did not allege property damage beyond defective work. But, on appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage
October 08, 2014 —
Krsto Mijanovic, Annette Mijanovic, Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Fleet v. Bank of America, N.A. (No. G050049, published 9/23/14, filed 8/25/14), a California Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of a lender, where the homeowners had adequately alleged causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel. The homeowners alleged that they made timely payments during the trial period plan under the modification program, but before the last payment was due, the lender foreclosed and their house was sold.
The homeowners had applied for a loan modification and were approved for a trial period plan under the modification program. They were required to make three monthly payments and verify financial hardship to permanently modify their loan. The homeowners made two payments and were told that foreclosure proceedings had been suspended. But before the third payment was due, the lender foreclosed. The trial court found that the trial period plan was not a binding loan modification agreement, so the homeowners had no right to any guaranteed loan modification.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Krsto Mijanovic,
Annette Mijanovic and
Blythe Golay
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
