Insurer Has Duty to Defend Despite Construction Defects
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a case the judge attributed to “shoddy masonry work,” the US District Court of Illinois has rendered a decision in AMCO Insurance Company v. Northern Heritage Builders. Northern Heritage built a home in Chicago for Michael McGrath (who joined Northern Heritage as a defendant). According to the decision, “seven months after he moved into the house, McGrath noticed water coming in the house and warped millwork.” This was attributed to porous block, installed by the mason with Northern Heritage’s knowledge.
McGrath sued National Heritage for both the damage to his house and its contents. The court rejected his claim for the contents. For the damages to his house, he was awarded $601,570.50 in damages. He also sued his homeowner’s insurance carrier for damages not covered in his suit against National Heritage. There he was awarded $1,130,680.16.
AMCO informed National Heritage that it had neither duty to defend nor duty to indemnify. The judge considered whether AMCO had a duty to defend. Under Illinois law, “damage to a construction project resulting from construction defects is not an ‘accident’ or ‘occurrence’ because it represents the natural and ordinary consequence of faulty construction.” However, it is noted that while if the defects lead only to damage to the project itself, there is no occurrence, “if the building owner asserts damages to other property besides the construction itself, there is an ‘occurrence’ and ‘property damage.’” The judge further noted that were construction defects an occurrence, “shoddy work” would be rewarded by double pay, once by the homeowner and a second time by the insurer. Judge Kendall concluded that as McGrath had alleged damage to the contents of his house, AMCO had a duty to defend National Heritage.
She then looked at the issue of whether AMCO had a duty to indemnify. Should they pay the $601,570.50? Judge Kendall noted that “the duty to indemnify is narrower than the duty to defend.” The key point here was that once McGrath’s insurance carrier covered him for the damage to the contents of his house, “AMCO’s duty to defend ended.” Once McGrath “only sought damages for the natural consequences of faulty workmanship” there was no occurrence, hence nothing for AMCO to cover.
Judge Kendall granted a summary dismissal of AMCO’s claim that they had no duty to defend while upholding their claim that they had no duty to indemnify.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies
December 26, 2022 —
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Recent trends in workers’ compensation coverage suggest that the number of claims are likely to continue to increase, specifically for high-risk industries, like the construction industry. This article explores multiple trends and issues which are likely to impact workers’ compensation insurance for construction companies. Several of these trends and issues reflect demographic, labor, and technological shifts, which have important implications for contractors and construction companies.
1. Technological Innovation and Worker Safety
New wearable technologies and other data-collecting products such as helmets which warn of employee fatigue and sensors which help with ergonomic corrections have emerged in the markets to support safety measures in the construction industry. Although devices such as these tools can help business owners to demonstrate the implementation of safety programs to their insurance carriers, they can also distract the workers who are wearing them or go through a product malfunction, which could lead to injuries in the workplace and could also result in higher workers’ compensation premiums. While these new technological devices are intended to support worker safety on construction sites, it is also important for business owners to evaluate the potential risks of new technologies on a project site.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Construction Firm Sues City and Engineers over Reservoir Project
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe city of Fremont, Ohio and Arcadis have been sued by Trucco Construction. Trucco had been hired by the city to build a reservoir designed by Arcadis, the News-Messenger reports. Peter Welin, attorney for Trucco, said that he found “startling evidence of the company’s negligence” when he deposed Arcadis engineers. “This project could never be built the way they bid it.”
Their suit alleges that Arcadis and the city were aware that the site was not conducive to construction and also that Arcadis failed to be a neutral party in discussions between Trucco and the city regarding compensation.
Sam Wamper, an attorney for Fremont, said he was going to file a motion which would include “quite an interesting story,” but declined to elaborate.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Your Contract “Mission Essential?” Recovering Costs for Performing During a Force Majeure Event Under Federal Regulations
May 10, 2022 —
Joneis M. Phan & Sarah K. Bloom - ConsensusDocsFederal contractors have faced unprecedented challenges performing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additional costs have included delays and inefficiencies, site closures, quarantines, unavailability of supplies and materials, and full shutdowns of subcontractor operations. For contractors performing under fixed price contracts, the cost impact of COVID-19 was likely severe.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) recognizes “epidemics” as a force majeure event that may excuse non-performance. Many federal contracts include some version of the Default clause, which prevents the government from terminating a contractor for default due to impacts of force majeure events that are beyond a contractor’s control, such as an epidemic. See, e.g., FAR 52.249-10. See also Pernix Serka Joint Venture v. Dep’t of State, CBCA No. 5683 (Apr. 20. 2020). The Default clause, however, operates as a shield from liability, not a sword authorizing recovery. Contractors are now left wondering whether any avenue exists to recover additional costs incurred after performing in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In response to a likely influx of claims and requests for equitable adjustment due to COVID-19 impacts, the federal government largely took the position that contractors were entitled to extensions of time, but not to additional costs. This article explores the avenues that may be available for contractors to recover costs for performing during a force majeure event that would otherwise be non-compensable.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joneis M. Phan, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs and
Sarah K. Bloom, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs).
Mr. Phan may be contacted at jphan@watttieder.com
Ms. Bloom may be contacted at sbloom@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 4.3% in November
January 28, 2015 —
Victoria Stilwell – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Home prices in 20 U.S. cities rose at a slower pace in the year ended in November, a sign the industry struggled to find momentum even amid low mortgage rates.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values increased 4.3 percent from November 2013 after rising 4.5 percent in the year ended in October, the group said Tuesday in New York. The median projection of 28 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 4.3 percent year-over-year advance. Nationally, prices rose 4.7 percent after a 4.6 percent gain in the year ended in October.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Stilwell, BloombergMs. Stilwell may be contacted at
vstilwell1@bloomberg.net
City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished
January 15, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that a duty to defend was owed St. Bernard Parish after it was sued for condemning and demolishing housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Lexington Ins. Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Gov't, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013).
St. Bernard's policies with Lexington provided coverage for "property damage" and "personal and advertising injury." The policies included a $10,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate limit, subject to a $250,000 retained limit.
Lexington denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that the policies' $250,000 retained limit applied separately to each alleged demolition or property damage asserted in the underlying actions. Under this theory, no defense would be owed because no property had a value exceeding $250,000. The District Court found that only one retained limit applied.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Research Institute: A Shared Information Platform Reduces Construction Costs Considerably
October 26, 2017 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessA new Danish study shows how the use of a shared digital management and communication platform on large-scale construction projects leads to considerable cost reductions.
The Danish Building Research Institute conducted a six-month research project that studied the effects of using a specific IT concept during construction. The three case studies were:
1. The Maersk Tower, a 15-story, 42,700-square-meter extension to the Panum complex.
2. The Niels Bohr Building, a 52,000-square-meter new laboratory and academic building.
3. The Danish Defence’s Property Agency’s construction project portfolio (FES).
Each of them used GenieBelt as the shared IT platform. It was used for the progress management of a construction project portfolio, management of construction activities, and communication between the construction management team and contractors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
info@aepartners.fi
