Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage
December 30, 2019 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCCertificates of insurance are a common tool used in the construction industry to provide proof of insurance coverage. The legal effect of certificates of insurance has been a source of debate in Washington. Insurance companies have argued that certificates of insurance are “informational only” and do not alter the terms of the applicable insurance policy. Insurance companies have taken the position that if a certificate of insurance provides for coverage that is different than what the policy provides, the insurance company is only bound to provide what the policy provides.
The Washington State Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in an opinion issued on October 10, 2019, and held that an insurance company is bound by the terms of its certificate of insurance – even if it conflicts with the policy. In T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, Selective’s agent issued a certificate of insurance to “T-Mobile USA, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates” and stated that those entities were “included as additional insured” under the policy. The certificate of insurance was issued by Selective’s agent when T-Mobile’s contractor purchased an insurance policy from Selective for a cell tower project. The contractor’s agreement for the project was with T-Mobile Northeast – not T-Mobile USA. The contract between T-Mobile Northeast and the contractor stated that T-Mobile Northeast would be an additional insured. The Selective insurance policy stated that any third party would automatically be an additional insured if the contractor was required to name the third party as an additional insured. The contract did not provide that T-Mobile USA would be an additional insured.
A property owner damaged by the cell tower project sued T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile USA tendered the claim to Selective. Selective denied the claim because the contract between the contractor and T-Mobile Northeast did not require the contractor to name T-Mobile USA as an additional insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Newmeyer & Dillion Welcomes Three Associates to Newport Beach Office
January 26, 2017 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – JANUARY 24, 2017 – Enjoying rapid expansion in many primary practice areas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to welcome new associates
Jenny Guzman and
Jason Moberly Caruso, and welcomes back
Lily (Toubi) Razai to the Newport Beach office. The addition of these three associates fortifies the firm’s commitment to provide unparalleled service to our clients.
Firm Managing Partner,
Jeff Dennis, explained that each hire addresses the immediate and long-term needs of our clients, and firm's desire for strategic growth. "We always remain focused on what will allow us to better represent our clients, not just now but far into the future. We are excited to bring these three talented lawyers aboard as we continue to expand our capabilities across practice areas.”
Guzman, Caruso and Razai each practice business and real estate litigation, with Razai’s practice including land use and eminent domain matters. Caruso also practices construction law and Guzman's practice also focuses on business and real estate transactions.
Each attorney has unique strengths that continue to diversify the firm’s approach to their clients. In addition to serving clients in state and federal courts, Razai has extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and has served as a mediator in state courts. Awarded Super Lawyers 2016 Rising Star, Caruso utilizes his extensive judicial experience to argue on behalf of his clients at various levels from arbitration to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Guzman draws on her past experience in private equity and venture capital to protect businesses and help them achieve their full potential. These three associates, along with their diverse experience and cohesive strengths, further reinforce N&D’s foundation for continued growth and excellence.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Maryland Legislation Prohibits Condominium Developers from Shortening Statute of Limitations to Defeat Unit Owner Construction Defect Claims
May 16, 2018 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogNew Maryland legislation prevents developers from shortening the time period within which condominium associations and their unit owner members can assert claims for hidden construction defects in newly constructed condominium communities. The legislation known as HB 77 and SB 258 passed both houses of the Maryland General Assembly and was signed into law by Governor Lawrence J. Hogan on April 24, 2018 (see photo above). Nicholas D. Cowie, Esq. is the author of the legislation, which will be codified as Section 11-134.1 of the Maryland Condominium Act, effective October 1, 2018.
This article discusses how this new legislation ends the practice by which some condominium developers attempted to use condominium documents to shorten the normal statute of limitations in order to prevent condominium associations and their unit owner members from having a fair opportunity to assert their warranty and other legal claims for latent construction defects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Esq., Cowie & MottMr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
Update Regarding New York’s New Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects
February 06, 2023 —
Christopher B. Kinzel, K. Greer Kuras, Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Some significant changes are being made by chapter amendments (S.838 and A.984) to Section 220-i of New York’s Labor Law. Contractors and subcontractors bidding on public contracts and performing work on covered private projects will have two years (by December 30, 2024) to register with the Department of Labor, Bureau of Public Works, rather than one year. The amendments also remove the requirement that a contractor submit registration certificates for all its subcontractors at the time its bid is submitted; amend language with respect to notice and hearing requirements; require re-registration to occur not less than 90 days before expiration; and add language to require a monitor to oversee ongoing work if a contractor or subcontractor is found unfit.
The stated purpose of the law is to help enforce New York’s prevailing wage and other worker protection laws. The DOL will create an online system through which contractors and subcontractors will have to answer questions and submit documents about:
- the business entity and its owners and officers
- unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance
- any outstanding wage assessments
- debarment under New York or federal law, or any other state’s laws
- final determinations of a violation of any labor laws, employment tax laws, or workplace safety standards (including OSHA)
- association or signatory to an apprenticeship program
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher B. Kinzel, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
K. Greer Kuras, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Kinzel may be contacted at ckinzel@pecklaw.com
Ms. Kuras may be contacted at gkuras@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
GE to Repay $87 Million for Scaled-Back Headquarters Plan
February 27, 2019 —
Rick Clough - BloombergGeneral Electric Co. will reimburse the state of Massachusetts for funds used to develop the manufacturer’s future headquarters, a project that is now being scaled back under Chief Executive Officer Larry Culp.
GE and the state will jointly sell the property in Boston’s Fort Point neighborhood where the company will make its future home, according to an agreement revealed Thursday. GE still plans to move into the campus later this year -- as a tenant rather than owner -- but it’s scrapping plans to build an adjacent 12-story tower.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rick Clough, Bloomberg
Haight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
July 06, 2020 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight congratulates partners
Michael Parme and
Arezoo Jamshidi who were selected to the 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list.
Each year no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Unqualified Threat to Picket a Neutral is Unfair Labor Practice
January 08, 2019 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsOn December 27, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board enforced a decades old policy that a union’s unqualified threat to picket a neutral employer at a “common situs” a/k/a a construction site is a violation of the National Labor Relations Act.
Background
The case involved area standards picketing by the IBEW of a project owned by the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority (LVCVA). The IBEW sent a letter to various affiliated unions who were working on the project advising them of its intent to engage in area standards picketing at the project directed to the merit shop electrical subcontractor performing work there. The IBEW also sent a copy of the letter to the LVCVA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
