Connecticut Grapples With Failing Concrete Foundations
June 22, 2016 —
Nadine M. Post – Engineering News-RecordConnecticut’s commissioner of consumer protection, Jonathan A. Harris, expects to issue a report this fall on the “potential cause or causes” of failing concrete foundations in northeastern Connecticut. To date, the state Dept. of Consumer Protection has 225 complaints about foundation troubles from owners of single-family houses built between 1983 and 2003. But other building types also are affected, says William F. Neal, a professional engineer who, since 2010, has examined 300 buildings in 19 towns.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-RecordMs. Post may be contacted at
postn@enr.com
Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute
November 12, 2019 —
Jeremy S. Macklin & Mark F. Wolfe - Traub Lieberman PerspectivesIn a written decision dated August 12, 2019, authored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurer client, affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. Partners, Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe, represented the insurer client in the District Court and before the Seventh Circuit. Macklin argued the case before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the insurer on May 28, 2019.
The insurer client issued an excess liability policy to Deerfield Construction, a telecommunications construction company, which incorporated the notice requirements of the primary liability insurance policy issued by American States Insurance Company. The insured’s employee was involved in an automobile accident in 2008, during the effective dates of the excess liability policy. A lawsuit arising from the accident was filed and served in 2009. While Deerfield Construction, through its retained insurance intermediary, provided immediate notice of the accident and lawsuit to the primary liability insurer, the insurer client did not receive notice of either the accident or the lawsuit from any source until December 2014, approximately six weeks before trial.
Following a $2.3 million judgment, the insurer client filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a finding that Deerfield Construction materially breached the excess liability policy by not providing reasonable notice of the accident or the lawsuit, as required by the policy. The District Court found that the notice given to the insurer client was unreasonable as a matter of law. The District Court rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that an insurance broker involved in the purchase of the excess liability policy, Arthur J. Gallagher, was the insurer client’s apparent agent for purposes of accepting notice. The District Court also rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that the insurer client’s acts of requesting discovery, reviewing trial reports, and participating in settlement discussions raised equitable estoppel concerns.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and
Mark F. Wolfe, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Wolfe may be contacted at mwolfe@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects
June 02, 2016 —
Chadd Reynolds - AHHC Construction Law BlogIn Cowart v. Schevitz, the Georgia Court of Appeals clarified the instances in which an out-of-possession landlord can be liable in a premises liability claim. No. A15A2036, 2016 WL 563114, at *4 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2016).
In this case, the plaintiff was leaving a restaurant and injured herself stepping down off of a sidewalk near the bottom of a ramp. The plaintiff filed a premises liability claim against the owner of commercial property (the “landlord”) and the operator of the restaurant (who later settled), seeking medical expenses and costs of litigation. An expert testifying on behalf of the plaintiff stated that the ramp was required to have railings pursuant to building codes and, had the railings been installed on the ramp, the plaintiff’s fall more than likely would not have occurred. The landlord moved for summary judgment, arguing that as an out-of-possession landlord, his liability to third persons for the use of the property by his tenant was precluded under O.C.G.A. § 44-7-14. The trial court denied the motion without comment, and the owner subsequently appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Reynolds may be contacted at
reynolds@ahclaw.com
Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole
July 30, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistArkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]
In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks
September 28, 2020 —
Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn Greater Mutual Insurance Company v. Continental Casualty Company, 2020 WL 5370419 (S.D.N.Y. September 8, 2020), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had occasion to consider the “other insurance” provisions of a commercial general liability policy, issued by Greater Mutual Insurance Company (“GNY”), and a directors and officers (“D&O”) policy, issued by Continental, to the same insured. The GNY policy covered, inter alia, property damage caused by an occurrence, as well as “personal advertising injury,” defined to include “[t]he wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor.” The Continental D&O policy covered claims for wrongful acts, including “wrongful entry or eviction, or other invasion of the right to private occupancy. . . .” Unlike the GNY policy, however, the Continental policy expressly excluded coverage for damage to tangible property.
In the underlying action, the plaintiffs alleged that the insured engaged in construction work to fix a leak from a terrace on the seventeenth floor. In doing so, the insured accessed the plaintiffs’ roof terrace. The plaintiffs alleged that the construction workers installed and stored construction materials on the roof terrace, making the plaintiffs unable to access the terrace. Plaintiffs also alleged that their deck furniture may have suffered damage, and that the workers had a “direct line of sight” into their unit, resulting in the plaintiffs having to leave their unit frequently. Causes of action were for property damage, constructive eviction, partial constructive eviction, and invasion of privacy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub LiebermanMr. Rokuson may be contacted at
crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Court of Appeals Expands Application of Construction Statute of Repose
December 29, 2020 —
Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCA recent decision by Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals in Puget Sound Energy, Inc v. Pilchuck Contractors, Inc.[1] demonstrates the broad application of the construction statute of repose to work performed by contractors.
The construction statute of repose[2] bars certain legal claims based on construction activity if the alleged harm caused by the activity does not occur within a specific timeframe. The claims covered by the construction statute of repose include:
all claims or causes of action of any kind against any person, arising from such person having constructed, altered, or repaired any improvement upon real property, or having performed or furnished any design, planning, surveying, architectural or construction or engineering services, or supervision or observation of construction, or administration of construction contracts for any construction, alteration or repair of any improvement upon real property.[3] Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Schirmer may be contacted at
jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com
Construction Termination Issues Part 5: What if You are the One that Wants to Quit?
August 21, 2023 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaArchitects and Engineers are sometimes pleasantly surprised to find out that they, also, can terminate those crazy, hard to deal with Owners—at least, if the Owners fail to make payments as required.
You can also terminate for Owner delays to the work, or where you think the contractor should be fired but the Owner disagrees. Again, the standard 7 days written notice is required. (See B101 §9.4).
Do you have to walk off the job if they are not paying you? No—you could exercise the smaller remedy of suspending services (with 7 days written notice) until payments are caught up or the contract performance is corrected by the Owner. (See B101 §9.1). Suspension rather than outright termination is a softer approach when working with an owner you do not want to burn (too many) bridges with.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurer, Determining it has No Duty to Defend
September 18, 2023 —
Traub LiebermanIn a declaratory judgment action brought before the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala won summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Foremost Signature Insurance Co. (“Foremost”), obtaining a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Defendant 170 Little East Neck Road LLC (“Little East”) in an underlying state court personal injury action.
In the underlying action, a self-employed financial advisor leasing a suite for her business on the second floor of the property at 170 Little East Neck Road (the “Property”), sued Little East in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, alleging injuries resulting from slipping on ice on a walkway near an exterior door at the Property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman and
Laura S. Puhala, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Puhala may be contacted at lpuhala@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
