Westfield Ins. Co. v. Weaver Cooke Constr., LLC, 2019 BL 129431 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 11, 2019)
This case arises out of the alleged defective construction of a condominium complex in North Carolina. In 2009, the developer on the project filed suit for the alleged construction defects. This related coverage lawsuit then ensued between the parties’ insurers regarding a duty to defend the general contractor.Continue Reading Federal Court in North Carolina Enforces Insurers’ Duty to Defend a General Contractor as an Additional Named Insured Under the Subcontractor’s Commercial General Liability Policy
property damage
California Supreme Court Clarifies That “Right to Repair Act” is Exclusive Remedy for Both Economic Loss and Property Damage Arising From Construction Defects
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court, No. S229762, 2018 Cal. LEXIS 211 (Jan. 18, 2018)
Several homeowners (“Plaintiffs”) brought suit against developer/general contractor McMillin Albany LLC (“McMillin”) for alleged defective construction of new homes. Plaintiffs alleged the defects caused property damage and economic loss in the form of repair costs and reduced property values, and asserted common law claims for negligence, strict product liability, breach of contract, and breach of warranty, and a statutory claim for violation of the construction standards outlined in the Right to Repair Act (Civ. Code §§ 895–945.5, the “Act”). The Act defines standards for the construction of individual dwellings; governs various builder obligations, including provision of warranties; creates a prelitigation dispute resolution process; and describes mandatory procedures for lawsuits under the Act. McMillin sought a stay of proceedings so that the parties could proceed through the Act’s prelitigation dispute process, which includes notice to the builder of defects and an opportunity to cure. Plaintiffs refused to stipulate to the stay and instead, dismissed their statutory claim. McMillin then sought a court-ordered stay which Plaintiffs contested, arguing that their suit now omitted any claim under the Act, and therefore, was not subject to its procedures.Continue Reading California Supreme Court Clarifies That “Right to Repair Act” is Exclusive Remedy for Both Economic Loss and Property Damage Arising From Construction Defects
Supreme Court of Wisconsin Holds That Private Subcontractor Is Immune to Property Damage Claims by Adjoining Landowners Because it Followed Specifications Provided by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Melchert v. Pro Elec. Contrs., 2017 Wis. Lexis 169 (April 7, 2017)
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (“DOT”) contracted with Payne & Dolan (“P&D”) as General Contractor on a road improvement project. P&D in turn contracted with Pro Electric Contractors (“Pro Electric”) to install concrete bases for new traffic signal poles. DOT provided Pro Electric with detailed plans and specifications for the project (“Project Plan”) that specified the location of the concrete bases and the excavation equipment to be used. Pro Electric was required to comply with the Project Plan and could only make deviations if approved by DOT’s engineer.
While excavating one of the specified locations, Pro Electric unknowingly severed a sewer line, causing sewage backup and flooding on adjoining private property. Pro Electric then backfilled the excavation site without inspecting the sewer line for damage. The private property owners (“Owners”) brought a negligence action against Pro Electric. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Pro Electric, ruling that it was immune from liability because it was merely implementing DOT’s design decisions. The court of appeals affirmed, and Owners appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.Continue Reading Supreme Court of Wisconsin Holds That Private Subcontractor Is Immune to Property Damage Claims by Adjoining Landowners Because it Followed Specifications Provided by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
New York Court of Appeals Holds That Tower Crane Damaged By Superstorm Sandy Is Not Covered by Project’s Builder’s Risk Insurance Program
Lend Lease (US) Constr. LMB Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 11, 2017 N.Y. LEXIS 112 (N.Y. Feb. 14, 2017)
Early, in its opinion, the New York Court of Appeals noted that “[o]ne of the most dramatic images of [Superstorm Sandy] depicts the damage caused to [a] crane [being used on the construction of a 74-story skyscraper] when the boom of the crane collapsed in high winds and teetered precariously from a height equal to the top of the building.” At the time of the incident, Extell, the owner of the project, was the named insured on a $700 million builder’s risk insurance program comprised of five separate insurance policies. Lend Lease, the contractor, was an additional insured on the policies.
Following the incident, Extell and Lend Lease submitted a claim to the insurers seeking to recover the damages incurred by Extell and Lend Lease resulting from weather-related harm to the crane. The insurers denied the claim and disclaimed that there was coverage under the policies. This action ensued. Both parties filed motions seeking summary judgment on the coverage issue. The trial court denied the motions, ruling that there was an issue of fact regarding the applicability of certain exclusions in the policies. On appeal, the Appellate Division granted the insurers’ motion for summary judgment, finding that there was no coverage because the crane did not fall within the policies’ definition of “temporary works.” This appeal followed.
Resolving the appeal required the Court of Appeals to answer two questions. First, was the damage to the crane covered under the policies in the first instance. Second, if there was coverage, was it defeated by the policies’ contractor’s tools exclusion. As explained below, the court concluded that although there may have been coverage in the first instance, the coverage was defeated by the exclusion.Continue Reading New York Court of Appeals Holds That Tower Crane Damaged By Superstorm Sandy Is Not Covered by Project’s Builder’s Risk Insurance Program
Florida Supreme Court Considers CGL Policy Coverage of Damage Resulting from Defective Work by Subcontractors
United States Fire Insurance Co. v. J.S.U.B., Inc. and Auto-Owners Insurance Co. v. Pozzi Window Co.
2007 Fla. LEXIS 2394 and 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2391 (Dec. 20, 2007)
On December 20, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court decided United States Fire Insurance Company, et al. v. J.S.U.B., Inc., et al., 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2394, and Auto-Owners Insurance Company v. Pozzi Window Company, et al., 2007 Fla. LEXIS 2391 – two cases dealing with whether a standard form CGL policy with products completed operations hazard coverage issued to a general contractor, cover a general contractor’s liability to a third party for repair and/or replacement costs due to defective work by its subcontractor.Continue Reading Florida Supreme Court Considers CGL Policy Coverage of Damage Resulting from Defective Work by Subcontractors