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
Plaza Construction Negotiating Pay Settlement for Florida Ritz-Carlton Renovation
August 31, 2020 —
Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-RecordLionstone Development, owner of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Miami Beach's South Beach section, began a $90-million renovation in 2017 after damage by Hurricane Irma forced the property's closing. The company reopened the hotel this past January to considerable acclaim in the hospitality industry press.
Scott Van Voorhis, 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
Be Proactive, Not Reactive, To Preserve Force Majeure Rights Regarding The Coronavirus
March 30, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are involved in construction, NOW is the time to consider the potential force majeure impacts associated with the pandemic Coronavirus. Things are beginning to drastically change on a minute-by-minute basis. From travel restrictions, to the suspension or cancellation of events on an international level, to company-wide policies and restrictions, the global uncertainty has led to the possibility that a force majeure delay will occur. Thinking otherwise is not being proactive. The Coronavirus, and the impacts / delays associated therewith, is beyond anyone’s control. Due to the uncertainty, it is hard to fathom at this time a reasonable challenge to someone’s reaction to this concern or their companywide response to the concern.
If you are a contractor, subcontractor, or even a supplier, my suggestions would be as follows:
- Revisit your contracts and see what type of force majeure language it has – anything relating to delays beyond your control or epidemics;
- Examine to see whether you have a basis for additional compensation AND additional time;
- Examine what type of notice you are required to provide for force majeure events;
- Be proactive – send notice now of the potentiality that this pandemic can impact / delay the job –no one should take offense to this letter as this pandemic has impacted all walks of life;
- If an impact occurs, send follow-up notice accordingly to ensure rights under the contract are preserved; and
- For future contracts, incorporate language that specifically addresses epidemics and pandemics now that the occurrence of this issue has become real.
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
Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse
May 18, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision for collapse coverage. Commercial Constr. Endeavors, Inc. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 2019 Vt. LEXIS 173 (Vt. Sup. Ct. Dec. 13,2019).
Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. (CCE) built a livestock barn. By late December 2014, the barn was partially complete, with the foundation laid, wood framing erected, and roof trusses installed. In late December, strong winds caused the structure to collapse. CCE started clearing debris and rebuilding the barn, incurring additional labor and material costs.
CCE reported the collapse to Ohio Security. The policy covered loss to "Covered Property." Ohio Security determined that the loss was covered for "Off-Premises Property Damage Including Care, Custody or Control." This endorsement provided coverage for damage to real property upon which CCE was performing operations where the damage resulted from those operations. Ohio Security paid CCE $24,750, the full amount available under the endorsement, less a $250 deductible.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insured's Lack of Knowledge of Tenant's Growing Marijuana Means Coverage Afforded for Fire Loss
August 17, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer regarding a claim for fire loss. Mosley v. Pacific Sec. Ins, Co., 2020 Cal. App LEXIS (Cal. Ct. App, May 26, 2020).
The Mosleys rented their property to Pedro Lopez. Six months later, the property was damaged by fire. Lopez had tapped a main power line into the attic to power his energy-intensive marijuana growing operation. The illegal power line caused the fire.
Pacific Specialty Insurance Company (PSIC) insured the property under an HO-3 Standard Homeowners policy. Paragraph E of the policy provided,
We do not insure for loss resulting from any manufacturing, product or operation, engaged in:
- The growing of plants; or
- The manufacture, production, operation or processing of chemical, biological, animal or plant materials.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation
May 25, 2020 —
Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Michael W. Horner - White and Williams LLPThe emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 has created extraordinary circumstances that have significantly impacted how we go about living, working and interacting with one another. The practice of law is no exception.
While most cases have been postponed and some extended indefinitely, the issues and disputes that first triggered the litigation remain. In fact, the burdens created by social distancing and other responses to the COVID-19 outbreak have served to only increase these disputes and create an urgent need in some for quick resolution.
In our previous article, we summarized some of the best practices that should be applied when taking and defending depositions in a remote, virtual setting. That technology can also offer the same benefits for alternative dispute resolutions. If planned properly, the use of technology allows remote mediations to be conducted as seamlessly as in-person mediations and, in some circumstances, affords additional benefits that can achieve the best possible resolution for all sides.
This article summarizes the opportunities technology has created by which parties can attempt to resolve their disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods, even in a time of social distancing.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Victor J. Zarrilli,
Robert G. Devine and
Michael W. Horner
Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Horner may be contacted at hornerm@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Funding the Self-Insured Retention (SIR)
August 17, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesUnlike a deductible, a self-insured retention (referred to an “SIR”) is, as the name suggests, a self-insured obligation of the insured before its insurer picks up coverage. The SIR needs to be exhausted by the insured (as the primary self-insurance component) before the carrier’s excess defense and indemnification obligations kick-in under the terms of the policy. However, an insured can generally exhaust an SIR by paying legal fees and costs associated with a claim.
Oftentimes, the language in the policy requires the SIR to be paid for by the named insured or an insured under the policy. This was an issue addressed by the Florida Supreme Court in Intervest Const. of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Ins. Co., 133 So.3d 494 (Fla. 2014).
In this matter, a personal injury claimant asserted a claim against the contractor dealing with a residential home. The contractor hired a subcontractor to install attic stairs and the subcontract required the contractor to indemnify it. The owner of the house injured herself on the attic stairs and sued the contractor. The contractor, in turn, sought indemnification against the subcontractor that installed the attic stairs.
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
Paycheck Protection Flexibility Act Of 2020: What You Need to Know
July 20, 2020 —
Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & FearsOn June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into legislation the bipartisan bill titled the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (PPPFA). The PPPFA modifies the Paycheck Protection Program, which was first introduced under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The modifications provide borrowers more control over the use of funds and make it easier to obtain forgiveness. The following is a summary of the key changes.
1. Extended Maturity Date From 2 Years to 5 Years
Under the CARES Act, the minimum maturity date for loan amounts after the forgiveness period was not defined. The Small Business Administration (SBA) then released an Interim Final Rule clarifying that the minimum maturity date was two years. The PPPFA has extended the term to five years: “The covered loan shall have a minimum maturity of 5 years and a maximum maturity of 10 years from the date on which the borrower applies for loan forgiveness under that section.”
2. Extension of Covered Period From Eight Weeks to a Maximum of 24 Weeks
Under the CARES Act, the covered period of the loan (i.e., the time period in which you may spend the loan funds) was February 15, 2020 to June 30, 2020, an eight-week period. The PPPFA extended the covered period to 24 weeks from the origination date of the loan, or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
