Customer’s Agreement to Self-Insure and Release for Water Damage Effectively Precludes Liability of Storage Container Company
December 16, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Kanovsky v. At Your Door Self Storage (No. B297338; filed 11/25/19), a California appeals court held that a waiver of liability and agreement to self-insure in a storage container contract barred coverage for water damage to goods stored in the container.
In Kanovsky, plaintiffs contracted for portable storage containers when moving. They loaded their washing machine into one of the containers without checking whether it was fully drained. They locked the containers and reopened them four years later to discover water damage to the contents. They sued the storage company, alleging causes of action for breach of contract; tortious breach of covenant; negligence; and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code section 1750. The storage company’s insurer intervened and moved for summary judgment, which was granted.
The appeals court affirmed. The storage company’s contract contained a release of liability stating that personal property was stored “at the customer’s sole risk” and the owners “shall not be liable for any damage or loss,” including water damage. Further, the contract stated that the containers were not waterproof, and again that the storage company was not liable for water damage. The contract attached an addendum further stating that the owner was “a landlord renting space, is not a warehouseman, and does not take custody of my property.” The addendum went on with an acknowledgement that the owner: “2. Is not responsible for loss or damage to my property; 3. Does not provide insurance on my property for me; and 4. Requires that I provide my own insurance coverage or be ‘Self-Insured’ (personally assume risk of loss or damage).”
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim
January 06, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit agreed with the insurer that there was no coverage for a collapse under the policy. S.O. Beach Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32569 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2019).
S.O. Beach Corporation and Larios on the Beach, Inc ("Larios") owned a building in Miami Beach. Sometime between march 4, 2012 and April 10, 2013, Larios discovered that parts of the first three floors of its building had caved in to varying degrees. The primary cause of the collapse was a wooden support beam that had severely rotted. Larios found a broken pipe that was gushing water onto the beam, causing deterioration. Larios was forced to evacuate the building until the damage was repaired.
Larios submitted a claim under its all-risk policy with Great American. The policy required that a collapse an "abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building" to be covered. Before a coverage decision was made, Larios sued for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Great American's motion and denied Larios' motion.
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
Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy
January 20, 2020 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationWhile Nunn-Agreements[1] may be appealing for both plaintiffs and defendants where an insurer unreasonably fails to defend a lawsuit, a recent opinion from The Honorable Marcia Krieger in the United States District Court of Colorado[2] (“Opinion”) demonstrates the importance of first confirming that there exists a viable insurance claim before proceeding with such a Nunn- Agreement.
The facts giving rise to the Opinion were as follows. In March 2015, a Homeowner couple (the “Homeowners”) suffered damages to their home resulting from a brushfire. Fortunately, the Homeowners were insured, they submitted their claim to their homeowners’ insurance carrier which was in effect at the time of the brushfire (the “Insurance Carrier”), and the Insurance Carrier paid the claim. Ostensibly as part of the Homeowners’ remediation efforts to their home they removed a large bush which left a hole in the ground. After paying the claim, in August 2015 the Insurance Carrier cancelled or elected not to renew the Homeowners’ policy. In October 2015, a repairman working on the Home (the “Repairman”) was injured after his ladder fell over allegedly because of the hole in the ground caused by the bush that had been removed.
As a result of injuries caused by the fall from the ladder, the Repairman brought suit against the Homeowners. In response to the Repairman’s claim, the Homeowners again tendered to their Insurance Carrier. This time, however, the Insurance Carrier denied coverage on the basis that the Repairman’s injuries occurred after the expiration of the relevant policy. Without insurance coverage, the Homeowner’s entered into a Nunn-Agreement with the Repairman, conceding liability, and assigning any claims they might have had against the Insurance Carrier in lieu of execution of any judgment against the Homeowners.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Safety, Technology Combine to Change the Construction Conversation
September 30, 2019 —
Neil Riddle & Brent Burger - Construction ExecutiveNew technologies are redefining how to plan, build and deliver the full spectrum of construction projects. Automation, software and new processes are changing the construction industry in unprecedented ways, and construction management is evolving along with it. Construction companies are adapting—using innovative tools and resources, joined by more aggressive risk management and decision-making methods. All the while, safety remains at the heart of every successful new build.
Envisioning the Modern Job Site
Productivity has increased by leaps and bounds as processes have gotten faster and cheaper. Twenty years ago, the industry looked completely different— a $500 million project would have taken four years to deliver; today, it can be done in 29 months.
These new projects are becoming incredibly complex as new technologies change the size and scope, giving rise to more specialization and fragmentation. Building projects faster with fewer people requires a whole new level of preparation. This is where advanced planning and advanced work packaging can play a big role—by informing exactly how the material is going to arrive, how it will be staged, how it will be fabricated and how the area can be best managed to deliver the work.
Reprinted courtesy of
Neil Riddle & Brent Burger, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Riddle may be contacted at RiddleRN@bv.com
Mr. Burger may be contacted at BurgerBB@bv.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds
February 18, 2020 —
Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law NewsThe United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds.
The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit.
The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit.
Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Charlson may be contacted at
Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com
Randy Maniloff Recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a "Lawyer of the Year"
October 14, 2019 —
Randy Maniloff - White and Williams LLPCongratulations to Randy Maniloff, Counsel in the Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith Group, who was named the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® 2020 Insurance Law “Lawyer of the Year” in Philadelphia. Randy was recognized by his peers for his professional abilities in this area. "Lawyer of the Year" recognitions are awarded to individual lawyers with extremely high overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic location.
Randy concentrates his practice in the representation of insurers in coverage disputes over primary and excess obligations under a host of policies, including general liability and various professional liability policies. He has significant experience in coverage matters involving additional insured and contractual indemnity issues.
His practice also includes an academic side. He is an adjunct professor of Insurance at Temple University Beasley School of Law and the co-author of “General Liability Insurance Coverage – Key Issues in Every State” (4th edition), a nearly 1,000 page reference book that provides 50-state surveys on 20 critical liability coverage issues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Randy Maniloff, White and Williams LLPMr. Maniloff may be contacted at
maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com
Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us
December 02, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe proper venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim is “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(3)(B).
Well, there are a number of federal construction projects that take place outside of the United States. For these projects, where is the correct venue to sue a Miller Act payment bond if there is no US District Court where the project is located? A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida answers this question.
In U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3842290 (S.D.Fla. 2019), a prime contractor was hired by the government to design and construct a solar power system for the US Embassy’s parking garage in Burkina Faso. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of its scope of work.
The subcontractor remained unpaid in excess of $500,000 and instituted a Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division. The surety moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia arguing that the Southern District of Florida was an improper venue. The court agreed and transferred venue. Why?
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
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
