Los Angeles Wildfires Will Cause Significant Insured Losses, Ranking Amongst the Most Destructive in California's History
January 14, 2025 —
Morningstar DBRSWildfires currently burning in the Pacific Palisades, Eaton, Hurst and other Los Angeles neighborhoods will cause significant losses for the insurance industry, in
Morningstar DBRS’ view. The fires have already burned more than 1,100 homes and threaten more than 28,000 additional structures, according to local fire officials. Preliminary estimates point to total insured losses in excess of $8 billion depending on the final number of properties being affected by the wildfires. By way of comparison, the 2018 Woolsey Fire, which destroyed 1,643 structures just north of Los Angeles, caused more than $6 billion in property damages at that time. Morningstar DBRS expects the ongoing wildfires to have a negative but manageable impact on major property insurers active in the Californian market, with the impact somewhat mitigated by their use of reinsurance and their high degree of diversification. Similarly, losses should be manageable for the global reinsurance industry and not affect their credit profiles.
While leading U.S. property insurers are in good financial condition, the California property insurance market has been challenging because of high wildfire and other natural catastrophe risks combined with regulatory restrictions on coverage and pricing, leading many insurers to re-think their product offering, including an outright exit from the market. For example, market leaders such as State Farm and Allstate started reducing their exposure to the California market beginning 2022-2023. It is therefore possible that a larger than usual portion of the losses caused by the wildfires will be uninsured or may be covered under the California FAIR Plan, which is designed to provide fire coverage up to $3 million per home and spread the risk across the industry when it is not available from traditional carriers.
This event reinforces the need for adequate rate increases on home insurance in California, based on forward-looking pricing and catastrophe modelling, as well as for additional fire prevention and mitigation initiatives. However, property insurance affordability is likely to remain a challenge in the state going forward, with many property owners opting to remain uninsured or under-insured because of the high costs.
New York’s Highest Court Weighs in on N.Y. Labor Law
September 23, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneN.Y. Labor Law § 241(6) requires owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed at or lawfully frequenting a construction site. If a worker is injured on a construction site and establishes a violation of a specific and applicable Industrial Code regulation, both the owner and contractor will be held vicariously liable for the worker’s injury, without regard to their fault and even in the absence of control or supervision of the worksite. The Court of Appeals of New York recently addressed the broad scope of the Labor Law in the context of slipping hazards.
In Bazdaric v. Almah Partners, LLC, 41 N.Y.3d 310 (2024), the plaintiff, an injured painter, slipped and fell on a plastic covering placed over an escalator in an area he was assigned to paint. The plaintiff claimed that the plastic covering was a foreign substance for purposes of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) because it was not part of the escalator. Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) states:
Slipping hazards. Employers shall not suffer or permit any employee to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition. Ice, snow, water, grease and any other foreign substance which may cause slippery footing shall be removed, sanded or covered to provide safe footing.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement
November 18, 2024 —
Mark Chediak - BloombergHawaiian Electric Industries formalized a $2 billion agreement to settle damage claims from a wildfire that razed the historic town of Lahaina and killed more than 100 people.
The utility-owner had reached a tentative agreement in August in which it, along with other defendants including the state of Hawaii, Maui County and landowners, would pay $4 billion to resolve hundreds of lawsuits stemming from last year’s wildfire, according to a filing Tuesday.
The settlements don’t resolve claims with insurers that are part of separate lawsuits.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, Bloomberg
Robinson+Cole’s Amicus Brief Adopted and Cited by Massachusetts’s High Court
July 31, 2024 —
Erica Whaley - Construction Law ZoneEarlier this year, the
Associated Subcontractors of Massachusetts hired Robinson+Cole attorney
Joseph Barra to submit an amicus brief to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for consideration in the appeal pending before it in
Business Interiors Floor Covering Business Trust v. Graycor Construction Co., Inc. In its June 17, 2024 decision in that case, the Court interpreted the Massachusetts Prompt Pay Act, which applies to private construction projects and “requires that parties to a construction contract approve or reject payment within” an allotted time period and in compliance with certain procedures else such payments will be deemed approved. Two years ago, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, in
Tocci Building Corp. v. IRIV Partners, LLC, decided that an owner who fails to timely advise its general contractor of the reasons as to why it was withholding payment, coupled with failure to certify that such funds are being withheld in good faith, violates the Prompt Pay Act and makes the owner liable for funds owed.
[1] However, the Tocci Building Court left open the question of whether one who violates the Prompt Pay Act forfeits its substantive defenses to non-payment, such as fraud, defective work, or breach of material obligation of the contract.
The facts of Business Interiors involve a general contractor, Graycor, which subcontracted Business Interiors to perform certain flooring work for a movie theatre in Boston’s North End. When Graycor failed to formally approve, reject, or certify, in good faith, its withholding of payment of three of Business Interiors’ applications for payment as prescribed by the Prompt Pay Act, Business Interiors brought suit alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Business Interiors then moved for summary judgement arguing that Graycor’s failure to comply with the Act rendered it liable for the unpaid invoices.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robinson + Cole
It’s Not What You Were Thinking!
December 10, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyAt least it is not what the lower court was thinking… but the same result for a general contractor seeking to have its comprehensive general liability insurer pay the GC’s defense related to claims for physical damage on a construction project.
In reviewing the Massachusetts federal district court’s ruling in favor of the insurer, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals posited: “The principal question is whether a general contractor’s CGL insurance policy covers damage to a non-defective part of the contractor’s project resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work on a different part of that project.”
The district court had held under Massachusetts law that the insurer had no duty to defend because the lawsuit “did not allege ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘ occurrence,’ as required for coverage” under the policy (a defense that was urged by the insurer). The Court of Appeals affirmed, “albeit for different reasons.”
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Untangling Unique Legal Issues in Modern Modular Construction
September 09, 2024 —
Chad Theriot & Brad Sands - Construction ExecutiveModular construction has grown significantly over the last few years and shows no signs of slowing down. This construction method is a departure from traditional approaches where all construction activity occurs onsite. Modular construction involves building standardized project components—usually in an offsite, controlled environment—which are then transported and assembled at the project site. Offsite construction generally allows for better quality control and economic efficiency, as it can utilize an assembly-line process. Modular fabrication can also centralize skilled labor in regions with lower labor costs.
Establishing each party's expectations upfront is always important, but even more so in modular construction since much of the construction activity is performed away from the ultimate project site. This requires extensive coordination among designers, fabricators, installers and owners to ensure construction, testing and quality progresses accordingly. Every field change and design clash could have an exponential impact on the modular fabrication efficiencies given the assembly-line approach and remote nature of modular work.
Reprinted courtesy of
Chad Theriot & Brad Sands, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the full story...
New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims
October 01, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomNew York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients.
The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand.
Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/17/24) – Travel & Tourism Reach All-Time High, President Biden Emphasizes Housing in SOTU Address, and State Transportation Projects Under ScrutinySolar Power Inc. to Build 30-Megawatt Project in Inner MongoliaAre Construction Defect Claims Covered Under CGL Policies?Elyria, Ohio, to Invest $250M to Halt Illegal Sewage into Black RiverCertificates of Insurance May Confer CoverageQuick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment BondConstruction Termination Issues Part 4: What to Do When They Want to Fire You, the Architect or EngineerFormal Opinion No. 2020-203: How A Lawyer Is to Handle Access to Client Confidential Information and Anticipation of Potential Security IssuesFacing Manslaughter Charges In Worker's 2021 Trench Collapse Death, Colorado Contractor Who Willfully Ignored Federal Law Surrenders To PoliceLarge Canada Employers and Jobsites Mandate COVID-19 VaccinesHow the New Dropped Object Standard Is Changing Jobsite SafetyContractors Set to Implement Air Quality Upgrades for Healthier BuildingsPlanned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management DistrictThe Future of Construction Defects in Utah Unclear
No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by SettlingSometimes, Being too Cute with Pleading Allegations is UnnecessaryLabor Under the Miller Act And Estoppel of Statute of LimitationsCourt Finds Matching of Damaged Materials is Required by PolicyWashington Supreme Court Sides with Lien Claimants in Williams v. Athletic FieldU.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An OccurrenceNewport Beach Partners Jeremy Johnson, Courtney Serrato, and Associate Joseph Real Prevailed on a Demurrer in a Highly Publicized Shooting Case!Land a Cause of Home Building Shortage?NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas LeakContractor Underpaid Workers, Pocketed the DifferenceTen Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwardsSummary Judgment Granted to Insurer for Hurricane DamageDid the Building Boom Lead to a Boom in Construction Defects?Safety Accusations Fly in Dispute Between New York Developer and ContractorAngelo Mozilo Speaks: No Regrets at CountrywideThe Burden of BettermentConstruction Law Firm Opens in D.C.Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective ComponentsCDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization TowerInsured's Jury Verdict Reversed After Improper Trial TacticsBright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act TrendsSo, You Have a Judgment Against a California Contractor or Subcontractor. What Next? How Can I Enforce Payment?What I Learned at My First NAWIC National ConferenceInsurer Must Pay To Defend Product Defect Claims From Date Of Product InstallationFannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' BasementsMotion to Dismiss Insurer's Counterclaim for Construction Defects Is GrantedCSLB’s Military Application Assistance ProgramUnjust Enrichment Claims When There Is No Binding ContractBoots on the Ground- A Great Way to Learn and Help Construction ClientsKnow your Obligations: Colorado’s Statutory Expansions of the Implied Warranty of Habitability Are Now in EffectLearning from Production Homes of the PastMinimum Wage on Federal Construction Projects is $10.10Keller Group Fires Two Executives in Suspected Australia Profits Reporting FraudSecurity on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard ofNew York Appellate Court Applies Broad Duty to Defend to Property Damage CaseHow Mansions Can Intensify WildfiresHow a Robot-Built Habitat on Mars Could Change Construction on EarthBar to Raise on Green StandardCalifornia Construction Bill Dies in CommitteeVacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the RenterCalifornia Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage SuitUS-Mexico Border Wall Bids Include Tourist Attraction, Solar PanelsTests Find Pollution From N.C. Coal Ash Site Hit by Florence Within Acceptable LevelsCalifornia Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect CaseFailure to Allege Property Damage Within Policy Period Defeats Insured's ClaimFirst-Party Statutory Bad Faith – 60 Days to Cure Means 60 Days to CureKeeping KeyArena's Landmark Lid Overhead at Climate Pledge Arena Redevelopment Is A 22,000-Ton Balancing ActObama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or MonthsColorado House Bill 19-1170: Undefined Levels of Mold or Dampness Can Make a Leased Residential Premises Uninhabitable 
