Business Risk Exclusions Dismissed in Summary Judgment Motion
November 09, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiWhile the court denied summary judgment on whether the alleged damage was due to faulty workmanship and not covered, it granted summary judgment for dismissal of several business risk exclusions the insurer asserted against the developer. United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Dorn Homes, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138431 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2020).
Dorn, a residential home developer, developed a 350 single family residential home division. Dorn did not perform the actual construction, but contracted with various subcontractors.
After completion, Dorn began to receive complaints from homeowners about interior damage to some of the homes. Inspections showed interior cracking, wall separation and foundation movement. Dorn ultimately installed an unvented foam insulated roof system to address these issues. Therefore, it did not repair the faulty workmanship of its subcontractors because it would not have been efficient or as effective. Dorn paid for the repairs to the 87 homes at issue.
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 Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion
October 26, 2020 —
Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThose of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims.
Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters.
Reprinted courtesy of
Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
If Passed, New Bill AB 2320 Will Mandate Cyber Insurance For State Government Contractors
September 07, 2020 —
Makenna Miller & Jeffrey Dennis - Newmeyer DillionEarlier this year, Assemblyman Edwin Chau (D-Monterey Park) introduced Assembly Bill 2320. AB 2320, if passed, would require any business that contracts with the state and has access to records containing personal information protected under the state’s Information Practices Act (IPA) to maintain cyber insurance coverage. Information covered under the IPA includes names, social security numbers, physical descriptions, home addresses, home telephone numbers, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. Requiring contractors to maintain cyber insurance will likely both shift the costs of cyberattacks from taxpayers to the private sector, while also encouraging robust cyber security practices among businesses of all sizes. While the bill has not yet passed, businesses will be best served by implementing and improving cybersecurity practices now in order to attain lowest premium rates in the future.
Incentivizing Best Practices
With the adoption of AB 2320, businesses will be incentivized to increase their security posture in order to receive lower premiums from insurers. Simultaneously, insurers will be incentivized to mandate best practices from their insureds in order to mitigate their risk of having to pay out on cyber insurance policies. Thus, cyber insurance will work as a vehicle to increase best practices in businesses and subsequently decrease vulnerabilities to cyberattacks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Makenna Miller, Newmeyer Dillion and
Jeffrey Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion
Ms. Miller may be contacted at makenna.miller@ndlf.com
Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?
October 26, 2020 —
Levi W. Barrett, Nathan A. Cohen & Mark A. Snyder - Peckar & AbramsonThe emergence of COVID-19 has created a new set of challenges in the already complex world of negotiating construction contracts. In the pre-COVID-19 era, general contractors, construction managers and those negotiating on their behalf, needed to balance a variety of fairly well-established legal risks and exposures and commercial realities with the need to maintain a positive relationship with their counterparty. While many are rightfully concerned with addressing the impacts of COVID-19 to their on-going projects, those negotiating new contracts now are undoubtedly cognizant that they are negotiating in the midst of an unpredictable future that is tipping the historical negotiating balance. The following presents some crucial areas to focus on when negotiating and drafting your contracts in this new era.
Contract Terms Through the COVID-19 Lens
Contractors should examine proposed new contracts carefully to identify rights that afford COVID-19 protections and identify contractual obligations that create COVID-19 commercial risks.
Specific attention should be paid to those sections relating to force majeure/excusable delay, emergencies, changes (including changes in law), contingency, suspension and termination, site investigation as well as all representations and warranties. The paramount concern in examining these provisions is to ensure that they not only entitle the contractor to relief for those unknown events, emergencies and changes, but that they also contain sufficient entitlement for the contractor to obtain both time extensions and financial compensation for unknown impacts of a known event – the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.and
Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same
October 19, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogJust because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.”
Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation
Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Nine Haight Attorneys Selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021
September 14, 2020 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPNine Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys were selected for Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch 2021. Congratulations to
Courtney Arbucci,
Frances Brower,
James de los Reyes,
Kyle DiNicola,
Arezoo Jamshidi,
Kristian Moriarty,
Beth Obra-White,
Casey Otis and
Kaitlin Preston!
Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 94,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and Best Lawyers has received over 11 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Judicial Panel Denies Nationwide Consolidation of COVID-19 Business Interruption Cases
October 05, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied motions to centralize pretrial proceedings in pending COVID-19 business interruption claims. In re COVID-19 Business interruption Protection Insurance Litigation, 2020 U.S. District. LEXIS 144446 (Aug. 12, 2020).
Plaintiff policy holders sought consolidation, contending their policies provided coverage for business interruption losses caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the related government orders suspending, or severely curtailing, operations of non-essential businesses. The Panel considered 15 actions on the pending motions, but had notice of 263 related actions.
Some plaintiffs opposed centralization or sought to be excluded from any MDL. Some argued the Panel should centralize the coverage actions on a state-by-state, regional, or insurer-by-insurer basis.
The Panel did not accept consolidation of all cases. There was little potential for common discovery across the litigation because there was no common defendant as the actions involved either a single insurer or insurer-group. The various cases involved different insurance policies with different coverages, conditions, exclusions, and policy language, purchased by different businesses in different industries located in different states.
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
Does a Landlord’s Violation of the Arizona Residential Landlord-Tenant Act Constitute Negligence Per Se?
September 21, 2020 —
Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn a recent Arizona Court of Appeals case, Ibarra v. Gastelum, 2020 WL 4218020 (7/23/20), the Court of Appeals addressed the question whether – in a tenant’s personal injury claim against the landlord – a landlord’s violation of the Arizona Landlord-Tenant Act constituted negligence per se. The tenant alleged he was injured by stubbing his toe on a crack in the floor. The tenant alleged that he had made repeated demands that the landlord repair the crack. The statute required the landlord to make all repairs and do whatever is necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition. The tenant argued that a violation of the statute constituted negligence per se, meaning that the violation of the statute satisfied (as a matter of law) the first two elements of a negligence claim – duty and breach of duty. The tenant requested a negligence per se jury instruction. The trial court declined that request and refused to give the requested instruction. The tenant lost the jury trial and appealed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. Parker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Parker may be contacted at kparker@swlaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
