Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims
October 16, 2013 —
CDJ STAFF“Right to repair” statutes don’t only affect general contractors, but everyone involved in the building of a home, down to those who supply materials, warns Paul Gary in a post on Window & Door. He notes that “if you sell your window or door products in one of the growing number of states with a ‘Notice and Opportunity to Cure’ or ‘Right to Repair’ statute, you need a plan in the event you receive a defect notice relating to your product.”
A supplier that receives a statement that a defect exists should, according to Mr. Gary, carefully document not only when the notice was received, but when it was sent, according to postmark, and whether the sender complied with all the regulations. From there, the supplier should determine if there were previous, informal complaints. Finally, determine sales information. At this point, the supplier has the information its insurer will require.
His next caution is that in what follows, other may “seek defense and indemnity from you.” And while you may point out problems with the notice,” he counsels that “if you confirm there is an issue with your product, don’t be afraid to make a fair proposal for repair.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gut Feeling Does Not Disqualify Expert Opinion
July 06, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling in June on the case of Nevins v. Toll in which they reversed an earlier decision and remanded the case to a lower court for retrial. At issue in the case was the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert, J. Anthony Dowling. In depositions, Mr. Dowling said that his estimates for repair were based on a “gut feeling.” Dowling said he had “very little” experience in cost estimates for single-family homes. The defendants sought to bar Dowling’s testimony which was granted by the judge. Without an expert, Ms. Nevin’s case was dismissed.
Describing Dowling’s report as “far from a model of how an expert’s opinion in a construction case should be presented,” the court noted that Dowling is not a professional expert witness. However, the court did note that Dowling is a professional cost estimator. Despite Mr. Dowling using his “gut feeling” to construct his estimate, the New Jersey Supreme Court felt that whether his estimate is convincing is “a question for the jury.”
Read the court’s opinion…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lennar Profit Tops Estimates as Home Prices Increase
March 26, 2014 —
John Gittelsohn – BloombergLennar Corp. (LEN), the biggest U.S. homebuilder by market value, reported a fiscal first-quarter profit that beat analysts’ estimates as the company sold more homes at increased prices.
Net income climbed to $78.1 million, or 35 cents a share, in the three months through February, from $57.5 million, or 26 cents, a year earlier, the Miami-based company said in a statement today. Analysts expected earnings of 28 cents a share, the average of 17 estimates compiled by Bloomberg.
Publicly traded builders have been increasing prices to take advantage of a tight supply of new and existing homes while using their economies of scale to reduce costs and widen profit margins. Lennar’s profit, deliveries and orders grew even as inclement weather threatened home sales in much of the U.S. during the quarter, according to Drew Reading, a Bloomberg Industries analyst.
“Lennar followed KB Home (KBH) in reporting order trends indicating a strong start to the spring selling season,” Reading said in a note after the earnings were released.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Gittelsohn, BloombergMr. Gittelson may be contacted at
johngitt@bloomberg.net
What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.
February 14, 2023 —
David Humphreys - Carson Law Group, PLLCThis article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog
One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance.
A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage.
When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases.
Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense.
A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage.
Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed.
However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is
included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added).
It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
“Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS
F. Symbols
1. Plus Sign
A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that:
“Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion.
Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it
and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck.
This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . .
“Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.”
To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.”
David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast.
*See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ackman Group Pays $91.5 Million for Condo at NYC’s One57
April 15, 2015 —
David M. Levitt and Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergA group including billionaire investor Bill Ackman paid $91.5 million for a duplex penthouse at Extell Development Co.’s One57 condominium tower, one of New York City’s most expensive home purchases ever.
The purchase of unit 75 in the luxury skyscraper overlooking Central Park closed on March 27, according to property records filed Thursday. The buyer was listed as 57157 Co. LLC, a single-purpose entity that Ackman controls.
The 13,554-square-foot (1,259-square-meter), six-bedroom home spans the 75th and 76th floors of the 90-story skyscraper. Ackman last year told the New York Times it was “the Mona Lisa of apartments.” Monthly common charges on the unit were estimated at $23,595, according to documents Extell filed with the state attorney general’s office.
Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg and
Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Architects and Engineers Added to Harmon Towers Lawsuit
February 12, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFSince the beginning of the Harmon Towers construction defect lawsuit, it has been CityCenter making claims against Perini, the property owner against the builder. CityCenter now has a new legal team, and with it apparently a new strategy. The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that papers were filed in court on February 8, adding the architect and the engineer as defendants in the case.
According to the filings, the engineering firm Halcrow Yolles should have noticed during inspections that parts of the building’s steel skeleton were improperly installed and should have been repaired. Instead these structures were encased in concrete. CityCenter also contends that there were deficiencies in Halcrow’s blueprints. AAI Architects has been named because its contract made it responsible for Halcrow’s work.
Perini has contended that some problems at the building were due to bad plans and therefore not their responsibility. They have claimed that they can fix the building for $20 million, of which $4 million would be due to their actions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds
March 11, 2024 —
Matthew D. Stockwell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn response to the June 2021 Champlain Towers collapse in Florida, New Jersey supplemented its State Uniform Construction Code Act by enacting legislation (effective January 8, 2024) to strengthen laws related to the structural integrity of certain residential structures in the State. The legislation applies to condominiums and cooperatives (but not single-family dwellings or primarily rental buildings) with structural components made of steel, reinforced concrete, heavy timber or a combination of such materials. The legislation also supplements the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act to ensure that associations created under the Act maintain adequate reserve funds for certain repairs.
The legislation requires structural engineering inspections of any primary load-bearing system (structural components applying force to the building which deliver force to the ground including any connected balconies). Buildings that are constructed after the date the legislation was signed must have their first inspection within 15 years after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. Buildings that are 15 years or older must be inspected within two years of the legislation. Thereafter, the structural inspector will determine when the next inspection should take place, which will be no more than 10 years after the preceding inspection, except for buildings more than 20 years old which must be inspected every five years. Also, if damage to the primary load-bearing system is otherwise observable, an inspection must be performed within 60 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew D. Stockwell, PillsburyMr. Stockwell may be contacted at
matthew.stockwell@pillsburylaw.com
AB5, Dynamex, the ABC Standard, and their Effects on the Construction Industry
December 09, 2019 —
Donald A. Velez - Smith CurrieLast year, we reported that the California Supreme Court in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (“Dynamex”) adopted a new, pro-employment standard (the “ABC Standard”), which presumes a worker is an employee versus an independent contractor under California wage orders and regulations.
Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”) has now been passed by the California Legislature and signed by Governor Newsom. Bill AB5 codifies the ABC Standard and brings increased costs, administrative duties, and legal risks for hiring parties on multiple fronts, including, but not limited to:
- Payroll taxes;
- Meals, breaks and overtime policies and enforcement and premium pay;
- Benefits;
- Leave and PTO policies, requirements and enforcement;
- Wage order violations;
- Labor Code violations and Private Attorney General Actions (“PAGA”) claims;
- Unemployment insurance; and
- Workers’ compensation coverage, claims, and premiums.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Donald A. Velez, Smith CurrieMr. Velez may be contacted at
davelez@smithcurrie.com
