Insurers in New Jersey Secure a Victory on Water Damage Claims, But How Big a Victory Likely Remains to be Seen
April 03, 2019 —
Kevin Sullivan - TLSS Insurance Law BlogProperty insurance policies commonly cover water damage caused by an accidental discharge or leakage of water from an on-site plumbing system and commonly exclude water damage caused by a sewer backup. So it’s not surprising that the cause of water damage is a common battleground between policyholders and insurers. In Salil v. Ohio Security Insurance Co., 2018 WL 6272930 (N.J. App. Div. Dec. 3, 2018), insurers scored a victory when the court held that the release of water and sewage into a restaurant was subject to a $25,000 sublimit for water damage caused by a sewer backup. But claims adjusters and policyholders confronted with water damage claims in New Jersey will no doubt continue to do battle over whether the Salil decision was a decisive victory for insurers or a limited one.
In Salil, the insured landlord leased its building to a restaurant operator. After the insured’s tenant reported water and odor at the restaurant, the insured contacted a plumber, who informed the insured that a clog in the restaurant’s toilet caused Category 3 water to flow into the restaurant. The insured allegedly sustained approximately $160,000 in restoration costs and loss of business income. The plumber used a snake to clear the sewer line to remedy the issue. The restoration company confirmed the cause of the loss was a sewer back up. On this basis, the insurer determined that the cause of loss was a sewer backup. The policy excluded coverage for water damage caused by a sewer back-up, but an endorsement restored that coverage, subject to a $25,000 sub-limit for “direct physical loss or damaged caused by water… which backs up into a building or structure through sewers or drains which are directly connected to a sanitary sewer or septic system.” Pursuant to this endorsement, the insurer paid its $25,000 sublimit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Sullivan, Traub LiebermanMr. Sullivan may be contacted at
ksullivan@tlsslaw.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor
April 10, 2023 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanIn the underlying action, a property owner hosting a motorcycle rally was sued after a motorcycle collided with an auto near the entrance to the premises, injuring the cyclists. The cyclists sued the property owner, among others, alleging failure to supervising traffic on the adjoining roadway. The property owner tendered the claim under its CGL policy, which was endorsed with an “absolute auto exclusion,” precluding coverage for claims “arising out of or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any…auto.” The CGL insurer disclaimed coverage based on the endorsement.
In the ensuing coverage litigation, Traub Lieberman represented the insurer, and moved for summary judgment arguing that the “absolute auto exclusion” was dispositive of coverage on the facts alleged, citing case law from New York state courts enforcing similar exclusions to preclude coverage for multi-vehicle accidents. The insured argued in opposition that the outcome should be controlled by Essex Insurance Company v. Grande Stone Quarry, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 238 (3rd Dep’t 2011), in which the court declined to apply such exclusion in the case of a single-vehicle accident caused by a dangerous condition of the insured’s premises. The federal district judge disagreed with the insured’s argument in this regard, granting Traub Lieberman’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
Trump Administration Waives Border Wall Procurement Rules
March 23, 2020 —
Mary B. Powers & Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordActing Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf on Feb. 20 waived federal contracting rules to expedite construction of the U.S-Mexico border wall in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, citing legal authority under several U.S. laws, some dating back to the 1990s, to deal with what he claimed is "an acute and immediate need to construct physical barriers and roads ... to prevent unlawful entries."
Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record and
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Supreme Court Grants the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes
June 22, 2016 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWe have previously reported on the Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes case, in which the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a provision in an association's declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which required declarant consent before an arbitration provision could be amended out of the document. To read the past articles on the case, please review
Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: The Colorado Court of Appeals' Decision Protecting a Declarant’s Right to Arbitration in Construction Defect Cases and
The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Today, the Colorado Supreme Court granted the association's petition for writ of certiorari, en banc, on the following reframed issues:
Whether the court of appeals erred by holding as a matter of first impression that Colorado’s Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) permits a developer-declarant to reserve the power to veto unit owner votes to amend common interest community declarations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McClain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McClain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Patent or Latent: An Important Question in Construction Defects
October 25, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFPieter M. O’Leary, writing for the site AVVO offers the advice that whether a construction defect is patent or latent could influence whether or not it’s covered in a construction defect claim. He notes that a “patent defect” is “a construction defect that is ‘readily observable or evident,’” while a “latent defect” is “a construction defect that is present but not readily detectable even with reasonable care.” While this may sound like a simple distinction, he notes that “distinguishing between the two can often be difficult and sometimes highly contested by the various parties in a lawsuit.”
The first question is “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect.” The question arises because “if a defect is hidden and not detectable (latent defect), a longer time period exists for the claimant to file a claim.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!
May 24, 2018 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC BlogEvery few months I receive a call from a general contractor or subcontractor who has just terminated a subcontractor or sub-tier contractor for non-performance and is “checking in with me to see if there are any liability issues.” After the termination has taken place, if the termination is wrongful, there are serious legal consequences. Calling your lawyer after the fact will not cure missteps in the termination process. Termination for non-performance is a common term in most contract documents. As courts interpret contracts, however, the right to earn revenue from a contract is a substantial interest, and courts generally “abhor” forfeitures (termination) of that right. In other words, the courts will strictly determine whether the terminating party to a contract has complied with the termination process to the letter. A recent example from Connecticut is instructive in this regard. [1]
The general contractor on a large hospital project in Connecticut terminated its electrical subcontractor, hired others to finish the electrical subcontractor’s work, and then sued the electrical subcontractor for $26 million. The electrical subcontractor countersued the general contractor for $3.6 million of work that it had completed at the time of the termination which had not been paid for. The subcontractor claimed that due to the many changes that had occurred on the project, it stopped work because the changes altered the contract to the point that it was no longer the same contract. The subcontractor walked off the project and the general contractor then terminated the subcontractor and re-procured the work from other subcontractors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
And the Cyber-Beat Goes On. Yet Another Cyber Regulatory Focus for Insurers
April 15, 2015 —
Robert Ansehl – White and Williams LLPRegulators and government agencies are sharpening their focus on the issues surrounding cyber risk. The number of pronouncements are too numerous to recite in a single client alert but the overarching message is clear – be prepared or be subject to attack. Attacks not only will come from hackers, customers, consumers and, ultimately the plaintiffs’ bar, but the regulators themselves. Vulnerability lies not only with cyber attacked companies but increasingly with the companies’ officers and directors who fail to adequately safeguard data.
On March 26, 2015, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) announced that it would be expanding its information technology examination procedures to focus on cyber risk. This effort was a follow-up to its February 8, 2015 announcement of new cyber assessments (See "Not Just Another Client Alert about Cyber-Risk and Effective Cybersecurity Insurance Regulatory Guidance," March 24, 2015). Not to be outdone, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) proposed a comprehensive and mandatory filing for property casualty insurers that would give regulators a full range of information and data on cyber risk exposures issued by carriers in the insurance market. This proposal comes on the heels of President Obama’s proposal, just two months ago, to create the Cyber Threat Intelligent Integration Center (CTIIC), a new federal agency designed to fight cyber attacks, provide collaboration and encourage information sharing between the Federal government and private industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Ansehl, White and Williams LLPMr. Ansehl may be contacted at
ansehlr@whiteandwilliams.com
Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony
March 15, 2021 —
Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation SpecialistMany subrogation claims involving fire losses rely heavily on expert testimony. Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it is both relevant and reliable. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), whose standard has been incorporated into Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Supreme Court instructed federal trial courts to act as a “gatekeeper” of expert testimony, giving them the power to exclude expert testimony that is not supported by sufficient evidence. In Maria Fernanda Elosu and Robert Luis Brace v. Middlefork Ranch Incorporated, Civil Case No. 1:19-cv-00267-DCN, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14449 (D. Idaho Jan. 22, 2021) (Brace), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho exercised its gatekeeper role when it granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to exclude expert testimony pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Brace, involved a fire at a vacation cabin in McCall, Idaho. The cabin, owned by Maria Elosu (Elosu) and Robert Brace (Brace and collectively with Elosu, Plaintiffs) was part of a homeowner’s association called Middlefork Ranch, Incorporated (MFR). The cabin had a “wrap around” deck with a propane-fired refrigerator on the north side. On the day before the fire, Brace stained the deck using an oil-based stain. That night, Elosu smoked cigarettes on the deck. The next morning, Plaintiffs used rags to clean up excess oil from the deck and an MFR employee changed the propane on the refrigerator and relit the pilot light. At 4:00 p.m., a fire started in or around the cabin while no one was home. The fire was discovered by a group of contractors who testified that the fire was isolated to the east side of the cabin when they first arrived. Importantly, one witness testified that there was no fire and no flames around the propane-fired refrigerator. The fire destroyed the cabin and the contents within.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLPMs. Kenney may be contacted at
kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com
