Florida Appellate Courts Holds Underwriting Manuals are Discoverable in Breach of Contract Case
February 14, 2022 —
Andrea DeField & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogRecently, Florida’s First District Court of Appeals handed down a victory for policyholders when it affirmed a Circuit Court’s order compelling an insurer to produce its underwriting manual in a breach of contract action. In People’s Trust Insurance Co. v. Foster, No. 1D21-845 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 26, 2022), the policyholder, Mr. Foster, filed a breach of contract claim against his insurer, People’s Trust, after People’s Trust failed to pay his insurance claim for damage caused to Mr. Foster’s home due to a leaking water pipe. People’s Trust denied Foster’s claim because “Foster’s pipe damage predated the policy’s inception.”
During discovery Foster requested People’s Trusts’ underwriting manual(s) in effect at the time his policy was issued or renewed. People’s Trust objected to the request. In response, Foster filed a motion to compel production of the underwriting manual(s). After a hearing, the Circuit Court granted Foster’s motion and People’s Trust sought a writ of Certiorari from the First District Court of Appeal to quash the order compelling production.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant
November 15, 2022 —
Lisa M. Rolle - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained summary judgment in favor of defendant SRI Fire Sprinkler, LLC, a family-owned and operated fire sprinkler company which generally provides fire sprinkler installation, inspection, and maintenance services throughout the Northeast and New England. The judgment was determined pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the grounds that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s (Plaintiff) negligent construction claim accrued on the date when work was completed at the premises, not on the date of the incident as alleged in the Plaintiff’s complaint. In the underlying subrogation action, the Plaintiff commenced the action in subrogation of its insured, Bet Am Shalom Synagogue (Bet Am), to recover damages in excess of $173,390.86 which it allegedly paid to Bet Am for water damage cleanup and remodeling after certain sprinkler pipes froze and burst in the recently constructed wing of the Westchester synagogue on January 1, 2019 and January 7, 2019. The Plaintiff alleged that its subrogor, Bet Am, sustained interior water damage on the first floor and basement levels of the premises, including the carpets, drywall, insulation, bathroom, kitchen and appliances, dining room, hallways, closets, basement storage rooms and supplies, and basement classrooms.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub LiebermanMs. Rolle may be contacted at
lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Norristown, PA to Stop Paying Repair Costs for Defect-Ridden Condo
February 10, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe city of Norristown, Pennsylvania has already paid “$3.4 million for construction repairs and legal expenses” for the 26-unit condominium on 770 Sandy Street, according to The Times Herald. Therefore city officials recently declared that “they will no longer pay the $40,000 annual cost for maintenance, electricity and repairs” for the building.
“At some point, the folks that own it have to step up and take responsibility for it,” Norristown Council President William Caldwell told The Times Herald. “No later than February 28, the municipality will cease to provide or pay for maintenance of 770 Sandy Street.”
Previously, Norristown had received court orders to repair the building, after numerous construction defects turned up including “missing firestops in numerous walls, missing grout and steel rebar in block-wall, emergency stair towers, faulty electrical wiring and no provision for firestopping in the first-floor garage ceiling.” City officials “were faulted by Montgomery County Common Pleas Court judges for not properly inspecting the construction.”
Charles Madracchia, past Customers Bank attorney and current Homeowner attorney, is “continuing active litigation in both federal and state court.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
City in Ohio Sues Over Alleged Roof Defects
October 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe city of Worthington “is suing the architect and general contractor responsible for constructing the addition to the Worthington Community Center in 2002,” according to ThisWeek Community News. The city is demanding $1.3 million “to replace the roof on the fitness center and pool addition, which is 12 years old.”
Moody-Nolan, the architect, and Apex/M&P, the general contractor, have been named as defendants in the case. According to the complaint (as reported by ThisWeek), “experts retained by the city found that the roof has failed ‘due to unknown latent design defects and construction defects that have resulted in property damage.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The EPA’s Renovation, Repair, and Painting Rule: Are Contractors Aware of It?
March 12, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFRemodeling Magazine reported recently that some remodelers are unaware of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule despite that it took effect back in April of 2010.
“There are still quite a few remodelers who have never heard of RRP,” Mark Schlager, president of Access Training Services, an EPA and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) trainer in Pennsauken, N.J. told Remodeling Magazine.
According to the article, “The RRP rule applies to homes, apartments, and child-occupied commercial facilities built before 1978.” There are two RRP certifications required on every job: “a “Firm” certification for the company that contracts to do the work, and a “Renovator” certification for the person overseeing the work. A solo operator needs both certifications, which are good for five years.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend
February 28, 2022 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThis post in our
Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series discusses the Montana Supreme Court’s consideration of an insurer’s duty to defend in
National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021).
For 67 years, W.R. Grace & Company’s mining operations spread asbestos through the town of Libby, Montana,
causing elevated rates of asbestosis and asbestos-related cancer in Libby residents – even among those who never worked in the mine. The Environmental Protection Agency deemed the Libby Mine the
“most significant single source of asbestos exposure” in US history.
In 2000, Libby residents began filing lawsuits against the State of Montana, alleging that the State had failed to warn them about the mine’s danger, and this failure contributed to their bodily injuries. Id. at 521-22. The Libby plaintiffs’ asbestos exposures and related injuries had occurred decades earlier, and so the State searched its storage units for records of any potentially applicable insurance policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Payment Remedies: You May be Able to Skate by, But Why?
April 06, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogMy grandfather used to say that “anything worth doing, is worth doing well.”
It wasn’t until later that I learned the quote wasn’t his, but a quote from Philip Stanhope the Fourth Earl of Chesterfield, who said in his posthumously published and quite lengthily titled Letters to His Son on the Art of Becoming a Man of the World and a Gentleman, that “whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well.” I’m not sure where my grandfather, who wasn’t a man of letters, picked up this quote, but I like his version better.
While “anything worth doing, is worth doing well” can be said to apply to a wide variety of things in life, including living itself, it applies equally to the world of construction payment remedies, which have requirements that are both detailed and deadline driven.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.
The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”
Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.
After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.
La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.
La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”
The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”
The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.
As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
