Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

Illinois Supreme Court Holds that Constructions Defects May Constitute “Property Damage” Caused By An “Occurrence” Under Standard CGL Policy, Overruling Prior Appellate Court Precedent

January 08, 2024 — Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
On November 30, 2023, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion that overturned precedent in Illinois regarding whether faulty workmanship that only caused damage to the insured’s own work constituted “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under Illinois law. In Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC, 2023 IL 129087, the Illinois Supreme Court considered whether Acuity, a mutual insurance company, had a duty to defend its additional insured, M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (M/I Homes), under a subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy in connection with an underlying lawsuit brought by a townhome owners’ association for breach of contract and breach of an implied warranty of habitability. The Cook County Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of Acuity finding no duty to defend because the underlying complaint did not allege “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the initial grant of coverage of the insurance policy. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Acuity owed M/I Homes a duty to defend. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, in part, holding construction defects to the general contractor’s own work may constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” under the standard CGL Policy. This is significant as it overrules prior Illinois precedent finding that repair or replacement of the insured’s defective work does not satisfy the initial grant of coverage of a CGL Policy. By way of background, the underlying litigation stems from alleged construction defects in a residential townhome development in the village of Hanover Park, Illinois. The townhome owners’ association, through its board of directors (the Association) subsequently filed an action on behalf of the townhome owners for breach of contract and breach of the implied warranty of habitability against M/I Homes as the general contractor and successor developer/seller of the townhomes. The Association alleged that M/I Homes’ subcontractors caused construction defects by using defective materials, conducting faulty workmanship, and failing to comply with applicable building codes. As a result, “[t]he [d]efects caused physical injury to the [t]ownhomes (i.e. altered the exterior’s appearance, shape, color or other material dimension) after construction of the [t]ownhome[ ] was completed from repeated exposure to substantially the same general conditions.” The defects included “leakage and/or uncontrolled water and/or moisture in locations in the buildings where it was not intended or expected.” The Association alleged that the “[d]efects have caused substantial damage to the [t]ownhomes and damage to other property.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com

Federal Court Reiterates Broad Duty to Defend in Additional Insured Cases

April 22, 2024 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co., No. 21-CV-7189 (FB) (JRC), 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44634 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2024), the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of New York had occasion to consider an additional insured tender on behalf of a prime contractor, Archstone, to a subcontractor, Topline, who was named as a direct defendant in a New York labor law case. Even though Topline’s carrier put forth evidence that Topline was not negligent, the court held, under New York’s broad duty to defend, that Topline’s carrier owed a duty to defend the prime contractor. Initially, the court was satisfied that a purchase order, signed only by Topline and not Archstone, was binding on Topline. That purchase order specified that Topline agreed to name Archstone as an additional insured. With respect to the duty to defend, the court found that it was enough that the underlying plaintiff alleged that all defendants, including Topline, were negligent in permitting a ladder that plaintiff was on to remain in a defective condition and in failing to foresee the existence of a hazard from the condition of the subject ladder. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim

January 22, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The magistrate judge recommended a determination that the insurer owed a defense to the subcontractor sued for faulty workmanship. Hanover Lloyds Ins Co. v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180877 (W.D. Texas Oct. 5, 2023). Poe Investments, Ltd. entered into an agreement with Jordan Foster Construction, LLC for construction of an auto sales and service facility ("Facility"). Jordan hired multiple subcontractors, including Texas Electrical Contractors, LLC ("TEC"). Subsequently, Poe sold the Facility to 6330 Montana, LLC ("Montana"). Montana filed suit against Jordan for breach of express warranties, breach of contract, and negligence. Jordon filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including TEC. Jordan alleged that TEC provided "defective and negligent construction work" while carrying out the provision and installation of electrical and fire alarm systems at the Facility. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

The Increasing Trend of Caps in Construction Contracts and Negotiating Them

November 27, 2023 — Jarred Trauth - ConsensusDocs
Risks are inherent in every construction project and all parties involved face them: owners, designers, general contractors/builders, subcontractors, suppliers…. Equitably allocating such risks is one of the most important and most negotiated areas of any construction related contract. Limitations of liability provisions are key to risk allocation. These provisions include no damage for delay provisions and caps on delay damages, warranty limitations and exclusions, indemnity limitations, and consequential damage waivers. Another, and the focus of this article, is a liability cap fixing the total amount of damages for which a party may be liable under the contract (the “Liability Cap”). Liability Caps have become more and more common in construction and construction related contracts, including major component supply agreements and design agreements. This article will discuss Liability Caps generally and considerations of an owner or contractor negotiating them, including carve-outs (i.e. exceptions) to them. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jarred Trauth, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Trauth may be contacted at jtrauth@joneswalker.com

HB24-1014: A Warning Bell for Colorado Businesses Amid Potential Consumer Protection Changes

February 26, 2024 — Jennifer Brockel - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
HB24-1014 stands to eliminate the longstanding public impact requirement found within C.R.S. § 6-1-105(2) of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). While this proposed change professes the noblest intentions of “public peace, health or safety,” its effect portends a large detriment to Colorado business and an astronomical payday for Colorado plaintiffs’ attorneys. Brief History For over 100 years, Colorado recognized the need to protect its citizens from deceptive trade practices through a mechanism akin to the Federal Trade Commission Act that preceded it. In 1915, Colorado passed legislation prohibiting “untrue, deceptive, or misleading” advertising. C.L. 1921 § 6942 evolved into the broader protections afforded in the more recent consumer protection law from 1969 that prohibited “deceptive trade practices, and included protections from unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive acts or practices.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer Brockel, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Brockel may be contacted at brockel@hhmrlaw.com

The Word “Estimate” in a Contract Matters as to a Completion Date

February 12, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Language in a contract matters. The word “estimates” or “estimated” matters particularly when it comes to a date certain such as a substantial completion or completion date. Remember this. Here is an example. In Parque Towers Developers, LLC v. Pilac Management, Ltd., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D190a (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), a trial court held that the developer did not complete the construction of five condominium units by the date in the purchase agreements. The developer appealed because “[t]he agreements contain no date certain for the completion of the units, but rather include a clause that ‘Seller estimates it will substantially complete construction of the Unit, in the manner specified in this Agreement, by December 31, 2017, subject to extensions resulting from ‘Force Majeure (the ‘Outside Date’).’” Parque Towers, supra. Another provision in the purchase agreements stated, “[w]henver this Agreement requires Seller to complete or substantially complete any item of construction, that item will be understood to be complete or substantially complete when so completed or substantially completed in Seller’s opinion. Id. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Seabold Construction Ties Demise to Dispute with Real Estate Developer

April 29, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
When Harry W. Seabold, co-founder and CEO of Seabold Construction, died unexpectedly in January 2023 at age 69, the Beaverton, Ore.-based general contractor, which had been in business since 1984, kept chugging along for a year on two adjacent North Portland apartment projects. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story...

Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership

November 16, 2023 — Ari Altstedter - Bloomberg
A landmark condominium project in one of Toronto’s ritziest neighborhoods has been put into receivership after construction delays and cost overruns. Construction of the 85-story tower will be taken over by a court-appointed receiver after its owners, developer Sam Mizrahi and investor Jenny Coco, defaulted on part of the project’s nearly C$1.7 billion in debt ($1.2 billion), according to a Wednesday order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Two funds run by South Korea-based IGIS Asset Management Co. applied for the receivership. Another IGIS fund will extend at least another C$315 million to continue work on the project, court documents said. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ari Altstedter, Bloomberg

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES