Anaheim California Building Consultant Directory

Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails

November 25, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the insured's complaint requesting coverage for hail damage and a claim for bad faith. Rodriquez v. State Farm Lloyds, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160007 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2024). Mr. Rodriquez sought coverage under his homeowners policy after a hail and wind storm damaged his roof. After inspection, State Farm agreed that some minimal loss caused by hail was covered, but determined that the covered loss was less than the amount of the deductible. State Farm further determined that any hail damage to the roof was excluded by an endorsement, Exclusion of Cosmetic Loss to Metal Roof Coverings Caused by Hail. State Farm also determined that some damage was caused by previous faulty workmanship or wear and tear, both of which were excluded from coverage. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

It’s Not What You Were Thinking!

December 10, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
At least it is not what the lower court was thinking… but the same result for a general contractor seeking to have its comprehensive general liability insurer pay the GC’s defense related to claims for physical damage on a construction project. In reviewing the Massachusetts federal district court’s ruling in favor of the insurer, the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals posited: “The principal question is whether a general contractor’s CGL insurance policy covers damage to a non-defective part of the contractor’s project resulting from a subcontractor’s defective work on a different part of that project.” The district court had held under Massachusetts law that the insurer had no duty to defend because the lawsuit “did not allege ‘property damage’ caused by an ‘ occurrence,’ as required for coverage” under the policy (a defense that was urged by the insurer). The Court of Appeals affirmed, “albeit for different reasons.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Bright-Line Changes: Prompt Payment Act Trends

September 16, 2024 — Stephanie L. Cooksey - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Untimely payment by the owner for contract work and additional work on construction projects can place an unfair financial burden on contractors and subcontractors. Most states have attempted to eliminate or mitigate this inequity in construction contracting through Prompt Payment Acts that govern payment deadlines and provide remedies for untimely payment. This article addresses the legislative trends aimed at minimizing the risk of non-payment, overdue payment, and withholding retainage in favor of downstream parties to a construction contract. Fortifying Contractor Protections with “Bright-Line” Language Over the last decade, states have been tightening prompt payment laws by replacing broad, general statutory language with bright-line rules. What is a bright-line rule? A specific or definite figure, a quantifiable marker—i.e., something owners, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers should be aware of. Practically speaking, the more bright-line a prompt payment statute is, the greater the likelihood it will affect a construction project in your state. A standard form construction contract, if not reviewed carefully, can create conflicts or confusion if it gives a party more leeway on payment deadlines than the applicable Prompt Payment Act. For example, consider an owner-issued Construction Change Directive (“CCD”) that requires a contractor to commence additional work immediately while a formal change order is negotiated. Consequently, a CCD can push financial burdens downstream, whether inadvertently or not, and may conflict with statutory payment deadlines. Nevertheless, an owner can be justified in its utilization of a CCD to maintain the project schedule. How should the parties competing interests be resolved? Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in “The Best Lawyers in America” & “Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch” 2025 Editions

August 19, 2024 — Wilke Fleury LLP
2025 Best Lawyers & Ones to Watch George Guthrie, Best Lawyer Adriana Cervantes, One to Watch Steven Williamson, Best Lawyer Jason Eldred, One to Watch Daniel Foster, Best Lawyer David Frenznick, Best Lawyer Kathryne Baldwin, One to Watch Daniel Egan, Best Lawyer Wilke Fleury is extremely proud to have five attorneys recognized in The Best Lawyers in America and three attorneys recognized in the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America! Best Lawyers has been regarded by lawyers and the public for more than 40 years as the most credible measure of legal integrity and distinction in the United States. Congratulations to this talented group! Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wilke Fleury LLP

Bremer Whyte Sets New Precedent in Palos Verdes Landslide Litigation

August 26, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
In what is believed to be a groundbreaking new precedent, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s Los Angeles litigation team has obtained a landmark ruling on behalf of residents in the “Portuguese Bend” neighborhood of Palos Verdes, California. Congratulations to Partner Michael D’Andrea and Senior Associate Shelly Mosallaei in receiving this result for our clients. Plaintiff, a real estate developer, sued a number of local residents and property owners, including our client, alleging that their failure to address landslides and geological disturbances around Plaintiff’s property constituted a legal trespass and nuisance. Plaintiff alleged that its plans to develop multiple lots in Palos Verdes was thwarted because Defendant’s soil and land encroached onto Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff’s suit against multiple residents created an uproar in the community regarding who was ultimately responsible (if anyone) for natural soils movement that has plagued this neighborhood for years. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Not a Waiver for All: Maryland Declines to Apply Subrogation Waiver to Subcontractors

September 23, 2024 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Lithko Contr., LLC v. XL Ins. Am. Inc., No. 31, Sept. Term, 2023, 2024 Md. LEXIS 256, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered whether a tenant who contracted for the construction of a large warehouse facility waived its insurer’s rights to subrogation against subcontractors when it agreed to waive subrogation against the general contractor. The court ultimately decided that the unambiguous language of the subrogation waiver in the development agreement between the parties did not extend to subcontractors. The court also held that the tenant’s requirement that subcontracts include a subrogation waiver did not, in this case, impose a project-wide waiver on all parties. The court, however, found that the requirement that the subcontracts include a similar, but not identical, waiver provision rendered the subcontract’s waiver clauses ambiguous and remanded the case to the lower court to determine if the parties to the development agreement – i.e., Duke Baltimore LLC (“Duke”) and Amazon.com.dedc, LLC (“Amazon”) – intended that the waiver clause in the subcontracts covered claims against subcontractors. This case involved roof and structural damage to a warehouse in Baltimore, Maryland that Duke owned. In March 2014, Amazon entered into a development agreement with Duke for the construction of the warehouse. Amazon also agreed to subsequently lease the warehouse from Duke. Although Amazon essentially owned and/or developed the project, the development agreement identified Duke as “Landlord” and Amazon as “Tenant.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Takeaways From Schedule-Based Dispute Between General Contractor and Subcontractor

September 09, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida, Berkley Insurance Co. v. Suffolk Construction Co., Case 1:19-cv-23059-KMW (S.D.Fla. July 22, 2024), provides valuable takeaways on schedule-based disputes between a general contractor and subcontractor on a high-rise project. In a nutshell, the general contractor’s original project schedule was abandoned due to project delays and the project wasn’t being built by any updated project schedule. The subcontractor claimed the general contractor was mismanaging the schedule putting unreasonable manpower and supervision constraints on it, i.e., it was working inefficiently. A bench trial was conducted and the Court found in favor of the subcontractor’s arguments. The Court found the general contractor had unrelated delays and that work activities were no longer methodical but, simply, piecemeal demands. The Court also rejected any inadequate manpower arguments finding the subcontract did not place any manpower requirements on the subcontractor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

No Prejudicial Error in Refusing to Give Jury Instruction on Predominant Cause

November 11, 2024 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment after the jury determined there was no coverage for a leaking pipe. Mendoza v. Pacific Spec. Ins. Co., 2024 Cal. App. Unpub. EXIS 5477 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 20, 2024). The Mendoza's third amended complaint alleged their home was damaged "by overflow of water from the dwelling's plumbing system resulting from a broken pipe, which overflow undermined the structural integrity of the dwelling." The Mendozas insured their home under a policy issued by Pacific. The policy insured the property against "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" except where expressly excluded. The Mendozas submitted a claim Pacific paid approximately $1800 for the loss and closed the claim. The amount paid did not include payment for any structural damage to the home. The Mendozas alleged that Pacific's failure to conduct a full and fair investigation into the structural damage and its inadequate payment of benefits was a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA BUILDING CONSULTANT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES