Category Archives: Construction Defects

CGL INSURER’S (HAVE NO!) DUTIES OF DEFENSE AND INDEMNITY UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 558

Posted on by


I previously wrote an article regarding Florida Statutes Chapter 558 and its pre-lawsuit application to construction defects.  In particular, I discussed a claimant’s (e.g., owner) requirement to submit a written notice of construction defects to potentially responsible parties and those parties rights under Chapter 558. 

 

When a party (e.g., contractor, subcontractor, design professional) receives a written notice of construction defects pursuant to Chapter 558, that party should notify its insurer (CGL or professional liability, as applicable) of a construction defect claim.  This is generally the prudent avenue to ensure timely notice is given to the insurer and that the insurer starts to pay defense costs as a party participates in the Chapter 558 pre-lawsuit process. 

 

But, what if the CGL insurer refuses to pay a party’s defense costs in participating in the pre-lawsuit process set out in Chapter 558?  The recent opinion in Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Foster Specialty Ins. Co., 2015 WL 3539755 (S.D.Fla. 2015) deals with this very issue.

 

In this case, a general contractor received written notices of construction defects from a condominium association per Chapter 558. The general contractor notified its CGL insurer of the written notices of defects and demanded that its insurer defend and indemnify it in connection with the notices.  The CGL insurer denied it had any duties with respect to a written notice of defects under Chapter 558 since the matter was “not in suit.”  Subsequently, the insurer claimed it would participate in the pre-lawsuit Chapter 558 process, but that it was going to hire its preferred counsel to represent the general contractor.  The general contractor objected and filed a lawsuit against its CGL insurer seeking a declaration of rights under the policy that (a) the CGL insurer’s duty to defend the general contractor was triggered upon the general contractor’s receipt of the written notice of defects per Chapter 558 and (b) the CGL insurer was responsible for paying the general contractor’s private counsel’s defense costs from the time the CGL insurer was placed on notice of the written notice of defects claim.

 

In analyzing this issue, the court examined the following language in the general contractor’s CGL policy (common language in CGL policies):

 

We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking those damages. However, we will have no duty to defend the insured against any “suit” seeking damages for “bodily injury” or “property damage” to which this insurance does not apply. We may, at our discretion, investigate any “occurrence” and settle any claim or “suit” that may result.

***

“Suit” means a civil proceeding in which damages because of “bodily injury,” “property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” to which this insurance applies are alleged. “Suit” includes:

a. An arbitration proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured must submit or does submit with our consent; or

b. Any other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured submits with our consent.

Altman Contractors, supra, at *5, 6.

 

 

As reflected by the CGL policy’s language, the policy required the CGL insurer to defend the general contractor against any “suit,” and the term “suit” was defined as a “civil proceeding.”  The court looked at the ordinary definition / meaning of a civil proceeding and determined that the ordinary meaning was a judicial proceeding.  Since the court determined that a Chapter 558 written notice of defects claim did NOT constitute a “civil proceeding” under the CGL policy, it concluded that the CGL insurer had NO duty to defend or indemnify the general contractor under the Chapter 558 pre-lawsuit process.

 

Takeaways:

  • If your CGL policy contains analogous language to the policy in this case regarding the definition of “suit,” there is a strong chance that your CGL insurer has NO duty to defend or indemnify you in the Chapter 558 notice of defects pre-lawsuit process. This means a party has to incur its own defense costs in participating in Chapter’s 558 pre-lawsuit process. This also means any decision a party makes in Chapter’s 558 pre-lawsuit process is probably not reimbursable.
  • If your CGL insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify you in connection with a written notice of defects under Chapter 558, this means you need to be sued for the alleged defects in order to trigger the CGL insurer’s duty to defend and indemnify you under the policy.
  • It is still good practice to notify your insurer of a written notice of defects under Chapter 558.  And, if you are a claimant, it is still good practice to notify potentially responsible parties’ insurers of the written notice of defects.  There are insurers that will assume the defense obligation at this point even though a lawsuit has not been initiated.  But, as reflected in this case, the insurer may hire their own counsel instead of the insured’s preferred choice of counsel to do so (which also means that the insurer plans on using its preferred choice of counsel if/when a lawsuit is filed against the insured).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

IS THE 10 YEAR STATUTE OF REPOSE FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS REALLY A 10 YEAR STATUTE OF REPOSE?

Posted on by


It is time for a very favorable case for an owner that experiences latent defects.  In construction defect cases, there is a ten-year statute of repose to sue for latent defects.  Specifically, under Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c), the “action must be commenced within 10 years after the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest.  Stated differently, the latent defect lawsuit must be commenced no later than 10 years from the latest of one of the specified conditions or else the lawsuit is forever barred.

 

The question is when does the ten-year repose period really begin to run; what condition specifically triggers the running of the period.   The Fifth District Court of Appeal in Cypress Fairway Condominium v. Bergeron Construction Co. Inc., 40 Fla. L. Weekly D1097b (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) concluded that the statute of repose in a construction defect case began to run on the completion of the contract which was the date the owner made final payment under the contract. Naturally, the completion of the contract would be the latest condition and completion does not occur until the owner fulfills its obligation by making final payment.

What does this mean?  This means that the repose period does NOT commence when construction is actually completed or when the certificate of occupancy is issued.  Rather, it commences when the owner tenders final payment to its contractor (after it accepts the construction and punchlist work).

 

The ramifications of this type of opinion are unknown and potentially scary.  What if the owner withholds payment and does not make final payment for months if not years after the contractor completed construction and the owner has received a certificate of occupancy.  Maybe there is a dispute as to punchlist or warranty items that results in the owner not making final payment.  Does the owner get the benefit of withholding money or delaying making final payment?  Perhaps.

 

There have been recent cases that have been fairly generous to owners with respect to the statute of repose in construction defect cases.  Thus, if you are an owner and discover latent defects, consult with counsel because all may not be lost regarding a potential defect lawsuit.  And, if you are a contractor, do not automatically dismiss a construction defect lawsuit as being outside of the statute of repose and be sure to consult with counsel to best protect your interests.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

CGL INSURANCE AND CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS (DUTY TO DEFEND; TRIGGERING OF CGL POLICY; COVERED RESULTING DAMAGE)

Posted on by


I previously wrote about insurance coverage issues in a construction defect dispute, specifically in the context of the insurer denying coverage outright and refusing to defend its insured.

 

As a sequel to this posting, a noteworthy opinion was issued by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Carithers v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2015 WL 1529038 (11th Cir. 2015) in a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance coverage dispute dealing with construction defects to a house.   This opinion discusses central issues to an insurance coverage dispute in a construction defect context: the triggering of a CGL policy, the duty to defend, the duty to indemnify, covered resulting damage stemming from construction defects, and a claimant resolving a dispute with an insured in order to pursue rights against the insured’s CGL carrier (also known as a Coblentz agreement).

 

In this case, the owners hired a general contractor to build their house.  The general contractor had CGL insurance with products completed operations coverage.  Upon discovering construction defects, the owners sued the general contractor.  The general contractor’s insurer refused to defend the general contractor, meaning the insurer denied coverage (which is the last thing the general contractor ever wants to hear).  The insurer denied coverage because the complaint alleged that the damages were not discovered until 2010; however, the general contractor did not have any CGL coverage after 2008.  Thus, if the manifestation theory applied to trigger coverage (discussed below), there would be no coverage under the CGL policy.

 

The general contractor and insurer then entered into a consent judgment in the action for $90,000 in favor of the owners that assigned to the owners the general contractor’s rights under its CGL policy.  (This forms the framework for what is known as a Coblentz agreement.)  The owners then sued the general contractor’s CGL insurer.

 

The issues in this case were (a) the insurer’s duty to defend its general contractor-insured, (b) the triggering of an occurrence under a CGL policy, and (c) resulting damage covered under the CGL policy.

 

(A) Duty to Defend

 

The insurer’s duty to defend is triggered by the allegations in the complaint.  Here, the Eleventh Circuit held that the insurer had a duty to defend because the duty to defend is broader than the insurer’s duty to indemnify and “all doubts as to whether a duty to defend exists in a particular case must be resolved against the insurer and in favor of the insured.” Carithers, supra, at *4 (quotation and citation omitted). “An insurance company must defend an action where the facts alleged against the insured would give rise to coverage, even if those facts are not ultimately proven at trial.”  Id. 

 

(B) Triggering of an Occurrence Under CGL Policy

 

The insurer wanted the manifestation theory to trigger CGL coverage.  Under this theory, the CGL policy is triggered if the damage is discovered (manifests itself) during the policy period.  

 

The reason the insurer wanted this theory to apply is because the owners admitted that they discovered the damage / defects in 2010 when the general contractor’s CGL policy was no longer in effect.

 

Conversely, the owners wanted the injury-in-fact theory to apply to trigger coverage.  Under this theory, the policy is triggered when the damage occurs even if the damage is not discovered until sometime later.  Here, the trial court found that the damage occurred in 2005 when the general contractor’s CGL carrier was in effect (although the damage was not discovered until 2010).  Because there was evidence and a finding as to when the damage occurred, the Eleventh Circuit held that the injury-in-fact theory was the correct theory to trigger CGL coverage.

 

(C) Resulting Damage Covered Under a CGL Policy

 

The cost of repairing damage to other work resulting from faulty workmanship would be covered under the CGL policy.  In other words, repairing damage to another trade’s work would be covered but repairing / replacing damage to the trade’s own work would not be covered.  The Eleventh Circuit analyzed this application to determine whether the trial court appropriately determined that certain items were resulting damage.

 

(1)  Brick

 

The trial could found that the defective application of exterior brick coating caused resulting damage to the brick itself.  If the exterior brick coating was applied by the subcontractor that installed the brick, then the brick should not be covered since the brick was the subcontractor’s own work as opposed to other work.  However, there was no evidence at the trial level whether the brick coating and installation of the brick was done by the same subcontractor or different subcontractors.  Because the plaintiff owners (who were assigned rights under the policy by the general contractor insured) had the burden of proof on this issue, which they failed to meet, the Eleventh Circuit reversed any damage awarded associated with the brick.

 

(2)  The Tile and Mud Base

 

The trial court found that defective adhesive and an inadequate base caused damage to the tile.  The trial court awarded damage to replace the tile and mud base. Similar to the brick, the issue turned on whether the installation of the tile and mud base was done by the same subcontractor or different subcontractors.  And, similar to the brick, no evidence was offered on this point so the Eleventh Circuit reversed any damage awarded associated with the tile and mud base.

 

(3)  Balcony

 

The trial court found that defects in the construction of the balcony resulted in damage to the garage. However, because the balcony had to be rebuilt in order to repair the garage, the trial court held that this work was resulting damage covered by the CGL policy.  The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the trial court holding that the cost of repairing damage resulting from defective work is covered and since repairing the balcony was part of repairing the garage, these costs would be covered.

 

Important take-aways:

  • This case provides strong arguments to an insured when its CGL carrier denies coverage, specifically based on the argument that its policy was never triggered.  Remember, the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify so any doubts must be resolved in favor of the insured.
  • Don’t forget about the injury-in-fact theory to trigger CGL coverage.  If you have evidence, such as an expert opinion, as to when the damage started to occur, this theory can be valuable if the owner discovered the latent defects after the expiration of your CGL policy.  This helps an owner maximize CGL coverage and a general contractor maximize coverage under its CGL policy.
  • Make sure to meet your burden of proof to establish resulting damage or other damage caused by faulty workmanship.  Make sure to prove that the resulting damage was work performed by a different subcontractor and not the subcontractor that performed the faulty workmanship. And, to this point, make sure to include appropriate language in the consent judgment.
  • Make sure you know how to couch your coverage arguments to an insurer in order to maximize insurance coverage.
  • If your insurer denies coverage, consider entering into what is known as a Coblentz agreement with the claimant where a consent judgment is entered against you and rights under your policy are assigned to the claimant.  The benefit is that in consideration of the consent judgment and assignment of rights, the claimant gives up any rights to collect that judgment against you. 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

REQUESTING LIABILITY INSURANCE INFORMATION FROM RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FOR CONSTRUCTION OR DESIGN DEFECTS (FLA. STAT. s. 627.4137)

Posted on by


If you are an owner and discover construction or design defects, you are going to want consult with a lawyer to make sure you know your rights under Florida Statutes Chapter 558.  This includes sending a written notice of the construction or design defects identifying the defects with sufficient detail to the potentially responsible parties.  Likewise, if you are a contractor and receive this written notice, you are going to want to make sure you forward that letter to potentially responsible parties (subcontractors or suppliers). 

 

Coupled with this written notice of defects letter should be a written request on the parties and their known insurance agents and insurers for their liability insurance information.  Start with culling Certificates of Insurance you have on these parties to obtain (some) of this information as to whom to send the request to.  This request can be in a separate letter or the same letter (as the notice of defects letter) and should reference Florida Statute s. 627.4137 and request the information in the below statutory language:

 

(1) Each insurer which does or may provide liability insurance coverage to pay all or a portion of any claim which might be made shall provide, within 30 days of the written request of the claimant, a statement, under oath, of a corporate officer or the insurer’s claims manager or superintendent setting forth the following information with regard to each known policy of insurance, including excess or umbrella insurance:

(a) The name of the insurer.

(b) The name of each insured.

(c) The limits of the liability coverage.

(d) A statement of any policy or coverage defense which such insurer reasonably believes is available to such insurer at the time of filing such statement.

(e) A copy of the policy.

In addition, the insured, or her or his insurance agent, upon written request of the claimant or the claimant’s attorney, shall disclose the name and coverage of each known insurer to the claimant and shall forward such request for information as required by this subsection to all affected insurers. The insurer shall then supply the information required in this subsection to the claimant within 30 days of receipt of such request.

 

As discussed in prior articles, insurance is an important aspect of construction and design defect disputes. 

 

If you are an owner, you want to understand potential insurance coverage so that you know how to best maximize any claim for insurance coverage against potentially liable parties.  This includes knowing the limits of liability in any commercial general liability (CGL) or professional liability / errors & omissions policy, as applicable, and whether there is any umbrella / excess policy.  This also includes understanding the exclusions in the policies and whether there are endorsements that add or modify exclusions in the policy.

 

If you are a general contractor, you also want to understand potential insurance coverage from subcontractors and other entities you are looking to flow-down an owner’s defect claims (ideally, through contractual indemnification language in your subcontract).  Also, you are going to want to make sure you have additional insured status under these parties’ liability policies so that they contribute to the fees and costs incurred in your defense.  For this reason, you also want to obtain copies of subcontractor insurance polices including all endorsements.  Besides the limits of liability, you want to see the additional insured endorsement in the policy, and any endorsements that add or modify exclusions in the policy. 

 

If you are a subcontractor, if you subcontracted aspects of your scope of work or there is a claim associated with deficient material you furnished, you also want to obtain this insurance information from these potentially liable entities because you are also going to try to flow-down liability (ideally, through contractual indemnification language in your subcontract).

And, if you are a manufacturer, if a claim is asserted against you arising out of the installation of that product, you also want to obtain insurance information from any authorized dealer or installer (perhaps through any agreement you have with that dealer or installer that would require this entity to indemnify you and name you as an additional insured).  

 

One of the underlying reasons for s. 627.4137 is so that parties can obtain insurance coverage information and make reasonably informed decisions about settling a matter.  In other words, you don’t want to settle a dispute for policy limits if you have damages that may exceed policy limits and find out the responsible party has additional or excess insurance to cover the excess damages. See, e.g., Schlosser v. Perez, 832 So.2d 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (in non-construction case, noncompliance with s. 627.4137 rendered settlement unenforceable). But, this statute does not create a private cause of action by a third-party if an insurer fails to timely provide this information. Any potential recourse the third-party would have, if any, against the insurer would have to be after the third-party obtains a judgment against the underlying insured. Lucente v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 591 So.2d 1126, 1127-28 (4th DCA 1992) (“[T]he statute does not contain an implicit cause of action for a third-party against an insurance company.”);  see also Brannan v. Geico Indemnity Co., 569 Fed.Appx. 724, 728 (11th Cir. 2014)  (“But Brannan fails to point to any legal authority to show that s. 627.4137 creates a first-party private cause of action against an insurer [for failure to comply with the statute.]”).

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

CONSTRUCTION / DESIGN DEFECTS AND RIGHTS UNDER FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 558

Posted on by


Construction / design defects are an unfortunate byproduct of construction.  If you are an owner or association and experience defects, you will become familiar with Florida Statutes Chapter 558 since this Chapter deals with defects and serving a written notice of the defects.  Likewise, if you are a contractor, design professional, supplier, or subcontractor and defects are asserted against you, you will also become familiar with Chapter 558.  This Chapter requires a claimant to serve written notice of the defects (identifying the defects with sufficient detail) to the responsible parties as a condition precedent before filing a construction / design defect lawsuit against those parties.

 

A party experiencing construction / design defects or the recipient of a written notice of defects should engage counsel to assist with preserving rights under Chapter 558 and drafting a written notice or response, as applicable.  Below is a synopsis of important time limitations requirements for claimants serving a written notice of defects and parties receiving a written notice of defects:

 Florida Statutes Chapter 558 Procedure

1)    Claimant 60 days before filing construction defect / design defect lawsuit shall serve written notice on contractor, design professional (or others, as applicable) of the defects. The written notice shall reference Florida Statutes Chapter 558 and shall describe the defects with sufficient detail.  This written notice tolls the statute of limitations relating to the party and any applicable bond until the later of 90 days after service of the written notice (or 30 days after any repair or payment period settlement option).

2)    The party receiving the written notice is entitled to perform a reasonable inspection within 30 days of receiving the written notice.  The party may undertake destructive testing under reasonable terms and conditions set forth in more detail in Florida Statute s. 558.004(2).

3)    The party receiving the notice may serve a copy of the written notice to each party it believes responsible for the defect within 10 days of receiving the written notice from the claimant (e.g., subcontractors).  This notice is not to be construed as an admission by the party. The party receiving the notice may conduct an inspection per section 2).

4)    The party receiving a copy of the written notice per section 3) must serve a written response to the party it received the written notice from within 15 days after service of the copy of the notice. The response shall include whether the party is willing to make repairs and, if so, what repairs or whether the claim is disputed.

5)    The party receiving the initial written notice per section 1) shall serve a written response to the claimant within 45 days after service of the claim. The response shall include: 1) whether the party is willing to make repairs and, if so, what repairs; 2) a monetary offer; 3) a combination of money and scope of repairs; or 4) a dispute of the claim.  If a party disputes the claim or fails to timely respond to the written notice, the claimant can proceed with a lawsuit against the party. If the claimant accepts or rejects a repair or monetary settlement option, it must do so within 45 days after receiving the option.

 

Notably, if the claimant is an association representing more than 20 parcels the time limitations identified above are extended, but everything else remains the same:

1)    Claimant shall give the written notice at least 120 days before filing the lawsuit.  This written notice tolls the statute of limitations relating to the party and any applicable bond until the later of 120 days after service of the notice  (or 30 days after any repair or payment period settlement option).

2)    The party receiving the written notice is entitled to perform a reasonable inspection within 50 days.

3)    The party receiving the notice may serve a copy of the written notice to each party it believes responsible for the defect within 30 days of receiving the written notice from the claimant.

4)    The party receiving a copy of the written notice per section 3) must serve a written response to the party it received the written notice from within 30 days after service of the copy of the notice of claim.

5)    The party receiving the initial written notice per section 1) shall serve a written response to the claimant within 75 days after service of the claim.

 

There is more to Chapter 558 than what is set forth above.  Again, a party experiencing defects or provided a written notice of defects should consult counsel to ensure their rights are protected moving forward.

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

SLAVIN DOCTRINE LIVES AND BREATHES (FOR THE BENEFIT OF CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, AND DESIGN PROFESSIONALS)

Posted on by


The Slavin doctrine lives and breathes for the benefit of contractors, subcontractors, and even design professionals!  The Slavin doctrine is a widely used defense in Florida by contractors in personal injury disputes where the contractor is being sued by a third party for injuries the third party suffered caused by defects in the contractor’s work.  This doctrine emanates from the Florida Supreme Court’s case, Slavin v. Kay, 108 So.2d 462 (Fla. 1959), which stands for the proposition that a contractor’s liability in negligence—the duty of care owed to third parties—terminates if the owner accepts the contractor’s work with patent defects.

 

The Slavin doctrine was recently applied in favor of a traffic signal design subconsultant (subcontractor) hired to design traffic signals at an intersection in McIntosh v. Progressive Design and Engineering, Inc., 2015 WL 71931 (Fla. 2015).  The design subconsultant was sued in negligence for a defective traffic signal that caused an accident that killed the plaintiff’s father. The subconsultant argued that the Slavin doctrine applied because a patent defect with the traffic signal was accepted by the Florida Department of Transportation (owner of the project). Although the jury found that the subconsultant was negligent in the design of the traffic signal, the jury held the subconsultant’s liability was terminated because the defect was patent and  accepted by the owner.

 

The plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed the trial court explaining the application of the Slavin doctrine:

 

The Slavin doctrine was born of the need to limit a contractor’s liability to third persons….The Slavin doctrine considers the respective liability of an owner and contractor, after the owner has resumed possession of the construction, for injuries to a third person for negligence of the contractor in the construction of the improvement.

***

Under Slavin, the liability of a contractor is cut off [terminated] after the owner has accepted the work performed, if the alleged defect is a patent defect which the owner could have discovered and remedied. The contractor’s work must be fully completed before the owner becomes liable and the contractor is exonerated. The rationale is that [b]y occupying and resuming possession of the work the owner deprives the contractor of all opportunity to rectify his wrong.

 

McIntosh, 2015 WL at *3 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

 

For a contractor to be relieved of liability under the Slavin doctrine, the defect MUST (1) be patent and (2) accepted by the owner of the project.  The Slavin doctrine would extend to subconsultants and subcontractors as long as a patent defect in their work was accepted by the owner. 

 

A patent defect is a defect that is known or obvious, or a defect reasonably discoverable with the exercise of due diligence / reasonable care.  On the other hand, if the defect is a latent defect (a defect not reasonably discoverable with the exercise of due diligence / reasonable care), the Slavin doctrine does not apply.  As reflected by the Fourth District in McIntosh, it is up to the jury to determine whether the defect is a patent defect or a latent defect. McIntosh, 2015 WL at *4. 

 

Acceptance occurs if the owner accepts the contractor’s work.  McIntosh, 2015 WL at *5.  “Acceptance is the term applied for shifting the responsibility to correct patent defects to the party in control [of the work].” Id.

 

Here, the jury found the defect with the traffic signal was patent and accepted by the owner.  Evidence apparently revealed that an employee of the owner discovered the defect before the car accident.  Evidence further supported the subconsultant’s position that the owner (Florida Department of Transportation) accepted the defect.  The subconsultant’s design was accepted and put out to competitively bid by the owner. At this point, the subconsultant had no control over construction or when the traffic signal would be operational.  And, when the accident occurred, the project had just been completed with the traffic signal in operation.

 

In a personal injury case against a construction professional (whether a contractor, subcontractor, design professional, or subconsultant) the Slavin doctrine remains a viable defense.  Most courts, as exemplified by this case, will let the jury determine the two fundamental components to the Slavin defense: 1) whether the defect was patent and 2) whether the owner accepted the contractor’s work with the patent defect.  In this case, the design subconsultant got the huge benefit of the jury’s verdict, rightfully or wrongfully.  This means that design professionals sued in negligence in a personal injury case should rely on the Fourth District’s application of the Slavin doctrine in this case to get this defense determined by a jury. The design professional should always be able to argue the owner accepted the design and put the design out to bid; the owner knew the design was not perfect and accepted patent errors and omissions in the design; the design professional had no control over construction or when construction would be completed such that the project would be operational / utilized by the owner; and the owner accepted the work by allowing the project to be utilized even though it had control to remedy the patent defect.    

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

 

WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AND LOSS OF USE DAMAGES (IN CONSTRUCTION / DESIGN DEFECT DISPUTE)

Posted on by


In construction / design defect cases, a plaintiff (party proving defect) may assert a category of damages referred to as loss of use damages.  Importantly, if your contract includes a waiver of consequential damages, these types of damages will not be recoverable.  This is a significant issue to consider when entering into a construction contract, especially when you are the owner of the project, because if you do not want to waive a party you hire of consequential damages (such as loss of use damages), then you do not want to include a waiver of consequential damages in your contract or, at a minimum, you want to carve out exceptions to the waiver of consequential damages.  Stated differently, this is an issue and risk you want to consider on the front end because even though construction / design defects are not anticipated, they do occur.

 

In a construction / design defect scenario, an owner’s consequential damages would generally be those damages unrelated to repairing the defect.  For instance, loss of use of the property or lost rental income to an owner during the implementation of the repairs would be a consequential damage that would be waived by a waiver of consequential damages provision in an owner’s contract.

 

An example of a waiver of consequential damages provision found in the AIA A201 (general conditions of the construction contract between an owner and contractor) is as follows:

 

The Contractor and Owner waive Claims against each other for consequential damages arising out of or relating to this Contract. This mutual waiver includes

.1  damages incurred by the Owner for rental expenses, for losses of use, income, profit, financing, business and reputation, and for loss of management or employee productivity or of the services of such persons; and

.2  damages incurred by the Contractor for principal office expenses including the compensation of personnel stationed there, for losses of financing, business and reputation, and for loss of profit except anticipated profit arising directly from the Work.

This mutual waiver is applicable, without limitation, to all consequential damages due to either party’s termination in accordance with Article 14. Nothing contained in this Section 15.1.6 shall be deemed to preclude an award of liquidated damages, when applicable, in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents.

(See AIA A201-2007, s. 15.1.6)

 

Now, if loss of use damages are not contractually waived, the recent decision in Gonzalez v. Barrenechea, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D258a (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), illustrates how an owner can recover these types of damages when there is a construction / design defect.  In this case, an owner sued its architect for design errors with the HVAC system in a newly constructed home.  The owner was forced to engage a new design professional to address the deficiencies.  It took the owner 20 months to repair the deficiencies during which the owner claimed he could not live (or use) his new house.  Although the owner did not live in the house, there was evidence that the owner had some use of the house.  For instance, the owner’s son slept in the house on an intermittent basis, the owner docked his boat at the dock behind the house, furniture was stored in the house, and the owner had cars parked in the garage.

 

Notwithstanding some use of the house, the owner put on testimony of an expert real estate appraiser that testified that the owner incurred lost rental value of approximately $15,500 per month during the 20-month repair period.  The architect argued that this rate was flawed because the expert failed to factor in the use the owner had of the house during the 20-month period.  The trial court agreed and denied the owner the loss of use damages.

 

The Third District Court reversed the trial court finding that the owner was entitled to loss of use damages:

 

Under Florida law, a homeowner that loses the use of a structure because of delay in its completion is entitled to damages for that lost use. Florida courts have held that “[d]amages for delay in construction are measured by the rental value of the building under construction during the period of delay.”

Gonzalez, supra, quoting Fisher Island Holdings, LLC v. Cohen, 983 So.2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

 

Furthermore, because the architect failed to put on any evidence as to what the rental value of the house should have been during the 20-month period factoring in the owner’s use of the house during this period, there was nothing to refute the owner’s rental rate.

 

This case touches upon important take-aways:

 

  • Consider the risk of a waiver of consequential damages provision on the front end, especially if you are an owner.  Likewise, if you are a contractor or design professional, you want to consider the risk of not having such a waiver of consequential damages.
  • Loss of use damages are recoverable in a construction / design defect case absent a contractual waiver of consequential damages.
  • An owner can introduce evidence of loss of use damages through an expert real estate appraiser that can testify as to the rental rate of the property during the repair period.
  • A contractor or design professional defending a loss of use damages claim should engage its own expert to counter an owner’s expert.  In this case, if the design professional had an expert real estate appraiser, it would have put on evidence of a rental rate much lower than the $15,500 per month factoring in the owner’s limited use of the house during this time period.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

MAKE SURE TO HAVE THE RIGHT WITNESS IN A CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CASE TESTIFY AS TO THE ESTIMATE

Posted on by


In construction defect disputes, the plaintiff (or party proving the defect) oftentimes relies on an estimate instead of actual costs. The reason being is that the plaintiff is awaiting money from the dispute in order to fund the repairs.  I have previously discussed that there is nothing wrong with a plaintiff relying on an estimate to support its damages in a construction defect dispute.

 

However, it is important when relying on an estimate to ensure that you have the right person or expert testifying so that there is NOT an issue with that estimate being introduced as evidence during trial.  If the estimate forms the basis of your damages, you want to ensure that estimate is admissible evidence at trial.

 

Recently, I wrote an article about the application of the business records exception to the hearsay rule.  This article discussed a case where a plaintiff owner tried to introduce its estimate / damages through its architect.  The problem was that while the architect generated the repair scope of work (which is common), the architect did not generate the cost / pricing information.  Rather, the owner’s general contractor generated the cost estimate / pricing information with input from subcontractors (which is common).  Thus, the cost estimate / pricing information was hearsay as it pertained to the architect that was not properly admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.  But, this evidence would likely be deemed admissible if the general contractor testified as to the cost estimate.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

 

DO NOT LET LACK OF NOTICE VOID YOUR INSURANCE COVERAGE

Posted on by

The Southern District of Florida’s opinion in Pharm. D v. Founders Insurance Co., 2014 WL 32557844 (S.D.Fla. 2014) illustrates that absolute importance of notifying a liability insurer of a claim and a lawsuit; otherwise, coverage that would be afforded to an insured could be voided.  This should never occur!

 

In this matter, a water pipe ruptured and a fire occurred at the insured’s premises.  This resulted in damage to a pharmacy located below the insured’s premises.  Due to this damage, the pharmacy filed a lawsuit against the insured.  The insured failed to take any action in the lawsuit and a default judgment was entered against the insured for in excess of $500,000.

 

Years later, the (third party) pharmacy sued the insured’s CGL (commercial general liability) insurer to recover the amount of its default judgment against the insurer.  The insurer argued that coverage should be voided because its insured violated the terms of the policy.  Specifically, the insured had the obligation to notify the insurer of any claim or suit as soon as practicable and to send copies of any lawsuit to its insurer.  Apparently, the insured never did this and the insurer had no notice of the lawsuit.  The Southern District agreed with the insurer that the lack of notice voided coverage:

 

“The insurance policy in question had a continuing notice obligation for a reason: the insured had the best information on legal action brought against it and, therefore, the insured was required to keep its insurer informed of developments. Accordingly, the insured had two distinct duties: (1) to notify Defendant [insurer] of any claims and (2) to notify Defendant of any lawsuits filed which may implicate the insurance policy.

***

The record shows there is no genuine dispute of material fact that the insured failed to notify Defendant of the state lawsuit and, thus, materially breached the insurance policy. As a matter of law, this breach absolved Defendant of its contractual requirement to defend in the state lawsuit and renders Defendant not liable on the default judgment entered in state court.”

Pharm. D, supra, at *3, *5.

 

The lesson learned from this matter is that if suing a party in which liability insurance is applicable (such as any case involving property damage or personal injury), take affirmative steps to ensure that the party’s liability insurer (CGL insurer) is notified of a claim and of the lawsuit.  Even if the party does not respond to the lawsuit, send a copy of the lawsuit to the party’s insurer.  Take steps to locate the insurer or the party’s insurance broker to ensure that proper notice is served and so that you are not relying on a potentially silent party to notify its insurer of a lawsuit (especially, when you are relying on insurance to cover your damages).  Clearly, in this matter, the insured-party did nothing despite having CGL coverage that perhaps would have covered some of the pharmacy’s damages.

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.

MAKE SURE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE IS FOR COMPLETED OPERATIONS

Posted on by



Commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance and additional insured coverage play an integral role in construction defect disputes. Specifically, general contractors want to ensure that they are an additional insured under their subcontractors CGL policies. (Subcontractors that engage other subcontractors to perform a portion of their scope likewise want to be an additional insured under their subcontractors’ CGL policies.) However, just being an additional insured is not enough. The key is that a general contractor should be an additional insured for ongoing operations and, importantly, completed operations since construction defects typically arise out of completed operations.

 

The recent Fifth Circuit decision in Carl E. Woodward, L.L.C. v. Acceptance Indemnity Insurance Co., 2014 WL 902575 (5th Cir. 2014), discusses additional insured coverage and the importance of additional insured coverage for completed operations. This case deals with the construction of a condominium in Mississippi. The general contractor hired a concrete subcontractor that performed work from January 2006 to October 2006 with the entire project being completed in August 2007. The general contractor was an additional insured under the concrete subcontractor’s CGL policy. Subsequent to completion, a construction defect dispute arose in arbitration that involved the concrete subcontractor’s scope of work. The concrete issues appeared to be that the subcontractor failed to properly slope concrete floors including balconies preventing water to drain and that it failed to install a step in the balcony slab at the balcony exterior walls and doors damaging exterior walls of condominium units.

 

The general contractor demanded that the concrete subcontractor’s CGL carrier indemnify and defend it in the dispute since it was an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy (and the CGL carrier was responsible for indemnifying / defending it due to the negligence of the primary insured-concrete subcontractor). The concrete subcontractor’s CGL carrier refused to defend the general contractor because the additional insured endorsement stated that additional insured coverage was “only with respect to liability arising out of your [primary insured subcontractor’s] ongoing operations performed for that insured.” The endorsement also provided a specific exclusion to additional insured coverage–the additional insured coverage did NOT apply to property damage occurring after all work to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured has been completed. Basically, there was NO additional insured coverage for completed operations.

 

The general contractor and its insurer filed suit against the concrete subcontractor’s CGL carrier. The argument was that the CGL carrier failed to indemnify and contribute to defense costs in connection with the arbitration. After trial, the district judge entered a judgment in favor of the contractor for approximately $1 Million. The Fifth Circuit reversed this judgment because the dispute arose out of completed operations for which there was no additional insured coverage owed to the general contractor.

 

 


A. What does the additional insured coverage “only with respect to liability arising out of your [primary insured subcontractor’s] ongoing operations performed for that insured” mean

 

The Fifth Circuit (relying on Mississippi law) held that under the additional insured language for ongoing operations, liability simply needs to arise out of ongoing operations–liability needs to be causally connected to the the subcontractor’s ongoing operations. But, what exactly does this mean? To determine what this specifically means, the Fifth Circuit examined the case of Noble v. Wellington Assoc., 2013 WL 6067991 (Miss.Ct.App. 2013), that involved post-completion foundation cracks in a house attributable to the site subcontractor’s compaction (before the house was even constructed). In Noble, the court maintained:

 

“Noble [additional insured] was only an additional insured for liability caused by Harris’s [site subcontractor] active [ongoing] work on the site and…did not cover property damage manifesting itself after Harris stopped working on the site…. [I]f Harris’s performance caused the damage for which Noble was liable, the cause was Harris’s completed work, not its ongoing operations. ” Carl E. Woodward, supra, at *6.

 

 

The Fifth Circuit further examined the Colorado case, Weitz Co., LLC v. Mid-Century Ins., Co., 181 P.3d 309 (Colo.App. 2007), whereby an owner observed water intrusion damage five months after the subcontractor completed its work. In Weitz, the court maintained:

 

“Because the contractor’s [additional insured] liability for the water intrusion damage arose out of the subcontractor’s completed operations–the work was completed five months before the intrusion–rather than its ongoing operations, there was no coverage under the additional-insured endorsement.” Carl E. Woodward, supra, at *7.

 

Additionally, the Fifth Circuit maintained that the additional insured endorsement (factoring in the specific exclusion that excluded property damage occurring after all work has been completed) only provided coverage for the concrete subcontractor’s ongoing (active) operations. In other words, it does not matter when the claim is actually filed as long as the liability does not arise out of completed operations.

 

Typically, and even as the Fifth Circuit noted, liability for construction defects arise out of completed operations. Even if liability arose out of the concrete subcontractor’s scope of work, the liability did not arise out of the subcontractor’s active / ongoing operations, but from the completed construction (when the owner received the completed building-substantial completion). Thus, once all work is completed, the liability and damage will arise from completed operations.

 

B. CGL is not a performance bond

 

CGL insurance is not a performance bond. I repeat, CGL insurance is not a performance bond. The reason for the repetition is because oftentimes arguments are made to essentially convert CGL insurance into a performance bond. The Fifth Circuit explained the difference between these two products that insure different risks:

 

“Allowing coverage under this [additional insured] endorsement because of an allegation that the additional insured failed to follow plans and specifications, effectively converts a CGL policy into a performance bond.
***
[A] performance bond is a form of insurance that guarantees the completion of the general contractor’s work on the project. This Circuit has previously noted the significance of the difference between these two forms of insurance [CGL and performance bond]: A CGL policy generally protects the insured when his work damages someone else’s property. The ‘your work’ exclusion [in the policy] prevent a CGL policy from morphing into a performance bond covering an insured’s own work.” Carl E. Woodward, supra, at *7 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

 

C. Take-aways

 

  • Take a look at the CGL policy and additional insured endorsement. There is a good chance the additional insured endorsement only provides additional insured status for ONGOING OPERATIONS and NOT COMPLETED OPERATIONS! This is absolutely not what a GC wants. It wants additional insured status for both ongoing and completed operations so that it can seek indemnification and defense for issues that arise post-completion.

 

  • Construction defect disputes often arise after substantial completion and after the owner receives the project. It is the owner that asserts the claim against the general contractor and the general contractor seeks indemnification and defense as an additional insured under subcontractors’ policies. If the subcontractor’s CGL policy does not provide for additional insured coverage for completed operations, courts and insurers will likely apply the same logic taken by the Fifth Circuit in this case. This is why obtaining a copy of the endorsement and requiring additional insured status for completed operations is important.

 

  • Even though contracts typically require the subcontractor to include additional insured coverage for completed operations, what the contract requires and what the policy states are oftentimes two different things. So, what is the recourse if a subcontractor’s policy does not comply with this provision? Well, you could include that the subcontractor failing to provide additional insured coverage for completed operations constitutes a material breach of contract. But, even if the contractor learns the right additional insured coverage is not being provided during construction, the chances of it terminating the subcontractor (and delaying the job) and finding a new subcontractor are probably slim to none. So what other recourse is there if this is learned during construction? Perhaps, if learned during construction, the provision can state that the general contractor is entitled to keep the subcontractor’s retainage as a form of liquidated damages based on damages that are not readily ascertainable. The subcontractor probably will not agree to such a provision. And, oftentimes, like this case, the additional insured coverage is not learned until after-the-fact when it is too late. Then what? Well, the contract already has an indemnification provision that would make the subcontractor responsible. The problem is that this provision is not additional insured coverage. Therefore, obtaining copies of subcontractors’ additional insured endorsements on the front end to determine whether there is coverage for completed operations is important.

 

  • CGL insurance is not a performance bond. They are two different insurance-type products with different purposes. Both can play a role in construction defect disputes. It is important to understand and appreciate their differences.

 

  • Finally, parties oftentimes try to navigate complicated CGL issues by themselves. This is a mistake. Parties should retain the services of counsel to assist them to ensure insurance claims are maximized and, if there is a performance bond in place, rights are preserved.

 

For more on additional insured coverage, please see: https://floridaconstru.wpengine.com/understanding-your-rights-as-an-additional-insured/

 

Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.