Mary Caroline Bubnovich | Smith Currie & Hancock | January 5, 2017 Concurrent delay is the construction equivalent of offsetting penalties in football. If both parties to a dispute involving delay damages are partially responsible for the delay, neither recovers damages. The principle of concurrent delay is not a new one. It is a concept… Continue reading Concurrent Delay – A Potent Defense For Owners and Contractors
Month: January 2017
Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred
Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii | January 11, 2017 The California Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s issuance of summary judgment based upon the possibility of continuing property damage during the insurer’s policy period. Tidwell Enters. v. Fin. Pac. Ins. Co., 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 1038 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2016).… Continue reading Insurer Must Defend Where Possible Continuing Property Damage Occurred
Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend
Theresa Guertin | Saxe Doernberger & Vita, PC | January 2017 The Supreme Court of Oregon issued a decision at the end of last year which perfectly illustrates the lengths to which a court may go to grant a contractor’s claim for defense from its insurer in a construction defect suit. In West Hills Development… Continue reading Oregon Supreme Court Confirms Broad Duty to Defend
Florida Court’s Decision Should be a Caution to General Contractors to Precisely Follow a Performance Bond Procedural Requirements
Brendan Carter | The Dispute Resolver | January 14, 2017 In Arch Insurance Company v. John Moriarty & Associates of Florida, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172173, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Summary Judgment to a surety after finding that a general contractor did not satisfy the procedural requirements… Continue reading Florida Court’s Decision Should be a Caution to General Contractors to Precisely Follow a Performance Bond Procedural Requirements
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules That Coverage for an Additional Insured is no Greater Than Coverage Afforded a Named Insured – – Interpretation of the Your Work Exclusion.
J. Gregory Cahill | Dickinson Wright PLLC | January 12, 2017 In a matter of first impression, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently ruled that the “Your Work Exclusion” in a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance policy bars coverage for an additional insured when the only claimed damage was to the named insured’s own work.… Continue reading Arizona Court of Appeals Rules That Coverage for an Additional Insured is no Greater Than Coverage Afforded a Named Insured – – Interpretation of the Your Work Exclusion.