Garret Murai | California Construction Blog In our last post, Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far, we discussed a case in which a project owner tried to use a contractual indemnity provision to require the principal of its contractor to defend and indemnify the project owner from the contractor’s… Continue reading It’s All About the Equities. Indemnity Provision Survives Anti-SLAPP Motion
Month: February 2020
Do Putative Class Members’ Claims Trigger the Duty to Defend?
Ryan Vanderford | Policyholder Pulse Must an insurer consider the possibility that putative class members (i.e., potential class members not named in the complaint) other than the proposed class representatives (i.e., the plaintiffs named in the complaint to represent the proposed class) have claims within the proscribed policy period in determining whether its duty to defend has… Continue reading Do Putative Class Members’ Claims Trigger the Duty to Defend?
Design-Build Lite – Construction Contracts with D-B Components
Colm Nelson | Ahead of Schedule For most in the industry, when we think about a standard construction contract, we envision the construction documents being drafted by the architect and other design consultants. We tend to view the project as design-price-build, unless an alternative procurement mechanism has been selected such as design-build. Consistent with this… Continue reading Design-Build Lite – Construction Contracts with D-B Components
New Jersey Federal Court Provides Clarification/Limitation on the Application of the Continuous Trigger Theory in Construction Defect Cases
Margo Meta and Anthony Miscioscia | White and Williams The proper trigger of coverage in construction defect disputes has been addressed on several occasions by New Jersey courts. Most notably, in Air Master & Cooling, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, 452 N.J. Super. 35, 171 A.3d 214 (App. Div. 2017), the New Jersey Appellate… Continue reading New Jersey Federal Court Provides Clarification/Limitation on the Application of the Continuous Trigger Theory in Construction Defect Cases
When Does the Statute of Repose Begin to Run in Phased Development Projects?
Christopher Sweeney | Conn Kavanaugh The Massachusetts Statute of Repose requires litigants to assert within six years all tort claims arising out of the design, construction, or administration of improvements to real property. The Statute begins to run upon the earlier of: (1) the opening of the improvement to use; and (2) substantial completion and… Continue reading When Does the Statute of Repose Begin to Run in Phased Development Projects?