Garret Murai | California Construction Law Blog In State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc., Case No. B302348 (December 18, 2020), a manufacturer sued in subrogation action under the Right to Repair Act almost got away. Almost. The Oetiker Case James and Jennifer Philson’s home was substantially completed, and a notice of completion was recorded,… Continue reading Close Enough Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades
Month: February 2021
New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms
Marianne Bradley and Gregory Capps | White and Williams In the long-tail insurance context, it is not unusual to have issues arise addressing “lost” or “missing” policies. In an opinion issued on January 22, 2021, a New York court ruled that an insurer did not owe coverage to its insured for underlying asbestos claims because… Continue reading New York Court Finds No Coverage Owed for Asbestos Losses Because Insured Failed to Prove Material Terms
Does a No-Damages-for-Delay Provision Preclude a Claim for Disruption Damages?
Erik M. Coon | Smith Currie & Hancock Delays and disruptions on construction projects are very similar, but there are important conceptual differences, even though the claims often arise on the same project. The primary distinction is that a disruption or loss of productivity claim usually involves the increased cost of less efficient work, while… Continue reading Does a No-Damages-for-Delay Provision Preclude a Claim for Disruption Damages?
The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations
Gerard J. Onorata | Peckar & Abramson The success of general contractors in completing a construction project is often dependent upon the performance of their subcontractors. General contractors have frequently said exactly this. Traditionally, the key subcontractors on a project are the electrical, plumbing, HVAC and structural steel subs. Due to the fundamental nature of… Continue reading The Basics of Subcontractor Defaults – Key Considerations
No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend
Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii The Montana Supreme Court held that because there was no duty to defend the insureds’ intentional acts, the insurer had no duty to defend. Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Wessel, 2020 Mont. LEXIS 2617 (Mont. Dec. 22, 2020). The insureds’ property was accessed by Turk Road.… Continue reading No Duty to Indemnify Where No Duty to Defend