Rachel B. Greenlee | Lane Powell | April 3, 2018
Rachel B. Greenlee | Lane Powell | April 3, 2018
Eric A. Grasberger and W. Cory Haller | Stoel Rives | February 13, 2018
A bill proposed in the Oregon House of Representatives threatens to fundamentally alter the relationships between owners, contractors, their subcontractors, and their subcontractors’ employees. Under the bill, a contractor (defined as a person who contracts with an owner to perform construction) on a private project would be directly liable for the unpaid wages of its subcontractors’ employees. This liability would extend to employees of subcontractors at all tiers, and it would include liability for any benefit payments or contributions made as part of the employee’s total compensation. The contractor’s liability could be enforced by the Bureau of Labor and Industries, any third party owed a benefit payment or contribution on behalf of the unpaid employee, or any joint labor and management committee established under a collective bargaining agreement.
The bill provides a few minor protections for contractors. It requires subcontractors to provide payroll records and information describing payment status. Although it allows a contractor to withhold payment to a subcontractor because of the subcontractor’s failure to comply with a contractor’s information request, it does not allow a contractor to avoid liability to the subcontractor’s employees for unpaid wages based on the subcontractor’s failure to comply with such a request.
For the full text of the proposed legislation, click here. This legislation is currently pending in the House Business and Labor Committee, and we urge you to contact your representative to share your comments regarding the impact this legislation could have on your business.
Theresa A. Guertin and Tiffany Casanova | Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC
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 Co. v. Chartis Claims, Inc.,1 the Court held that a subcontractor’s insurer had a duty to defend a general contractor as an additional insured because the allegations of a homeowner’s association’s complaint could be interpreted to fall within the ambit of coverage provided under the policy—despite the fact that the policy only provided ongoing operations coverage, and despite the fact that the subcontractor was never mentioned in the complaint. The decision is favorable to policyholders but also provides an important lesson: that contractors may avoid additional insured disputes if those contractors have solid contractual insurance requirements for both ongoing and completed operations risks.
An insurer’s duty to defend is typically determined by the allegations of a complaint as compared with the language of the policy. This principle is often referred to as the “four-corners rule” in reference to the four corners of the paper the policy is written on. Some states have relaxed this rule and allow parties to introduce “extrinsic evidence”—that is, facts which are not set forth in the complaint—to establish the duty to defend.2 Oregon, however, has consistently followed the “four-corners rule,”3 with one notable exception: a party claiming additional insured status may introduce extrinsic evidence to prove that they are an insured on the policy.4 In West Hills, the Court reiterated Oregon’s stance on these issues.
West Hills Development Company (“West Hills”) was a general contractor for a townhouse development in Oregon. West Hills contracted with L&T Enterprises (“L&T”) as subcontractor and required that L&T obtain insurance coverage naming West Hills as an additional insured. L&T’s commercial general liability policy with Oregon Automobile Insurance Company (“Oregon Auto”) named West Hills as an additional insured on a standard additional insured endorsement, which insured West Hills “only with respect to liability arising out of [L&T’s] ongoing operations performed for [West Hills].” There was no contractual requirement that L&T provide completed operations additional insured coverage for West Hills, nor did the Oregon Auto policy include such coverage.
Following the completion of the project, the development’s homeowner’s association sued West Hills for construction defects. According to the complaint, West Hills’ subcontractors had negligently used improper means and methods in their construction work that resulted in defects. The association also alleged that West Hills was liable for negligence in hiring, supervising, and failing to oversee and inspect the subcontractors and their work. The Court noted that the “complaint contained very little information regarding the time when the damages allegedly occurred,” although the complaint did allege that the defects already existed and had started to cause damage when the owners purchased their townhomes. Moreover, as is often the case in suits brought by project owners, the complaint did not specifically identify the allegedly negligent subcontractors by name.
West Hills tendered a claim for additional insured coverage to Oregon Auto. Oregon Auto refused to defend West Hills, arguing that: (1) the homeowner’s association only alleged claims against West Hills as general contractor, not the named insured, L&T, and; (2) the claims did not arise from covered ongoing operations. Before the Oregon Supreme Court, Oregon Auto argued that the duty to defend could not be triggered merely because a complaint failed to “rule out” the possibility of coverage. Instead, it asserted that the duty to defend arises only when the complaint explicitly articulates a covered claim.
The Court rejected Oregon Auto’s argument and confirmed that the legal standard was whether the allegations in the complaint, reasonably interpreted, could result in liability for an incident or injury that was covered under the four corners of the policy, regardless of any ambiguity or lack of clarity in the complaint. Specifically, the Court found that the complaint alleged claims against West Hills from which West Hills may incur liability that could be reasonably interpreted to “aris[e] out of [L&T’s] ongoing operations performed for [West Hills],” as required under the additional insured endorsement. The complaint alleged that West Hills’ subcontractors had used “improper construction means and methods” and that West Hills was negligent in preventing them from doing so. Thus, although L&T was not specifically named in the complaint, the Court held that the complaint could reasonably be interpreted as alleging liability for conduct covered by the policy, i.e. L&T’s operations for West Hills. The Court further stated that the complaint alleged damages that occurred by the time the owners purchased their homes, making it possible that the damages occurred during L&T’s “ongoing operations.” In light of this analysis, the Court ruled that Oregon Auto had a duty to defend West Hills.
Thus, the West Hills decision confirmed Oregon’s broad duty to defend standard, a favorable outcome for policyholders. It is interesting to note, however, that the case might never have come about if West Hills had required that its subcontractors provide completed-operations additional insured coverage; if L&T had both ongoing and completed operations additional insured endorsements on its policy, then Oregon Auto’s duty to defend West Hills would have likely been more obvious. Upstream and downstream parties alike must consider case law such as this when developing effective risk management plans suitably tailored to their needs, and should remember to require appropriate additional insured coverage for both ongoing and completed operations from their subcontractors.
1. 360 Or. 650 (2016).
2. For a state-by-state breakdown on the use of extrinsic evidence in the determination of the duty to defend, see SDV Law, Extrinsic Evidence State by State Survey, http://www.sdvlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Extrinsic-Evidence-State-by-State-Survey. pdf.
3. Ledford v. Gutoski, 877 P.2d 80, 82 (Or. 1994); Insenhart v. Gen. Cas. Co., 377 P.2d 26, 28-29 (Or. 1962).
4. Fred Shearer & Sons, Inc. v. Gemini Ins. Co., 240 P.3d 67 (Or. 2010).
Shane Smith | Property Insurance Coverage Law Blog | August 25, 2017
This week, Oregon made national news as one of the best locations to view the Great American Eclipse. I realized I had not yet covered Oregon in my series on calculating actual cash value, leading to today’s blog.
In Growers Refrigerating Co. v. American Motorists Insurance Company,1 the insured commenced an action to recover for damage to pears stored in its cold storage plant as a result of contamination following an ammonia leak in refrigeration equipment.
Although the issue the court considered did not center on the cost of repairs, the court held the term actual cash value is defined as the market value at the time of the occurrence:2
We recognize that this is not a case involving the cost of repairs. We also agree that it would have been preferable for plaintiffs in this case to offer testimony framed more precisely in terms of the difference in the cash or market value of the pears before and after they were contaminated by ammonia. We nevertheless hold, however, that under the particular facts of this case evidence showing a comparison of the amounts received from contaminated and uncontaminated pears, together with evidence of the amounts paid in the adjustment of claims for contamination damage to the owners of the pears, was not only admissible, but that presumptively, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, such amounts represented the difference between the value of the pears before and after they were contaminated by ammonia.
The jury in this case was properly instructed on the issue of damages in terms of cash or market value, as required by the provisions of the policy. We hold that there was sufficient evidence to support its verdict awarding damages to plaintiffs.
1 Growers Refrigerating Co. v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 260 Or. 207, 488 P.2d 1358 (1971).
2 Id. at 1363, 1364.
Alex Corey | Constructlaw | June 22, 2017
Alkemade v. Quanta Indem. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6896 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2017)
In 1994, Adrianus and Rachelle Alkemade (the “Alkemades”) bought a house from Meltebeke Built Paradise Homes (“Meltebeke”). The home was built on expanding soils, causing significant structural damage. Meltebeke repaired the existing damage and hired an engineering firm to install a helical pier foundation, which would have prevented any further damage to the home. However, the helical pier foundation was also installed negligently, afflicting the home with the same type of structural damage as before.
Alkemades sued Meltebeke for negligent supervision of the helical piers installation. Meltebeke entered a settlement agreement with Alkemades in which Meltebeke assigned to Alkemades the right to sue its insurers, Quanta and GFIC, who refused to defend Meltebeke on grounds that its knowledge of the damage caused by the original, defective construction prevented coverage under a known damages provision in Meltebeke’s policies (the “Policies”). Alkemades subsequently sued the issuers for breach of contract in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon for their failure to defend and indemnify Meltebeke. The insurers moved for summary judgment.
The Policies excluded coverage for damage known by the insured, in whole or in part, that occurred before the policy period began. If such damage was known to the insured, then any “any continuation, change or resumption” of that damage was also deemed known, and excluded.
The insurers argued that “the helical piers were simply one more in a long line of unsuccessful attempted remedial fixes to the known property damage resulting from expanding soils.” In other words, the property damage sustained after the installation of the helical piers was a “continuation, change, or resumption” of the previously known property damage. Therefore, the known damages provisions excluded coverage. The District Court found this interpretation reasonable and granted summary judgment for the insurer’s favor.
On appeal, Alkemades argued that damage caused by Meltebeke’s first negligent act does not “continue, change or resume” when later damage is sustained after a repair that would have fixed the problem absent a second negligent act. The Ninth Circuit evaluated Alkemades’ argument in light of Oregon law, which provides that if the insured offers a competing plausible and reasonable interpretation of the policy, that interpretation governs regardless of whether the insurer offers a different interpretation that is also plausible and reasonable.
The Ninth Circuit reasoned that the Policies’ phrase “continuation, change, or resumption” modified “damage previously known,” a reasonable interpretation is that both the previously known damage and the later damage must share a cause. Because it was possible that the later damage was due to the negligently installed helical pier, and not the original negligent construction, the Court determined that it was plausible to treat the later damage separately.