Eric A. Berg | Ogletree Deakins | February 7, 2017 The “additional insured” provision is one of the most critical provisions in a contract, yet is usually an afterthought. Contract negotiations over scope, schedule, and budget can and should demand your full attention, but the majority of legal problems that arise during and after a… Continue reading The Unbearable Lightness of Being an Additional Insured
Month: February 2017
California’s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority
Robert D. Helfand | PropertyCasualtyFocus | January 27, 2017 Nearly two years ago, a California appellate court invalidated a rule promulgated by the state’s Insurance Commissioner, on the ground that the regulator lacks authority to prohibit “deceptive acts or practices” which are not already identified in California’s Unfair Insurance Practices Act (UIPA), Cal. Ins. Code… Continue reading California’s High Court Gives Insurance Regulators Tools To Broaden Authority
New Jersey Supreme Court Affirms Coverage For Construction Defects
Robert D. Chesler and Bruce Strong | Anderson Kill | February 3, 2017 The New Jersey Supreme Court has affirmed the Appellate Division’s pro-policyholder decision in Cypress Point, confirming broad coverage for construction defects. Cypress Point Condominium Association v. Adria Towers, LLC (A-13/14-15) (076348) (August 4, 2016). The Appellate Division had reversed the trial court… Continue reading New Jersey Supreme Court Affirms Coverage For Construction Defects
The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims
Jean Meyer | Colorado Construction Litigation | January 23, 2017 On October 20, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced the Sopris Lodging, LLC v. Schofield Excavation, Inc.[1] decision. The Sopris decision significantly altered the potential pitfalls awaiting a general contractor in pursuit of third-party claims as well as potential defenses available for a subcontractor… Continue reading The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims
A Known Construction Defect Left Uncorrected Is Not An Accidental “Occurrence”
Troutman Sanders | January 23, 2017 In Navigators v. Moorefield, the court addresses two coverage questions in the context of a commercial general liability insurer’s action for reimbursement of all amounts it paid toward the settlement of construction defect litigation against its general contractor insured. First, if the policy states that it covers property damage… Continue reading A Known Construction Defect Left Uncorrected Is Not An Accidental “Occurrence”