Dylan Magruder | Carlton Fields In Dostart v. Columbia Insurance Group, the Iowa Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule — in Iowa, and many other jurisdictions — that faulty workmanship by a contractor does not constitute an “occurrence” as defined in a standard commercial general liability (CGL) policy. And the court extended this rule to damages caused… Continue reading Iowa Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule That Faulty Workmanship Is Not an Occurrence, Leaving Question of Statutory Fraud for Another Day
No Second Chance: Colorado Court of Appeals Bars Indemnity Claim Under Doctrine of Claim Preclusion
Gail Gudder | Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell A cautionary tale for contractors and their counsel: if you dismiss an indemnity claim with prejudice, do not expect a do-over. In Layton Construction Co. v. Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc., 409 P.3d 602 (Colo. App. 2016), the Colorado Court of Appeals reaffirmed the reach of claim preclusion… Continue reading No Second Chance: Colorado Court of Appeals Bars Indemnity Claim Under Doctrine of Claim Preclusion
Rightfully Recovering Under A Coblentz Agreement
David Adelstein | Florida Construction Legal Updates A recent case out of the Middle District of Florida, The Peninsula at St. John’s Center Condominium Association, Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 2025 WL 1547631 (M.D.Fla. 2025) discusses what a party must do to RIGHTFULLY recover under a Coblentz agreement under Florida law: “In Florida, a party seeking to recover under… Continue reading Rightfully Recovering Under A Coblentz Agreement
US Court Denies Fire Loss Claim Due To Noncompliance With “Duties After Loss” Provision
Jean-Paul Rudd | Adams & Adams A recent judgement by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut offers important guidance for both policyholders and insurers on the significance of adhering to post-loss obligations under an insurance policy. Factual Background In this matter, the insured acquired a residential property and arranged property insurance.… Continue reading US Court Denies Fire Loss Claim Due To Noncompliance With “Duties After Loss” Provision
Another Possible “Out” of Uniwest?
Christopher G. Hill | Construction Law Musings Remember the Uniwest case that stated that Va. Code 11-4.1 renders an indemnification provision unenforceable if it requires indemnification for the indemnitee’s actions? I’ve discussed it on several occasions and in contexts from applicability to architects to whether it is the operation of an indemnity clause, even where the clause itself would be valid, that… Continue reading Another Possible “Out” of Uniwest?