Additional Insured Endorsements: Watch Your Language!
|
|
- Abigayle Patterson
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Additional Insured Endorsements: Watch Your Language! By Jill B. Berkeley, Insurance Policyholder Practice Group Chair Risk - 4th Quarter 2010 Reprinted with permission The use of Additional Insured Endorsements (AIE) is standard in the construction industry. The form of AIEs and the contractual provisions requiring AIEs, however, is anything but standard. In fact, the fight against using an AIE as a risk-shifting tactic has created a major insurance litigation battlefield. One of the ways insurers are fighting against providing additional insureds coverage is to modify standard ISO language. New non-standard language is being used and litigated all over the country in an effort to narrow the coverage provided to additional insureds. In the litigation arena, the insurers of owners and general contractors are suing the insurers of general contractors and subcontractors with a vengeance. They are using insurance concepts relating to duty to defend, estoppel, bad faith, targeted tender, horizontal exhaustion, conflict of interest, and equitable contribution in the finger-pointing struggle to find any other insurer s policy applicable. To the extent that policyholders take an interest in which insurer is defending and indemnifying them, these concepts and a few new forms of AIEs bear watching. Targeted Tender When the policyholder has the opportunity to trigger coverage under an AIE, it may effectively shield its own policy and procure insurance without incurring any obligation for deductibles or higher premiums. Typically, the policyholder should be able to use targeted tender to obtain full reimbursement of all defense and indemnity costs. Once an insurer accepts coverage under an AIE, the acknowledging insurer may want to chase other insurers to split the defense and indemnity obligations under the principle of equitable contribution. In a recent Illinois case, American States Insurance Company v. CFM Construction Company, 398 Ill. App. 3d 994, 923 N.E. 2d 299, 337 Ill. Dec. 740 (2d dist. 2010), the court reiterated the principles for applying equitable contribution. When an insurer has paid the entire loss, the doctrine of equitable contribution allows it to be reimbursed by other insurers that are also liable for the loss. Cincinnati Insurance Co. v. American Hardware Manufacturers Ass n, 387 Ill.App.3d 85, 114, 898 N.E. 2d 216, 325 Ill. Dec. 483 (1st dist. 2008). The doctrine of equitable contribution arises from a right, which is independent from the rights of the insured, to recover from a coobligor who shares the same liability as the party seeking contribution. Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Safway Steel Products, Inc., 355 Ill.App.3d 1, 10-11, 822 N.E. 2d 79, 290 Ill. Dec. 797 (2004). The purpose of the doctrine is to provide a remedy when one insurer has paid a debt that is equally owed by another insurer. Chicago Hospital Risk Pooling Program v. Illinois State Medical Inter- Insurance Exchange, 325 Ill.App.3d 970, 981, 758 N.E. 2d 353, 259 Ill. Dec. 230 (1st dist. 2001). The fact that one insurer undertakes the burden of a full settlement payment does not mean the insurer is a volunteer. Chicago Hospital Risk, 325 Ill.App.3d at 981. Equitable contribution applies to multiple, concurrent insurance situations and is only available where the concurrent policies insure the same entities, the same interests, and the same risks. Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 213 Ill.2d 307, 316, 821 N.E. 2d 269, 290 Ill. Dec. 218 (2004). Although the principle of equitable contribution is recognized in most jurisdictions, under Illinois law, the insurer may not exercise that right without the insured s explicit approval. For policyholders or their insurers that wish to protect the right to target tender, the policyholder must take precautions to confirm the Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP Two North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL
2 2 insurance specifications in its contractual agreements provide additional insured coverage on a primary and non-contributing basis. It must review additional insured endorsements to confirm that they meet the requirements in the insurance specifications provisions of their contracts, and do not attempt to limit Illinois principles of targeted tender. Finally, the policyholder should review its own policies to be sure that they reflect an appropriate other insurance clause. A recent case illustrates the situation in which the policyholder did not recognize that the AIE had nonstandard language and the insurance specifications in its contract were missing the magic words, on a primary and non-contributory basis. The policyholder was not able to shield its own insurance policy and trigger coverage under an AIE on a primary basis. In River Village I, LLC v. Central Ins. Cos., 919 N.E.2d 426, 396 Ill.App.3d 480, 335 Ill.Dec. 707 (1st dist. 5th div. 2009), River Village was the general contractor on a construction project, and hired First Choice Drywall ( First Choice ) as a subcontractor at the project site. Roche, an employee of First Choice, was injured at the project site and brought suit against River Village and others. The contract between River Village and First Choice required First Choice to name River Village as an additional insured on its insurance policy for defense and indemnification purposes, but did not specify what type of insurance (i.e., primary or excess) First Choice was required to obtain for River Village. Instead, the contract only stated that First Choice was to indemnify and hold harmless River Village for any and all claims, and pay for and maintain such insurance as agreed to by the parties. River Village had its own primary policy issued by Harleysville Lake States Insurance Company ( Harleysville ). Pursuant to the contract, First Choice added River Village as an additional insured to its CGL policy issued by Central Insurance Companies ( Central ). As part of the Blanket Additional Insured provision, Central s policy contained an other insurance clause that stated in part: b. 2) This insurance is excess over: Any other valid and collectible insurance available to the additional insured whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis unless a contract specifically requires that this insurance be either primary or primary and noncontributing. (emphasis added). River Village exercised its rights as an additional insured and tendered its defense to First Choice s insurer, Central, noting that it was instructing its insurer, Harleysville, not to respond to Roche s suit or provide coverage unless and until Central s policy was exhausted. Central did not respond. River Village brought a declaratory judgment and breach of contract action against Central, claiming that Central owed it a defense in the Roche litigation. Central responded by denying River Village s tender, filing an answer, and bringing its own counterclaim for declaratory judgment against River Village. As part of its counterclaim, Central argued that its policy was excess to River Village s primary policy with Harleysville. The trial court found that the contract between River Village and First Choice intended to cover River Village as an additional insured, and the bodily injury exclusion in Central s policy did not apply. However, the trial court granted Central s motion for summary judgment and denied River Village and Harleysville s motion, finding that the cases cited by River Village and Harleysville regarding the targeted tender doctrine did not apply. Instead, the trial court noted that it was undisputed that the contract between River Village and First Choice was completely silent regarding the type of insurance (i.e., excess or primary) First Choice had to provide. Therefore, the unambiguous language of the other insurance provision of Central s policy establishing that primary coverage would be triggered only if required by written contract rendered Central s policy excess to Harleysville s policy. On appeal, River Village and Harleysville argued that the targeted tender to Central prohibited any consideration of the other insurance provision in Central s policy. The Illinois Appellate Court agreed that under Illinois law, the targeted tender doctrine allows an insured who is covered by multiple and concurrent insurance policies to select or target which insurer it wants to defend and indemnify regarding a specific claim.
3 3 The court then commented that insurers developed modified other insurance provisions in response to the targeted tender doctrine, and that such provisions attempt to render otherwise primary insurance as excess over any other collectible insurance. The court discussed the cases cited by River Village and Harleysville, in which Illinois courts held that when an insured maintained concurrent primary insurance policies among multiple insurers, the presence of an other insurance excess provision in one insurer s policy did not, in and of itself, overcome the insured s right of targeted tender. The court noted, however, that in those cases the common and determinative element was that the insurance policies at issue were all primary policies. In other words, all the insurers stood in the same position with respect to the potential duty of defense and indemnification owed to the insured. On the other hand, when the insured was covered by multiple insurers providing different types of coverage, Illinois courts reached a different result. Examining those other cases, the appellate court quoted the Illinois Supreme Court s opinion in Kajima Constr. Servs., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 879 N.E.2d 305, 314, 227 Ill.2d 102, 316 Ill. Dec. 238 (Ill. 2007): [W]e find that the better rule is that * * * targeted tender can be applied to circumstances where concurrent primary insurance coverage exists for additional insureds, but to the extent that defense and indemnity costs exceed the primary limits of the targeted insurer, the deselected insurer or insurers primary policy must answer for the loss before the insured can seek coverage under an excess policy. The appellate court also cited its own decision in State Auto Mut. Ins. Co. v. Habitat Constr. Co., 875 N.E.2d 1159, 377 Ill. App. 3d 281, 314 Ill. Dec. 872 (1st dist. 2007), where the court reiterated Kajima s holding that an insured cannot selectively tender a defense to an excess insurer while primary coverage remains unexhausted. In State Auto, the appellate court held that an insured could not target tender its defense to an insurer whose policy contained an other insurance excess provision if primary insurance remained unexhausted. The court then examined the other insurance provision of Central s policy, which stated that its coverage was excess over over any other valid and collectible insurance available to the additional insured whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis unless a contract specifically requires that this insurance be either primary or primary and noncontributing (emphasis added). The court found that this language was clear and unambiguous. There was no question that Harleysville s policy comprised other valid and collectible insurance available to River Village. It was undisputed that the contract between River Village and First Choice was completely silent regarding the type of insurance (primary or excess) First Choice was to obtain for River Village. Without a contract specifically requiring the insurance procured by First Choice to be primary, the court concluded that Central s policy was excess to Harleysville s primary policy. As a result, the court held that the targeted tender doctrine used in the cases cited by River Village and Harleysville, which all involved concurrent primary insurers, was inapplicable because Central and Harleysville provided different types of concurrent insurance to River Village. Relying on Kajima and State Auto, the appellate court found that Central s policy required River Village to first exhaust the primary insurance it held with Harleysville before it could trigger the excess coverage it held with Central. Because the Roche litigation was completely satisfied within the limits of the Harleysville policy, the Central policy was not triggered, and the targeted tender doctrine did not apply. Accordingly, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the rulings of the trial court. Changing the Additional Insured Coverage Grant In a typical AIE, the additional insured is granted coverage for its liability arising out of the activities of the named insured. If the damage arises out of the named insured s operations, coverage will generally be afforded. Lafarge Midwest, Inc. v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co., No , 2005 WL (Mich. App. Aug. 11, 2005); Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, No. 3:06-CV-0073-D, 2007 WL (N.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2007). In order to determine whether the insurer has a duty to defend under an AIE, i.e., whether liability arose out of the named insured s work, courts will look at the allegations in the complaint against the additional insured. Regal Homes, Inc. v. CNA Ins., 217 Ariz. 159, 171 P.3d 610 (Ariz. App. 2007). In many states, the arising out of standard is a but for analysis, and the courts should find coverage for the additional insured when the question is close. Premcor Refining Group, Inc v. Matrix Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Catalyst Handling Service
4 4 Co., LLC, No. 07C JOH, 2009 WL (Del. Super. Mar. 19, 2009). In Pekin Insurance Co. v. Roszak/ADC, LLC, 931 N.E.2d 799 (Ill. App. 1st dist. 6th div. June 25, 2010), the court upheld language in the AIE that narrowed coverage to vicarious liability only. Roszak, a general contractor, was named as an additional insured on a policy Pekin had issued to Rockford Ornamental Iron, a subcontractor hired by Roszak. The additional insured endorsement contained the following language: Such person or organization is an additional insured only with respect to liability incurred solely as a result of some act or omission of the named insured and not for its own independent negligence or statutory violation. After an injured construction worker filed suit against Roszak alleging negligence and premises liability, Roszak tendered its defense to Pekin. The complaint in the underlying suit alleged that the injury was a direct result of Roszak s negligence when plaintiff was struck by a load of structural steel. The complaint did not state the relationship between Roszak and Rockford. However, the court assumed that Roszak hired Rockford and Rockford hired Arena Erectors, the plaintiff s employer. Pekin sought a declaratory judgment that it was under no duty to defend Roszak because the complaint did not allege the plaintiff was injured solely as a result of Rockford s acts. The trial court disagreed, finding a duty to defend as the complaint left open the possibility of Roszak s vicarious liability for Rockford s acts, a theory that would provide Roszak with coverage under the Pekin policy. The appellate court reversed, holding that direct allegations of negligence against an additional insured did not fall within the coverage granted by the Pekin policy. The court emphasized that the theory of liability giving rise to the duty to defend must be supported by the complaint and a theory cannot be supported by the complaint if the complaint does not allege facts supporting the elements of that theory. The court looked to the complaint and found that it did not allege facts supporting the elements of vicarious liability. Nothing in the complaint alleged an agency relationship between Roszak and Rockford or indicated that Roszak retained sufficient control over Rockford s work to be vicariously liable for Rockford s acts. Since the complaint alleged direct liability against Roszak and Pekin s policy expressly excluded coverage of an additional insured for the additional insured s own negligence, the court concluded that Pekin had no duty to defend Roszak. The court looked for some allegations that Roszak retained control over the work of Rockford in order to trigger the possibility that Roszak was liable due to the conduct of Rockford. The plaintiff, however, had not included any such allegations. And, why should it? The plaintiff did not need to allege Roszak retained control over the subcontractor in order to prove liability. Under Section 414 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a general contractor can be liable in the absence of control, if it is exercising supervisory control. Although the court admitted that the allegations appeared to describe the general duties of a supervisor, it did not go so far as to allege retained control. The court concluded that, Essentially, the instant case involves one theory of liability arising out of section 414 of the Restatement and the additional insured endorsement provides coverage for the other. Pekin was similarly successful in upholding its modified AIE in Pekin Ins. Co. v. United Parcel Services, Inc., 381 Ill. App.3d 98, 885 N.E.2d 386, 319 Ill.Dec. 115 (1st dist. 6th div. 2008). Pekin s success streak, however, came to a screeching halt in the recent case of Pekin Ins. Co. v. Pulte, Ill. App. 3d, N.E. 2d (1st dist. 3d div. 8/25/10). Pekin denied coverage to the additional insured on the basis that the underlying complaint did not allege that the Additional Insured was solely liable for the Named Insured s acts or omissions. The AIE provided coverage if the Additional Insured were solely liable as a result of some act of the Named Insured. The Additional Insured argued that because it was alleged to have owned, controlled or been in charge of the work, it was possible for it to be vicariously liable for the work of the Named Insured. Pekin argued that the underlying complaint had to allege that the Additional Insured was solely liable based on the work of the Named Insured. The court held that Pekin s argument was overreaching. Although the court agreed the Named Insured could be held liable for its own conduct, that did not preclude the possibility that it could be held vicariously liable. The court believed that there were enough facts in the record from which it could draw a reasonable inference that the Additional Insured would be vicariously liable, including plaintiff s answer to Requests to Admit and the
5 5 Named Insured s answers to the counterclaim filed by the Additional Insured. The court was also swayed by a provision in the contract between the Additional Insured and the Named Insured, in which the Named Insured promised to indemnify the Additional Insured unless such claims have been found to have been specifically determined to be the sole negligence of the Additional Insured. The duty to indemnify existed even if the Additional Insured is the only named party and the allegations of the complaint allege that the Additional Insured s conduct is the sole cause of the claimant s injury. The full provision read as follows: Subcontractor hereby agrees to save, indemnify, and keep harmless Pulte and its agents and employees against all liability, claims, judgments, suits or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor s performance of the work under this Agreement ( Claims ) unless such claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte. Contractor s duty to indemnify Pulte shall arise at the time written notice of a Claim is provided to Pulte regardless of whether claimant has filed suit on the Claim. Contractor s duty to indemnify Pulte shall arise even if Pulte is the only party sued by claimant and/or claimant alleges that Pulte s negligence was the sole cause of claimant s damages. Changing the Employee Exclusion One last twist that bears discussion is the case in which the insurer denied coverage to the Additional Insured on the basis of the Employer s Liability Exclusion. In James McHugh Construction Co. v. Zurich Am Ins. Co., 401 Ill. App. 3d 127, 927 N.E.2d 247, 339 Ill. Dec. 706 (1st dist. 2d div. 2010). McHugh, the general contractor, hired JMS Electric, Inc. to design and build an electrical system on a construction project, and Stevenson Crane Service for the use of a crane. Pursuant to both subcontract agreements, the subcontractors added McHugh as an additional insured under their separate general liability policies with Zurich. During the construction, two McHugh employees were injured. The employees sued JMS and Crane. They both filed third-party complaints for contribution against McHugh alleging McHugh s negligence contributed to its employees injuries. McHugh tendered its defense in both cases to Zurich. Zurich denied coverage because the policy excluded coverage for bodily injury to an employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment by the insured. McHugh argued it was an insured under the policy, but was not the insured under the exclusion because only the subcontractor was the insured. Otherwise, McHugh argued, the term the insured in the exclusion was ambiguous. The trial court disagreed and found no duty to defend. The Illinois appellate court affirmed. The parties agreed that an insured referred to both the named insured and any additional insureds. It made no sense to interpret the insured differently from an insured. The obvious meaning of the insured was the insured seeking coverage. Interpreting the insured to mean the insured seeking coverage meant that both the named insured and the additional insured were equally subject to the exclusion. In previous cases interpreting the same exclusion in the context of third party complaints, the courts acknowledged the applicability of the separability clause, which provides that the coverage of the policy will apply separately to each insured. In contrast to the McHugh court s conclusion that coverage for the additional insured should be limited to the same extent as the named insured s, most other courts have recognized the coverage grant is not the same. Conclusion General contractors and owners who hope to use AIEs to provide primary coverage as a risk-shifting devise need to exercise extreme caution in drafting contracts and reviewing insurance policy forms. Caveat emptor is the rule, even if the additional insured is not be the buyer. If the contract has been negotiated to use additional insured status as a means of shielding the Additional Insured s own insurance, then the Additional Insured must be diligent in lining up the appropriate contract provisions, acceptable additional insured endorsements, and conforming other insurance provisions in its own policy. If the opposition against AIEs is successful in preventing the use of additional insured status, then owners and general contractors will have to make adjustments in contract price and subcontract fees.
2013 IL App (1st) 122479 - U SECOND DIVISION May 14, 2013. No. 1-12-2479
2013 IL App (1st) 122479 - U SECOND DIVISION May 14, 2013 No. 1-12-2479 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationSELECTIVE OR TARGETED TENDERS
10 South Riverside Plaza, Suite 1530 Chicago, Illinois 60606 312-454-5110 Fax: 312-454-6166 www.rusinlaw.com SEMINAR May 1, 2007 SELECTIVE OR TARGETED TENDERS Gregory G. Vacala Managing Partner, Civil
More informationIndemnity and Insurance Provisions in Commercial Contracts
Survey Says: The Feud Over Insurance and Indemnity Provisions in Business Contracts Indemnity and Insurance Provisions in Commercial Contracts Kenneth M. Gorenberg Stefan R. Dandelles Indemnity and insurance
More informationEmployers Liability and Insurance Coverage in the Construction Industry
Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Springfield, Illinois www.iadtc.org 800-232-0169 IDC Quarterly Volume 18, Number 1 (18.1.29) Insurance Law By: Gregory G. Vacala and Allison H. McJunkin Rusin
More informationFORC QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF INSURANCE LAW AND REGULATION
The plaintiff in Schmidt filed suit against her employer, Personalized Audio Visual, Inc. ("PAV") and PAV s president, Dennis Smith ("Smith"). 684 A.2d at 68. Her Complaint alleged several causes of action
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s London v. The Burlington Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 141408 Appellate Court Caption CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD S LONDON,
More information2012 IL App (1st) 112728-U. No. 1-11-2728
2012 IL App (1st 112728-U FIRST DIVISION November 5, 2012 No. 1-11-2728 Notice: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More information2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U. No. 1-13-3918 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st) 133918-U No. 1-13-3918 SIXTH DIVISION May 6, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More information2014 IL App (1st) 133931
2014 IL App (1st) 133931 SECOND DIVISION September 9, 2014 No. 1-13-3931 MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. v. ) ) CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS
More informationIN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion)
IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (Memorandum Web Opinion) CITY OF LINCOLN V. DIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Mt. Hawley Insurance Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd s, London, 2014 IL App (1st) 133931 Appellate Court Caption District & No. MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationNo. 2--08--0380 Filed: 6-23-09 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
No. 2--08--0380 Filed: 6-23-09 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Winnebago County. Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) No. 06--MR--160
More informationBy Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP. (Published July 24, 2013 in Insurance Coverage, by the ABA Section Of Litigation)
Tiara Condominium: The Demise of the Economic Loss Rule in Construction Defect Litigation and Impact on the Property Damage Requirement in a General Liability Policy By Heather Howell Wright, Bradley Arant
More informationA&E Briefings. Indemnification Clauses: Uninsurable Contractual Liability. Structuring risk management solutions
A&E Briefings Structuring risk management solutions Spring 2012 Indemnification Clauses: Uninsurable Contractual Liability J. Kent Holland, J.D. ConstructionRisk, LLC Professional consultants are judged
More informationclaiming coverage as an additional insured under an umbrella liability policy it issded tot
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TERRIE LEWARK, assignee of PUBLIC STORAGE, INC. Appellant, No. 68634-8-1 DIVISION ONE v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION DAVIS DOOR SERVICES, INC., a Washington corporation,
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Pekin Insurance Co. v. Rada Development, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 133947 Appellate Court Caption PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RADA DEVELOPMENT,
More informationOther Insurance and the CGL Policy
Other Insurance and the CGL Policy by Craig F. Stanovich Austin & Stanovich Risk Managers, LLC April 2009 We usually make sure our client has purchased its own CGL policy a policy on which it is a named
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-20512 Document: 00512673150 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/23/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED June 23, 2014 Lyle W.
More informationAdditional Insured Changes in the CGL
Additional Insured Changes in the CGL May 2004 New changes to the additional insured endorsements and the introduction of a limitation to the definition of "insured contract" are characterized by ISO as
More information2013 IL App (1st) 122532-U FIRST DIVISION June 28, 2013. No. 1-12-2532
2013 IL App (1st) 122532-U FIRST DIVISION June 28, 2013 No. 1-12-2532 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationHOLD HARMLESS, INDEMNITY, SUBROGATION AND ADDITIONAL INSURED INSURANCE IN TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS
HOLD HARMLESS, INDEMNITY, SUBROGATION AND ADDITIONAL INSURED INSURANCE IN TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS By James W. Bryan Nexsen Pruet P.L.L.C. Greensboro, North Carolina 336-373-1600 jbryan@nexsenpruet.com
More informationIndemnification Clauses, Part 1* Discussion from a/e ProNet's Risk Management and Contract Guide. J. Kent Holland, Jr., Esq.
Indemnification Clauses, Part 1* Discussion from a/e ProNet's Risk Management and Contract Guide J. Kent Holland, Jr., Esq. Issue: Indemnification provisions in contracts may require the design professional
More informationCase 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Case 8:13-cv-00295-EAK-TGW Document 145 Filed 02/12/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 5551 SUMMIT CONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v. CASE NO. 8:13-CV-295-T-17TGW
More informationLiberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v Burlington Ins. Co. 2015 NY Slip Op 30564(U) April 14, 2015 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 155165/2012 Judge:
Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v Burlington Ins. Co. 2015 NY Slip Op 30564(U) April 14, 2015 Sup Ct, New York County Docket Number: 155165/2012 Judge: Arthur F. Engoron Cases posted with a "30000" identifier,
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Pekin Insurance Co. v. Illinois Cement Co., 2016 IL App (3d) 140469 Appellate Court Caption PEKIN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CEMENT COMPANY,
More informationCalifornia Senate Bill 474 Impact on Owners & Contractors
California Senate Bill 474 Impact on Owners & Contractors Beginning January 1, 2013, project owners, general contractors ( GC ), construction managers ( CM ) and any lower tier contractor who employs subcontractors
More information1071593, 1071604 SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
Page 1 1 of 20 DOCUMENTS Colony Insurance Company v. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, and Industrial Maintenance and Mechanical, Inc.; Geogia-Pacific, LLC v. Colony Insurance Company
More information2014 IL App (1st) 123430-U. Nos. 1-12-3430 and 1-12-3457, Consolidated
2014 IL App (1st) 123430-U FOURTH DIVISION March 13, 2014 Nos. 1-12-3430 and 1-12-3457, Consolidated NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 10, 2013 v No. 310157 Genesee Circuit Court ELIAS CHAMMAS and CHAMMAS, INC., d/b/a LC No. 09-092739-CK
More informationUnited States Workers Compensation/Indemnification Overview
United States Workers Compensation/Indemnification Overview January 18, 2012 Jill Kirila jill.kirila@squiresanders.com Kevin Hess kevin.hess@squiresanders.com 36 Offices in 17 Countries Workers Compensation
More informationIn Defense of Insured Contracts
In Defense of Insured Contracts July 2007 The term "insured contract" certainly sounds reassuring. As the definition of "insured contract" lists not only certain contracts or agreements (contract for the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL:07/31/2009 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationObtaining Indemnity Through Effective Tender Letters
Page 1 of 5 Portfolio Media. Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Obtaining Indemnity Through Effective
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 13a0014p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FORREST CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationContractual Indemnification Obligations and Insurance Coverage
Contractual Indemnification Obligations and Insurance Coverage Joseph Fields Steven H. Weisman McCarter & English, LLP Jacqueline Beaudet Frenkel & Company Contractual Indemnification Business contracts
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY : MAY TERM, 2004 & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, : No. 0621
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 07-3147 NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY, an Arizona corporation, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, 1452-4 N. MILWAUKEE AVENUE, LLC, GREAT CENTRAL INSURANCE
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Huizenga v. Auto-Owners Insurance, 2014 IL App (3d) 120937 Appellate Court Caption DAVID HUIZENGA and BRENDA HUIZENGA, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE,
More informationCase 3:06-cv-00073-D Document 32 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 22 PageID 1383
Case 3:06-cv-00073-D Document 32 Filed 03/21/07 Page 1 of 22 PageID 1383 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Plaintiff, VS. NATIONAL
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-60770 Document: 00513129690 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT KINSALE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee United States Court of Appeals
More informationIN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st) 150810-U Nos. 1-15-0810, 1-15-0942 cons. Fourth Division June 30, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in
More informationHow To Defend An Employee Against An Employee In A Construction Accident
Risk-Shifting Agreements In Construction Contracts: Why Insurance May Not Work The Way It Used To David S. White The newer additional-insured clause might leave the owner and subcontractor without the
More informationCase 3:08-cv-00685-B Document 235 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 9 PageID 12363 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:08-cv-00685-B Document 235 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 9 PageID 12363 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TRAMMELL CROW RESIDENTIAL COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationCalifornia Civil Code 2782.05
California Civil Code 2782.05 (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), provisions, clauses, covenants, and agreements contained in, collateral to, or affecting any construction contract and amendments
More informationHow To Defend A Contractor In A Lawsuit Against A Nursing Center
INSURANCE COVERAGE UPDATE Presented and Prepared by: Patrick D. Cloud pcloud@heylroyster.com Edwardsville, Illinois 618.656.4646 Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen PEORIA SPRINGFIELD URBANA ROCKFORD EDWARDSVILLE
More informationConstruction Defect Coverage Recap For 1st Quarter
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Construction Defect Coverage Recap For 1st Quarter
More informationDECEMBER 2011 VOL. 12 NO. 15. Leaking Windows Trigger CGL Insurer s Duty to Defend
DECEMBER 2011 VOL. 12 NO. 15 A publication generated by the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel Insurance Law Committee Leaking Windows Trigger CGL Insurer s Duty to Defend The court in Milwaukee
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION COPLEY ASSOCIATES, LTD., DECEMBER TERM, 2005 Plaintiff, NO. 01332 v. COMMERCE PROGRAM ERIE
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund v. Chicago Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (5th) 140033 Appellate Court Caption ILLINOIS INSURANCE GUARANTY FUND, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationCan You Trust A Certificate Of Insurance?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Can You Trust A Certificate Of Insurance? Law360,
More informationCompanies must think broadly about the. Additional Insured Coverage in the Construction Setting
Additional Insured Coverage in the Construction Setting A Tremendous Asset Requiring Careful Attention to Detail by Lynda A. Bennett and Andrew S. Zimmerman In today s challenging economic climate, it
More informationReed Armstrong Quarterly
Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors
More informationNo. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 20, 2015 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, v No. 320710 Oakland Circuit Court YVONNE J. HARE,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SECURA INSURANCE COMPANY and CIMARRON SERVICES, INC., UNPUBLISHED December 22, 2011 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 298106 Oakland Circuit Court FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY
More information2015 IL App (2d) 150016 No. 2-15-0016 Opinion filed December 23, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT
No. 2-15-0016 Opinion filed December 23, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS SECOND DISTRICT ILLINOIS CASUALTY COMPANY, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of Lake County. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-
More informationFILED May 21, 2015 Carla Bender 4 th District Appellate Court, IL
NOTICE This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (4th 140713-U NO. 4-14-0713
More informationThe Duty to Defend Inextricably Intertwined Actions
-2- The Duty to Defend Inextricably Intertwined Actions ABOUT THE AUTHOR Bryan M. Weiss Bryan M. Weiss is a Partner in the Los Angeles office of Murchison & Cumming, LLP. Mr. Weiss is Co-Chair of the firm's
More informationDecisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals
CIZEK HOMES v. COLUMBIA NAT. INS. CO. 361 Cite as 22 Neb. App. 361 require perfection of a parent when deciding whether termination of parental rights is appropriate. We conclude that there is insufficient
More information2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order
More information2016 IL App (1st) 152359-U. SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016. No. 1-15-2359 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st 152359-U SIXTH DIVISION June 17, 2016 No. 1-15-2359 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationReverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed December 29, 2014. In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
Reverse and Render in part; Affirm in part; Opinion Filed December 29, 2014. S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-01546-CV OKLAHOMA SURETY COMPANY, Appellant/Cross-Appellee
More informationJUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division II Opinion by JUDGE TERRY Casebolt and Furman, JJ., concur. Announced June 10, 2010
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 09CA0830 Arapahoe County District Court No. 08CV1981 Honorable Michael Spear, Judge Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
More informationCONSTRUCTION NEGLIGENCE 55.00 CONSTRUCTION NEGLIGENCE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH GRANTED IN 2002 INTRODUCTION
CONSTRUCTION NEGLIGENCE 55.00 CONSTRUCTION NEGLIGENCE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH GRANTED IN 2002 INTRODUCTION Prior to February 14, 1995, workers injured in construction related settings had a number of avenues
More informationF I L E D June 29, 2012
Case: 11-20469 Document: 00511904997 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D June 29, 2012 Lyle
More informationS09G0492. FORTNER v. GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. We granted certiorari in this case, Fortner v. Grange Mutual Ins. Co., 294
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: October 19, 2009 S09G0492. FORTNER v. GRANGE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY. NAHMIAS, Justice. We granted certiorari in this case, Fortner v. Grange Mutual Ins. Co.,
More informationThe Duty to Defend Your Client
The Duty to Defend Your Client Implications of Two Recent California Court Decisions and the Impact of SB 972 April 2011 By Jeffrey W. Cavignac, CPCU, ARM, RPLU, CRIS President/Principal, Cavignac & Associates
More informationFourth Circuit Decision Holds that Under Virginia Law Faulty Workmanship Does Not Constitute an "Occurrence"
AUGUST 2005 Fourth Circuit Decision Holds that Under Virginia Law Faulty Workmanship Does Not Constitute an "Occurrence" Travelers Indem. Co. of America v. Miller Building Corp., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 14780
More informationPennsylvania Superior Court Renders Pro-Policyholder Decision on Primary Insurer s Attempt to Obtain Reimbursement of Defense Costs
Pennsylvania Superior Court Renders Pro-Policyholder Decision on Primary Insurer s Attempt to Obtain Reimbursement of Defense Costs By: Paul E. Del Vecchio* K&L Gates Henry W. Oliver Building 535 Smithfield
More informationF I L E D August 9, 2011
Case: 10-30886 Document: 00511566112 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2011 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D August 9, 2011 Lyle
More informationCUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE
CUNDIFF V. STATE FARM: ALLOWING DOUBLE RECOVERY UNDER UIM COVERAGE AND WORKERS COMPENSATION Melissa Healy INTRODUCTION In Cundiff v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the Arizona Supreme Court
More informationIndemnity Clauses. Just boilerplate, right?
Indemnity Clauses Just boilerplate, right? Indemnity The obligation resting on one person to make good any loss or damage another has incurred or may incur by acting at his request or for his benefit,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 91 3941. INSTITUTE OF LONDON UNDERWRITERS, Plaintiff Appellee,
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 91 3941. INSTITUTE OF LONDON UNDERWRITERS, Plaintiff Appellee, v. FIRST HORIZON INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant Appellant. FIRST HORIZON INSURANCE COMPANY,
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Athens Construction Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 140006 Appellate Court Caption WEST BEND MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff- Appellee
More informationHow To Defend A Policy In Nevada
Insurance for In-House Counsel April 2014 Kevin Stolworthy, Esq. / Conor Flynn, Esq. / Matthew Stafford, Esq. Commercial General Liability Insurance ( CGL insurance ) Purpose of CGL Insurance CGL insurance
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Docket No. 107472. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. KEY CARTAGE, INC., et al. Appellees. Opinion filed October 29, 2009. JUSTICE BURKE delivered
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CREATIVE DENTAL CONCEPTS, L.L.C., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 26, 2014 V No. 315117 Oakland Circuit Court KEEGO HARBOR DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., LC No. 2012-126273-NZ
More informationDefendant Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund (IIGF) appeals the trial court s granting of
FIFTH DIVISION May 16, 2008 No. 1-07-2663 VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, ADJUSTABLE FORMS INC., ILLINOIS INSURANCE GUARANTY FUND, MORSE DIESEL INC., AMEC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, formerly
More informationHARRIS v AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. Docket No. 144579. Argued March 6, 2013 (Calendar No. 7). Decided July 29, 2013.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan Syllabus This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. Chief
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND BUSINESS COURT. v. Case No. 15-144956-CK Hon. James M. Alexander
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF OAKLAND BUSINESS COURT HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 15-144956-CK Hon. James M. Alexander MDG ENTERPRISES, INC, Defendant.
More informationRE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO. Defendants v.
COURT FILE NO.: 4022A/07 (Milton) DATE: 20090401 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: 1562860 ONTARIO LTD. c.o.b. as SHOELESS JOE S Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PORTFOLIO INC. and CHRISTOPHER CONIGLIO Defendants
More informationINSURANCE COVERAGE UPDATE
INSURANCE COVERAGE UPDATE Presented and Prepared by: Patrick D. Cloud pcloud@heylroyster.com Edwardsville, Illinois 618.656.4646 Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen PEORIA SPRINGFIELD URBANA ROCKFORD EDWARDSVILLE
More informationExcess Carriers Duty to Defend: When Follow Form Means Drop Down and Other Issues
Excess Carriers Duty to Defend: When Follow Form Means Drop Down and Other Issues ABA Insurance Coverage Litigation Committee CLE Seminar March 1-3, 2012 Nicholas J. Boos Natalie G. Maciolek Sedgwick LLP
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 92-7609. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee,
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. No. 92-7609. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Appellee, v. Luther ASHLEY, et al., Defendants, Luther Ashley, et al., Defendants-Appellees
More informationSAMPLE SERVICES CONTRACT
SAMPLE SERVICES CONTRACT The parties to this contract are the SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, a county water authority, (the Water Authority) and, [a / an], having its principal place of business at
More informationIn the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District
In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District SOUTHERN DIVISION BIRI M. BLEVINS, JOHN T. BUSEY, No. ED99852 AND CHARLES W. JONES, Appellants, Appeal from the Circuit Court vs. of Cape Girardeau County
More information2015 IL App (1st) 140790-U. No. 1-14-0790 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st 140790-U THIRD DIVISION March 25, 2015 No. 1-14-0790 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
More informationMONTANA SELF INSURERS ASSOCIATION
MONTANA SELF INSURERS ASSOCIATION Executive Director Bob Worthington Board of Directors Rick Clark Plum Creek Timber Co Tim Fitzpatrick MT Schools Group Donna Haeder NorthWestern Corp Marv Jordan MT Contractors
More informationWorkplace Related Injuries
Workplace Related Injuries A Discussion of the Relevant Provisions of New York State Labor Law By: WARREN S. KOSTER, ESQ. CALLAN, REGENSTREICH, KOSTER & BRADY ONE WHITEHALL STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION KVAERNER US INC., : APRIL TERM, 2003 KVAERNER HOLDINGS, INC. : No. 0940 v. : Commerce Program
More informationIndemnity Agreements & California s Crawford Decision: Its Implications and Strategies for Defense
Indemnity Agreements & California s Crawford Decision: Its Implications and Strategies for Defense Prepared for the Construction Law Section Meeting at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Federation of Defense
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JUNE 19, 2008 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JUNE 19, 2008 Session GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC, ET AL. v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-07-1107-2
More informationHow To Know If A Property Damage Claim Is Covered Under A Cgl Policy
COVERAGE FOR DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND/OR FAULTY WORKMANSHIP: EXCLUSIONS J(5) AND J(6) R. Douglas Rees Co-author Tara L. Sohlman Cooper & Scully, P.C. 900 Jackson Street, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75202
More informationConstruction Defect Action Reform Act
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES Title 13. Courts and Court Procedure Damages Regulation of Actions and Proceedings Article 20. Actions Part 8. Construction Defect Actions for Property Loss and Damage Construction
More information2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 01/23/14. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2014 IL App (5th) 120588-U NO. 5-12-0588
More information