Is An Employee’s Intentional Act An Employer’s “Accident”?
7/10/18
By: Rebecca Smith and Zach Moura It may just be, according to the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (June 4, 2018, No. S236765). In Liberty v. Ledesma, the underlying lawsuit was brought by a minor who sought damages for molestation committed by an…
Pay-When-Paid Clauses: A Cautionary Tale
3/28/18
By: Jake Carroll With the recent surge of construction projects in Georgia, the memories of owner and developer bankruptcies following the 2008 financial crisis may have grown dim. Nevertheless, material suppliers and subcontractors must remember that when the pace slows down, their contracts could leave them without remedy or recourse to seek payment. One of…
Cumis Counsel Limited: Insurer-Appointed Counsel Requires Actual Conflict of Interest
2/9/18
By: David G. Molinari The California Third District Court of Appeals has ruled that the right to Cumis counsel, independent counsel paid by the insurer (San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Soc’y, 162 Cal. App. 3d 358 (1984)) requires an actual as opposed to a potential conflict. In Centex Homes v. Saint Paul…
3/28/13
By: Bart Gary Many contracts, especially construction contracts, will contain a provision whereby one party, usually a subcontractor, agrees to add the other party to the contract, usually the general contractor, as an additional insured on the former’s insurance coverage. Where the additional insured has its own coverage, the question arises as to whether there are…