Building Defects

Hurricane Damage at New Orleans Apartment Leads to Dispute Over Insurance Coverage Calculation

Published on: August 22, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

Insurance policies routinely include provisions that are intended to limit the scope of the insurer’s coverage in the event of a claim by the policyholder. For instance, most homeowner’s insurance policies exclude coverage for fire damage that results from the policyholder’s deliberate arson. Commercial premises insurance policies, which commonly also include coverage for loss of business income, can carry similar limitations. The recent case of Berk-Cohen Associates, L.L.C. v. Landmark American Insurance Company in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provides an instructive example of how insurance policies are “construed using the general rules of interpretation of contracts” by the courts.

Berk-Cohen Associates, L.L.C., as the owner of the Forest Isle Apartments in New Orleans, maintained an insurance policy to cover the complex with the Landmark American Insurance Company. The policy covered property damage but specifically did not cover losses at Forest Isle “caused directly or indirectly by Flood.” In the case of a covered cause of loss, such as wind damage or fire, the policy insured Berk-Cohen against both the property damage and the resulting lost business income. However, the scope of the income protection excluded any income that would have been earned directly as a consequence of any “favorable business conditions caused by the impact of the Covered Cause of Loss on customers or on other businesses.” In other words, Berk-Cohen could not profit by a widespread calamity that was also the source of a property damage claims. Forest Isle suffered a series of misfortunes, including a tornado, a vehicle strike, and–most significant–damage from Hurricane Katrina. Following the hurricane, Landmark compensated Berk-Cohen for damages caused by wind but not flood. Concerning Berk-Cohen’s claim for lost business income, Landmark argued that it was not responsible for the increased rents that resulted from the extensive flooding around the city because flood damage was excluded from the policy. Accordingly, Landmark “declined to increase its calculation of lost business income to the extent that any foregone income arose from flooding.” Berk-Cohen initiated litigation and, following a bench trial, the district court held that, notwithstanding the flood damage exclusion in the policy, Landmark should have considered the business conditions attributable to flooding in other buildings when computing the business income that Berk-Cohen lost as a result of the wind damage to Forest Isle. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court’s opinion. It noted that the “Covered Cause of Loss” that gave rise to Berk-Choen’s property damage claim was wind. Consequently, the policy language prohibited Berk-Cohen from recovering for lost business income as a result of wind damage suffered by customers or other competing businesses. But, “any increase in customers’ demand or reduction in competitors’ supply due to flooding at other properties is a permissible factor in calculating lost business income.” (Emphasis supplied.) The court refused to permit Landmark to exclude coverage for flood damage by the policy language while at the same time invoking the same source of damage to reduce Berk-Cohen’s business income recovery. To do so would “extend[] the flood exclusion beyond its function,” since the policy specifically permits the income calculation to consider “favorable business conditions.” Accordingly, the court “decline[d] to use a limitation on coverage”–that is, flooding–“to alter the calculation of damages for a covered loss”–the lost income. The Fifth Circuit concluded that the “policy … excludes coverage for flood damages at the Forest Isle property. The flood exclusion does not, however, prevent Berk-Cohen from recovering lost business income due to the favorable business conditions arising from flood damage to other buildings.”

This case demonstrates that applying the “normal cannons of contract interpretation” can work to the benefit of the insured. As with any contract, the insurance company is bound by the plain meaning of the policy language, even if it means that excluding coverage for one claim will open the door to liability for another. The lesson here is that a knowledgeable and experienced attorney is invaluable to anyone who is involved in a dispute over insurance coverage.

Keeping Up with Your Louisiana Home’s Construction Defects (Part II) – Understanding Statutes

Published on: August 18, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

As previously discussed in Part I, the case of Charles Ebinger, et ux. v. Venus Construction Corporation, et al. focuses on the time period in which a claim for damages can be brought against a contractor and the time period in which a contractor may bring an indemnifying action against a subcontractor. This Part, however, focuses on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s reasoning as to how it interpreted the applicable statute of limitations.

The Ebingers moved into their newly built home in April of 1997. On October 9, 2003, the Ebingers filed suit against Venus Construction alleging defects in the home’s foundation had caused cracks in the drywall, tile, brick walls, and floor. Venus Construction filed its indemnity claim on September 22, 2006 against the engineer and subcontractor that supplied the foundation.

First the Court determined when the cause of action arose. The Court determined that “regardless of the length of the peremptive period, it [the peremptive period] began when the owners took possession of the house or filed an acceptance of the work.” In this case, a certificate of occupancy issued on April 22, 1997, and therefore, that is when the peremptive period began. At the time the Ebingers moved into their home, the original statute was in place and thus the Ebingers would have ten (10) years to file a claim.

Second, the Louisiana Supreme Court looked at the language of the statutes to determine whether the superseding statutes were written to act retroactively or have prospective application. Though the peremptive period was ten years at the time the statute of limitations began to run, the legislature amended the governing statute in 1999, substituting ‘seven’ for ‘ten’ years as the peremptive period. Further, this Act stated “the provisions of this Act shall have prospective application only and shall apply to contracts entered into on or after the effective date of this Act.” Thus, at this time, the Ebingers would still have a valid claim through the original ten year peremptive period because the amended statute had only prospective applicability, not retroactive applicability, as specifically written in the Act by the legislature. Next, the Court looked at the second revision of the Act in 2003 which substitute ‘five’ for ‘seven’ years and did not maintain the ‘prospective application’ language. The Court states that the legislature’s actions in drafting a law are knowing and intentional, and thus, if the legislature meant for the ‘prospective application’ language to continue, then the legislature would have included it in the Act. However, because the legislature did not, the Court’s interpretation is that the 2003 Amendment supersedes the original statute and makes the peremptive period five years, even for those causes of action that arose back when the ten and seven year periods were applicable.

Third, the Court examines Constitutional rights to Due Process and determines that the statute of limitations is a procedural law and as long as it does not disturb a vested legal right, a right that at the moment may be expressed, then the statute of limitations (peremptive period) may be applied retroactively. In the end, the Ebingers’ claim is not perempted even though it was filed two months after the 2003 Amendment because the Ebingers’ right to sue had vested the moment they attained the certificate of occupancy. However, as for Venus Construction, “the mere expectancy of a future benefit,” for Venus Construction in this case the right to file a claim for indemnification, “does not constitute a vested right.” Therefore, Venus Construction’s right to file a claim for indemnification did not vest until a judgment was entered against Venus Construction, and thus the peremptive period has run for Venus Construction to file a claim for indemnification against the subcontractor.

Hurricane Katrina Case Allowed to Move Forward

Published on: April 17, 2011 | By Berniard Law Firm

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastate much of the Gulf Coast, prompting the Louisiana Legislature to enact Acts 2006, which extended the prescriptive period within which insured’s were allowed an additional year to file certain claims under their insurance policies for losses incurred by the storms. Despite many insurance contracts granting only one year for insured’s to file claims, this prescriptive period extension allowed many residents more time to file as a result of the difficult circumstances caused by the storm. The Louisiana Supreme Court recently were asked to determine whether the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, seeking damages from the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation (LCPIC), filed nearly three years after Hurricane Katrina had prescribed. In an earlier decision made by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, the prescriptive period was held to be interrupted by a timely filing of a class action petition against the insurer, which included the Plaintiffs as putative class members. Time is of the essence when filing lawsuits, here, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were timely and permitted to continue their lawsuit against LCPIC.

The plaintiffs, like so many other Gulf Coast residents, suffered extensive property damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Maneuvering through the insurance filing process became tedious and very difficult, the plaintiff’s constantly received refusals by the insurance company to make any payments on their policy limits. Thus, the plaintiff’s turned to legal help in order to obtain help to rebuild their homes and their lives. On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiffs filed a petition against their insurer, LCPIC, seeking payment of their policy limits and damages, including damages for emotional distress and mental anguish. The allegations included: The plaintiff’s property was completely destroyed during the storm, the properties in question were covered by a policy of insurance issued by the defendant LCPIC, yet, the company refused to pay the policy limits. In response, LCPIC filed an Exception of Prescription, arguing that the suit was not filed within one year of loss and that the extended period of prescription provided by legislation had also expired. The trial court initially granted the defendant’s exception of prescription and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim with prejudice, finding that they had failed to file their claim timely. However, on appeal the trial court’s decision was reversed, the prescriptive period had been interrupted by the timely filing of a class action against the defendant insurer in which the Plaintiff’s were putative class members.

Prescription, as defined by Louisiana’s civilian tradition, is defined as a means of acquiring real rights or of losing certain rights as a result of the passage of time. In the case of Cichirillo v. Avondale Industries, Inc, the court reasoned that prescription is designed to “afford a defendant economic and psychological security if no claim is made timely and to protect the defendant from stale claims and from the loss or non-preservation of relevant proof.” Prescription itself is a safety measure that was created in order to prevent defendants from the constant fear of a lawsuit twenty or more years after the fact. Conversely, the other type of period that exists in Louisiana, is liberative prescription. This is a period of time fixed by law for the exercise of a right, yet, a contractual limitation period is not a period of time fixed by law, it is a fixed agreement between the parties. Time is of the essence, yet, there are exceptions to the rule, this is exemplified by the fact that Louisiana extended the initial one year prescriptive period for property damage claims against insurers, for one additional year, allowing victims fo Hurricane Katrina more time to organize the various aspects of their lives that were devastated by the storm.

The primary issue in this recent Louisiana Supreme Court decision, was whether or not the class action suit in which the plaintiff’s were putative class members, interrupted prescription, thus, allowing them continued access to their legal claim against the insurance company. Louisiana civil code article 1793 states, “Any act that interrupts prescription for one of the solidary obligees benefits all the others.” Thus, by becoming putative class members in the initial lawsuit against the insurance company, the plaintiff’s maintained their legal claims against the defendants, allowing them to pursue further legal action against the company despite the passage of time. The court of appeal held that the filing of the class action suits against LCPIC suspended or interrupted the running of prescription against the plaintiff’s property damage claims since they were found to be putative class members when the original class action petitions were filed.

The defendant insurer argued that the contract, which provided one year from the date of the property damage, was the governing time period, even over the statutory extension provided by the Louisiana Legislature. The defendants supported this assertion by declaring that the public interest is served by permitting the insurer to limit the time of its exposure, as Louisiana Civil Code 802 states, “any suit not instituted within the specified time and any claims relating thereto, shall be forever barred unless a contract or the parties thereto provide for a later time.” However, even though the plaintiff’s did not unilaterally file a claim against the insurer within the one year contractual time period, they did enter into the class action against the insurer within the aforesaid time period. Upon the filing of the class action, liberative prescription on the claims arising out of the transaction or occurrences described in the petition were suspended as to all members of the class. The insurance contract provided a contractual time period, not a prescriptive time period, as a result, the additional one year time period afforded to Gulf Coast residents affected by the storm governs. The insurance company attempted to assert the contractual nature of its agreement to circumvent the application of the general codal and statutory rules of prescription is adverse to Louisiana civil Code Article 3471, which clearly circumscribes the limits of any contractual agreement attempting to incorporate a limitation period different from that established by law. Specifically, Louisiana Civil Code Article 3471 states:

A juridical act purporting to exclude prescrption, to specify a longer period than that established by law, or to make the requirements of prescription onerous, is null.

Thus, parties cannot “opt out” of prescriptive periods created by general codal and statutory rules. The plaintiff’s entered into a class action within the prescriptive time period, this interrupted the passage of time that would have taken away their legal rights to sue the insurer. Thus, the subsequent suit against the defendants was timely, and despite the contractual language that attempted to circumvent the Louisiana Legislature, the plaintiff’s filing was timely.