No Expert Testimony Needed to Establish Date of Injury in Construction Defect Coverage Case

Posted on January 28, 2012 by Brandon Oates

The Dallas Court of Appeals, in Vines-Herrin Custom Holmes, LLC v. Great American Lloyds, No. 05-10-00007-CV, 2011 WL 6396473 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 21, 2011, no pet. h.) handed down an opinion overturning a take-nothing judgment on behalf of an insurer of a construction company and remanding to the trial court for further proceedings.  In so doing, the court held that (1) the plaintiff/owners had pled sufficient facts supporting when the physical damage to the property occurred to trigger the duty to defend on behalf of the insurer, and (2) the duty to indemnify was also triggered where the actual damages manifested during the insurer's policy period.   

Continue Reading...
Tags: ,

No Private Cause of Action Under the Prompt Payment Statute

Posted on November 16, 2011 by Josh White
Grunley, a prime contractor on a public work project, entered into a design-build contract with the federal government.  In the performance of its work, Grunley subcontracted with IES.
 
Grunley experienced unanticipated changes and delays in the performance of its contract, and these changes and delays led to a dispute between Grunley and IES.  The dispute was not resolved, and IES filed a claim against Grunley’s payment bond sureties under the Miller Act (40. U.S.C. §§ 3131 et seq.). 
 
Grunley intervened in IES’ lawsuit and filed a breach of contract action against IES.  IES counterclaimed for breach of contract, alleging that Grunley violated the Prompt Payment Act (31 U.S.C.§§ 3901–3907).
 
At issue before the Court was Grunley’s motion to dismiss IES’ claim under the Prompt Payment Act.
Continue Reading...
Tags: , , ,