Chinese Drywall Litigation about to Snowball Industry

Chinese Drywall Insurance Litigation
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
We have seen this to date from the perspective of increasing claims being made, both state and federal regulators seeking ways to regulate, protect consumers and also determine responsibility and liability for the damages caused by Chinese drywall. Concurrently, the first lawsuits regarding insurance coverage for these claims are starting to move through the courts. Following is a discussion of the issue from that perspective.
Homeowner's PoliciesIn March 2009, Baker v. American Home Assurance Company, No. 09-cv-188 was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Baker is the first complaint regarding homeowner’s insurance for drywall claims. In the Baker case, two Florida policyholders sued their homeowners’ insurer, seeking coverage for property damage resulting from Chinese drywall in their home. The Complaint filed was rather plain. with the policyholders alleging that they notified their insurer of a loss in December 2008 caused from the gases emitted by drywall. The Complaint alleges further that the insurer verbally denied the claim based on “contamination,” but that no formal declination has been issued. In its answer, the insurer denied coverage based upon policy exclusions for pollution, wear and tear, and faulty materials. The insurer also answered that the claim fell outside the policy period. Apparently, the insurer is trying to base some of its reasoning for denial of coverage that the damage occurred at the time the drywall was installed, not the time it began to emit noxious odors. Commercial General Liability PoliciesInsurance disputes concerning contractors' Commercial General Liability ("CGL") policies are also pending. In April 2009, it was reported that Lennar Corporation, one of the principal defendants in Florida’s Chinese drywall litigation, stated that it believed that its insurance would cover the drywall claims. There has been no comment from the insurer. However, the insurer of another homebuilder commenced a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Virginia, Builders Mutual Insurance Company v. Dragas Management Corporation, 2:09-cv-185. Builders Mutual is seeking a declaration that it did not owe defense or indemnity to its insured for Chinese drywall based on the pollution exclusion and the work-product exclusions.
The Component Not Product ArgumentInsurance industry experts are watching the Chinese drywall suits and comparing them to past litigation involving EIFS (Exterior Insulation and Finishing Systems), a building product that provides exterior walls with an insulated finished surface, and waterproofing in an integrated composite material system. The analogy between Chins Drywall and EIFS is that both products are components incorporated into a structure, and as such were intended to have the same useful life of the structure. In Keck v Dryvit Systems, Inc., 830 So.2d 1 (Ala. 2002), the Alabama Supreme Court held that such components are not “products” within the meaning of the Alabama Extended Manufacturers Liability Doctrine (AEMLD), stating:
The owner of a house or of any building should reasonably expect that many components will have the same useful life as the house or building itself and will not need to be replaced over the life of the building. Such components include, by way of example, an exterior brick wall, a staircase, or a fireplace. There are also certain components of a house or a building the purchaser reasonably expects to wear out and to require replacement in the course of normal and ordinary usage, such as roof shingles, a dishwasher, a furnace, or a hot-water heater. Whether an item that is incorporated into real property may be considered a “product” for purposes of the AEMLD is determined by whether the item is a part of the structural integrity of the house or building that is reasonably expected to last for the useful life of the house or building. If it is, then the item cannot be considered a “product” for purposes of the AEMLD. However, if the item is attached or incorporated into real property and, yet its very function and nature clearly makes it an item that one would reasonably expect to repair or to replace during the useful life of the realty, the item may be considered a “product” for purposes of the AEMLD. For instance, although paint, when applied to the structure of a wall, becomes incorporated into the surface of the wall, paint is a structural improvement that does not have the same useful life as the wall itself or the building to which the wall is attached; one would expect to have to repaint a wall to maintain the quality of the first application. Therefore, paint would be considered a product for purposes of the AEMLD.The Keck Court held that EIFS was intended to last for the useful life of the structure, and was not subject to the AEMLD. Further, the Court also held that it was not a “good” under the Uniform Commercial Code, and therefore was not subject to the rules concerning warranties of merchantability. An analogous argument could made that Chins drywall would satisfy the Court's test in Keck , and would therefore not be classified as either a “product” or a “good.”Of particular interest to the default servicing industry is whether a builder or installer would be potentially held liable on a negligence theory for the installation of Chinese drywall. This could be a key difference between Chinese drywall and EIFS litigation. The negligence theories against builders and installers in EIFS often revolved around arguments that the system was improperly installed, and that installation led to problems with moisture intrusion, termites, and other resulting problems. In contrast, the issues concerning Chins drywall are based upon the problems with the product itself, not the installation.. Note that generally, a builder is not liable for latent defects in building materials that are used and “he is not liable to the owner for the latent defect or liable for the amount of damage to the building caused by such defect.” 13 Am. Jur. 2d, Building and Construction Contracts § 27 (1997); Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Masonry Contractors, Inc., 235 So.2d 548 (Fla. Ct. App.1970). Unless a building owner is able to show that the builder or installer had knowledge of the problems associated with Chinese drywall, he or she may have problems with holding those entities accountable.
Civil LitigationGovernment and regulatory actions are occurring that may pave the way for a wave of civil lawsuits by or on behalf of homeowners affected by Chinese drywall. Florida Senators Mary Landrieu, D-La. and Bill Nelson, D-Fla, continue to voice concerns regarding Chinese drywall at the federal level. Both state and Federal agencies have been investigating the drywall itself. Procedures for developing interior air quality tests for the presence or impact of Chins drywall are reportedly being developed by a number of federal agenciesNew Orleans Times-Picayune reported on June 7, 2009 that Sen. Landrieu’s staff said that the federal tests could lay the groundwork for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to bring a civil action against the drywall manufacturers. Stephen Mysliwiec, a partner at the law firm DLA Piper, observed that it will not become clear who is liable for the defective product until consensus emerges on the precise cause of the problems. He noted that, one theory ventures that gypsum mined in China contains excessive sulfur, while another ventures that fly ash, a byproduct of the burning of coal, was used during the manufacturing process. "Until the science of what is causing the problem is settled, it is very difficult to know which party is going to be held liable for the cost of making repairs," Mysliwiec said. On June 15, 2009, a panel of federal judges ruled that lawsuits filed around the country against home builders, suppliers and manufacturers of Chinese drywall will be moved to New Orleans, where U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon will preside over discovery and pre-trial hearings. By transferring all of the cases to federal court in New Orleans, the judicial panel is trying to ensure that lawyers for both the plaintiffs and the defense would not have to duplicate their efforts in multiple courts during discovery. Of equal importance, the panel seeks to prevent judges in different districts from handing down inconsistent rulings.
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2009/06/chinese_drywall_lawsuits_to_be.html.
A legal conference on Chinese drywall, closed to the public, took place in New Orleans on June 18, 2009. The conference presented by HB Litigation Conferences is designed for representatives of homeowners, builders, insurance companies and government agencies.
http://blog.nola.com/tpmoney/2009/06/new_orleans_hosts_legal_confer.html