“Right to Repair” In the United States

More than thirty states have enacted legislation that requires homeowners to notify builders of claimed defects and to provide them with an opportunity to repair the defects before the owners initiate legal proceedings. These “right to repair” statutes are the legislatures’ response to the increased filing of time-consuming and expensive construction defect lawsuits. Right to repair statutes provide an avenue to avoid litigation whereby the builder can address the homeowner’s claimed defects and attempt to repair the defects and allow homeowners to seek repairs without having to file a lawsuit.

In general, right to repair statutes impose procedural requirements and a timeline for managing construction defects prior to filing a lawsuit. As a preliminary matter, some states (such as California and Washington) require that the builder opt-in or reserve the right to proceed via right to repair statutes in the purchase contract at the outset of the project. When a defect is discovered, the owner is typically required to notify the builder of the defect within a certain period before filing suit. The statutes further provide deadlines for the builder to respond, conduct an inspection, notify the subcontractors, and make an offer to repair, settle, or deny the claim. Additionally, the statutes sometimes limit applicability of the right to repair procedures to certain types of construction and/or defects through statutory definitions.
While right to repair statutes are aimed at facilitating out-of-court resolution for construction defect claims, some argue that, in certain states, the statutes are poorly constructed to meet this goal.

For instance, some states impose an unreasonably compressed timeframe for certain procedural benchmarks to occur. Additionally, several states only require that the owner give “reasonable detail” to the builder when notifying them of the defect, which can sometimes lead to vague and frustrating defect notifications. Ultimately, the legislatures’ goal of reducing litigation and facilitating out-of-court resolution, while laudable, is oftentimes frustrated by right to repair statutes. Because most states allow the homeowner to reject the builder’s offer to repair, right to repair statutes are sometimes nothing more than an additional procedural hurdle in the litigation process.

Although the right to repair statutes are seemingly straightforward, the interpretation and application of the statutes is oftentimes highly litigated. Recently, for example, litigation has concerned the issues of whether right to repair procedures are mandatory or optional and the effect of the right to repair procedures on insurance obligations. In California, courts have recently disagreed as to whether or not the procedures outlined by the right to repair statute are the exclusive remedy for addressing construction defect claims, precluding plaintiffs from filing suit for common law claims without complying with the right to repair procedures.1 In Florida, the United States District Court recently held that actions taken under the right to repair statutes were not a “civil proceeding” for purposes of the insured’s insurance policy and, therefore, not a “suit” obligating the insurer to defend or indemnify.2 As a result of continued litigation, legislatures are attempting to address the ambiguities in these statutes and several states passed amendments just this year. It is therefore important that practitioners remain current on right to repair statutes and the issues surrounding them.

This article will identify and discuss some highlights and nuances of right to repair statutes and draw attention to recent legislation and key developments in certain key states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Texas and Washington.

Arizona

Earlier this year, the Governor of Arizona approved H.B. 2578 which modified the existing Purchaser’s Dwelling Act.3 As amended by H.B. 2578, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 12-1361 – 1366 (West 2015) requires that a purchaser first undertake certain notice procedures before filing a “dwelling action,” which is now defined as “any action involving a construction defect brought by a purchaser against the seller of a dwelling arising out of or related to the design, condition or sale of the dwelling.”4 In addition, H.B. 2578 codifies a definition for previously undefined terms such as “construction defect” and “construction professional.”5 Most significantly, now, a purchaser has an absolute duty to notify the seller of the construction defect before filing a claim6 and the seller has an absolute right to attempt to repair or replace the defects.7 In practice, the contractor must respond to the purchaser’s notice within sixty days of receipt8; if the contractor fails to do so, the purchaser may file suit.9

California

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 895-945.5 (West 2014), also referred to as “S.B. 800,” establishes pre-litigation procedures that must be followed before a suit alleging construction defects is filed. As a preliminary matter, when the sales agreement is executed, the builder must notify the homeowner of the builder’s intent to opt-in to the procedures under S.B. 800.10 Or, alternatively, the builder may create and enforce its own pre-litigation procedures if the alternative procedures are included in the sales contract.11 Prior to filing an action, the claimant must provide written notice to the builder that describes “in reasonable detail” the claimed violation.12 S.B. 800 then requires that the builder provide certain documentation to the claimant and that the builder, upon election, conducts an inspection the property within 14 days of acknowledging receipt of the claim.13 Within 30 days of inspection, the builder may make an offer to repair the defect,14 at which point the homeowner has 30 days to authorize the repair.15 Alternatively, if the builder fails to acknowledge the notice of claim16 or does not make an offer to repair, the claimant may file suit.17 S.B. 800 precludes the builder from obtaining a release or wavier in exchange for repair work.18

Colorado

Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-20-801 – 808 (West 2014), the “Construction Defect Action Reform Act,”19 requires that the construction professional is notified via written notice of claim no later than 75 days (or 90 days in the case of commercial properties) before an action is filed.20 Within 30 days of the notice, the claimant must provide the construction professional and its contractors with access to the property for inspection.21 Next, within 30 days (or 45 days if a commercial property), the construction professional may send the claimant an offer to settle or repair.22 If no offer is made or if the claimant rejects the offer, the claimant may bring an action for construction defect – unless, of course, the parties have contractually agreed to mediation.23

There are several limitations on damages that may be award to the claimant.24 For example, damages awarded in an action asserting personal or bodily injury as a result of a construction defect cannot exceed $250,000.25 Additionally, in certain circumstances, the contractor will not be liable for more than “actual damages,”26 which are defined as “the fair market value of the real property without the alleged construction defect, the replacement cost of the real property, or the reasonable cost to repair the alleged construction defect, whichever is less, together with relocation costs, and, with respect to residential property, other direct economic costs related to loss of use, if any, interest as provided by law, and such costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees as may be awardable pursuant to contract or applicable law.”27

Earlier this year, S.B. 15-177 died in the House of Representatives.28 Had it passed, the bill would have modified the timeframe and procedure for pursuing construction defect claims by condominium homeowners associations.29 Local governments have started to address these issues themselves; for example, Aurora, a city just east of Denver, will vote this month on an ordinance affecting construction defect suits and multi-unit construction.30

Florida

In June of this year, H.B. 87 was approved by the Florida Governor and amends Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 558.001 – .005 (West 2014). The amendment will take effect in October of this year.32 Significantly, the amendments require notification of the claim at least 60 days (or 120 days if an action involving an association representing 20 parcels) before filing an action. The notice must describe the nature and damage of each defect in “reasonable detail” and describe, based on visual observation, the location of the defect.33 Otherwise, the Florida procedure is relatively unaffected by H.B. 87.

In general, the statutes require that the contractor respond within 45 days (or 75) after service of the notice of claim and the response must either offer to remedy, offer to compromise or settle, or dispute the claim.34 At that point, if the contractor disputes the claim or fails to respond timely, the claimant may file suit.35 Additionally, the statutes provide for certain notice requirements where the contractor alleges that subcontractor or other professionals are responsible for the noticed defects.36

Nevada

In 2015, the Nevada Governor signed A.B. 125 which modified the state’s right to repair statutes.37 Now, under Nev. Legis. 2 (2015), 2015 Nevada Laws Ch. 2 (A.B. 125) (amending Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 40.600 – .695 (West 2013)), before a claimant can commence an action or amend a complaint to include an additional cause of action for a construction defect, the claimant must give written notice to the contractor and any party the claimant knows may be responsible for the defect.38 The written notice must now identify each defect, damage, and injury in “specific detail,” whereas the statute previously required only “reasonable detail.”39 Additionally, the notice must describe the exact location of the defect, the cause of the defect (if known) and the nature and extent of damage or injury.40 Even more, it must include a signed statement by each named owner verifying that the defect, damage and injury exist.41 Until the claimant has submitted a claim under the homeowner’s warranty and the insurer has denied the claim, a claimant is precluded from sending notice or pursuing a claim governed by these statutes.42 Further, no later than 90 after receiving the notice from the owner, the contractor or subcontractor must respond to the owner stating whether the contractor or subcontractor elects to repair, an offer to settle, or a disclaimer of liability.43 If the contractor or subcontractor elects to repair, the claimant must provide reasonable opportunity to do so.44 The election to repair may not be conditional upon a release of liability.45 If the contractor or subcontractor elects not to repair, the claimant or contractor may bring a cause of action for the defect.46

Texas

In Texas, Tex. Prop. Code. Ann. §§ 27.001 – .007 comprise the state’s right to repair statute. First, the claimant must provide the contractor with 60 days’ notice of a defect suit.47 If the contractor requests, the claimant must provide the contractor with information as to the nature and extent of repairs necessary (including reports, photos, and videotapes).48 If Subtitle D does not apply, the contractor may make an offer of settlement 45 days after notice of the suit.49 If the claimant then rejects a reasonable offer or fails to permit repairs, then the amount that the claimant may recover is limited.50 If the claimant finds an offer made by the contractor to be unreasonable, then the claimant is required to notify the contractor “in reasonable detail” of the reasons why it is considered unreasonable within 25 days after receiving the offer.51 Moreover, the amount of economic damages proximately caused by the defect is limited in circumstances where the claimant rejects a reasonable offer.52

Washington

With new construction or a remodel that costs more than one-half of the assessed value of the real property,53 Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 64.50.005 – .060 requires that the claimant give written notice to the contractor or other construction professional at least 45 days before filing a lawsuit.54 However, as a preliminary matter, the statutes require that the construction professional provide notice to the homeowner upon entering into a contract for construction or substantial remodel.55 If the construction professional fails to provide the statutorily prescribed notice,56 the Washington Supreme Court has interpreted these sections in a manner that does not preclude suit in circumstances where the owner fails to provide pre-litigation notice.57 In instances where the owner is required to provide notice, although the contractor has 21 days from the notice of claim to serve a written response that either proposes an inspection, offers to compromise or settle the claim, or disputes the claim, the claimant is not required to accept the proposed repairs.58

Conclusion

The issue of right to repair statutes is an evolving and dynamic area of law. Although legislatures intend to simplify and streamline the defect repair process, the meaning and application of right to repair statutes are highly litigated issues. Many states are still wrestling with the concept in order to determine appropriate and effective legislation to provide avenues for builders to avoid litigation without creating overwhelming obstacles and impractical hurdles for owners with genuine defect claims. It is critical that practitioners stay current with the evolving legislation and case law in order to ensure that they comply with the requirements of right to repair statutes.

______________________________________

[framed_box]
This article was authored by Mr. Glucksman – a founding partner of Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger, which has offices throughout California. Mr. Glucksman is an AV Preeminent Rated Lawyer with Martindale-Hubbell, which is the highest rating available. He has been named “Super Lawyer” for the last 8 years, including 2015. He is well known in the construction and business legal community for his representation of builders, developers and business clients.
This article was originally published by AmWINS Group, Inc., a leading wholesale distributor of specialty insurance products and services. AmWINS publishes The Edge, a monthly email with informative and timely articles for P&C and benefits insurance agents and brokers. To sign up to receive The Edge or for more information about AmWINS, visit amwins.com.
Legal Disclaimer: Views expressed here do not constitute legal advice. The information contained herein is for general guidance of matter only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Discussion of insurance policy language is descriptive only. Every policy has different policy language. Coverage afforded under any insurance policy issued is subject to individual policy terms and conditions. Please refer to your policy for the actual language.
[/framed_box]

Citation
 1. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC, 219 Cal.App.4th 98 (Cal.App.4 Dist., 2013); McMillin Albany LLC v. Super. Ct., 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (Cal.App. 5 Dist., 2015)
 2. Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., 2015 WL 3539755, at *9 (S.D. Fla., June 4, 2015, 13-80831-CIV)
 3. COURTS—COURT RULES—PURCHASES AND PURCHASING, 2015 Ariz. Legis. Serv. Ch. 60 (H.B. 2578) (WEST), approved by the Governor on March 23, 2015.
 4. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-1361(7)
 5. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-1361
 6. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-1363(A)
 7. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-1363(E)
 8. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-1363(C)
 9. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-1363(D)
 10. Cal. Civ. Code, § 914
 11. Id.
 12. Cal. Civ. Code, § 910
 13. Cal. Civ. Code, § 916
 14. Cal. Civ. Code, § 917
 15. Cal. Civ. Code, § 918
 16. Cal. Civ. Code, § 915
 17. Cal. Civ. Code, § 920
 18. Cal. Civ. Code, § 926
 19. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-801 (West)
 20. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-803.5(1) (West)
 21. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-803.5(2) (West)
 22. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-803.5(3) (West)
 23. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-803.5(6) (West)
 24. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-806 (West)
 25. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-806(4)(a) (West)
 26. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-806(1)(a) (West)
 27. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-20-802.5 (West)
 28. http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2015a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/D959FA5EFAE1C67E87257D9000765F8E?Open&target=/clics/clics2015a/csl.nsf/billsummary/3E50F2E2EDBD7C3E87257D880004F79E?opendocument
 29. http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2015a/csl.nsf/billcontainers/D959FA5EFAE1C67E87257D9000765F8E/$FILE/177_01.pdf
 30. http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/after-state-stalemate-aurora-tackles-construction-defects/
 31. CONSTRUCTION—CLAIMS—DEFECTS, 2015 Fla. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 2015-165 (C.S.C.S.C.S.H.B. 87) (WEST), approved by the Governor June 16, 2015.
 32. Id.
 33. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 558.004(1) (West)
 34. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 558.004(5) (West)
 35. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 558.004(6) (West)
 36. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 558.004(3) (West)
 37. CONSTRUCTION—CONTRACTORS—DEFECTS, 2015 Nevada Laws Ch. 2 (A.B. 125)
 38. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.645(1) (West)
 39. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.645(2)(b) (West)
 40. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.645(2)(b)-(c) (West)
 41. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.645(2)(d) (West)
 42. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.650(3) (West)
 43. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.6472(1) (West)
 44. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.6472(5) (West)
 45. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.648(4) (West)
 46. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40.6472(4) (West)
 47. TX PROPERTY § 27.004(a) (West)
 48. Id.
 49. TX PROPERTY § 27.004(b) (West)
 50. TX PROPERTY § 27.004(e) (West)
 51. TX PROPERTY § 27.004(b) (West)
 52. TX PROPERTY § 27.004(e) (West)
 53. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 64.50.010(8)
 54. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 64.50.020(1)
 55. Wash. Rev. Code. Ann. § 64.50.050
 56. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 64.50.050(2) provides:
 The notice required by this subsection shall be in substantially the following form: CHAPTER 64.50 RCW CONTAINS IMPORTANT REQUIREMENTS YOU MUST FOLLOW BEFORE YOU MAY FILE A LAWSUIT FOR DEFECTIVE CONSTRUCTION AGAINST THE SELLER OR BUILDER OF YOUR HOME. FORTY-FIVE DAYS BEFORE YOU FILE YOUR LAWSUIT, YOU MUST DELIVER TO THE SELLER OR BUILDER A WRITTEN NOTICE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS YOU ALLEGE ARE DEFECTIVE AND PROVIDE YOUR SELLER OR BUILDER THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN OFFER TO REPAIR OR PAY FOR THE DEFECTS. YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT ANY OFFER MADE BY THE BUILDER OR SELLER. THERE ARE STRICT DEADLINES AND PROCEDURES UNDER STATE LAW, AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW THEM MAY AFFECT YOUR ABILITY TO FILE A LAWSUIT.
 57. Lakemont Ridge Homeowners Ass’n v. Lakemont Ridge Ltd. Partnership, 156 Wash.2d 696, 702 (Wash., 2006) (holding that since “the Act states it ‘shall not preclude or bar any action’ if the ‘construction professional fails to give the homeowner notice,’ the [owner’s] action cannot be precluded or barred for failing to give prelitigation notice.”)
 58. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 64.50.020(3)(b)

National

• The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Impact on PC Industry
• Link to  State Workers Compensation Web Sites

Alabama

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Alaska

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Arizona

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Arkansas

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

California

• Travelers’ Response to California DOI Memoranda (8/2009)            Travelers  CSS
• Senate Bill 863 – California Workers Compensation Reform 2013
• Impact of WCAB En Banc Decisions on CA Employers (5/2009)       Travelers   CSS
  > Update on WCAB En Banc Decisions on CA Employers (9/2009)  Travelers   CSS
  > Update on WCAB En Banc Decisions on CA Employers (7/2011)  Travelers   CSS
• Travelers Medical Provider Network Information for California Customers
• California Medical Provider Network (MPN) Overview (4/2011)
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview
• California State Claim Forms & Notices

Colorado

• Impact of H.B. 1178 on Colorado Employers
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Connecticut

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Delaware

• Impact of Senate Bill 1 on Delaware Employers
• Physician’s First Report of Injury form
• Employer’s Modified Duty Availability Report form
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

District of Columbia

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Florida

• Florida Managed Care Arrangement Information
• Wage Statement
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Georgia

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Hawaii

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Idaho

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Illinois

• Public Act 94-0277
• Public Act 97-18
• Hydraulics v. Illinois Industrial Commission (Petrillo Doctrine)
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Indiana

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Iowa

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Kansas

• 2011 Changes to Kansas Workers Compensation Act
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Kentucky

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Louisiana

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Maine

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Maryland

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Massachusetts

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Michigan

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Minnesota

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Mississippi

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Missouri

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Montana

• Montana Supreme Court Decision on Workers Comp Claim Handling (3/2012)
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Nebraska

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Nevada

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Top

New Hampshire

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

New Jersey

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

New Mexico

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview
• Guide to Workers Compensation in New Mexico

New York

• Legislative Information and Employer/Employee Resources
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

North Carolina

• 2011 Changes to NC Workers Compensation Act
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Ohio

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Oklahoma

• 2013 Changes to Oklahoma Administrative WC Act (sec. 1 of Title 85A)
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Oregon

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Pennsylvania

• PA Notice of Employee Rights & Duties
• Workers Compensation Information Form
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Rhode Island

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

South Carolina

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

South Dakota

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Tennessee

• 2013 changes to Tennessee Workers Compensation Act
• Workers Compensation Information
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Texas

• Texas Supreme Court Decision on Workers Comp Claim Handling (6/2012)
• Impact of 2011 Texas Closed Drug Formulary on Workers Compensation Claims
• House Bill 7 – Workers Compensation Reform
• Ombudsman Program – Employer Notification
  • New Requirements for Employers
  • Ombudsman Required Posting
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Top

Utah

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Vermont

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Virginia

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Washington

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

West Virginia

• Workers Compensation Information
• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Wisconsin

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Wyoming

• Workers Compensation Benefit Overview

Our program includes a Package, General & Professional Liability, Property, Umbrella, Auto (some restrictions may apply) and Abuse & Molestation. Our pro- gram also offers Coverage Endorsements & Enhancements such as Volunteers & Independent Contractors as Insureds, Optional Key Employee Replacement Endorsement and Optional Extended Coverage Endorsement with Blanket Additional Insured. We also offer Workers Compensation, Accident & Health, D&O and EPLI.
The Humanity Plus Program is a national program written through an Admitted “A” Rated carrier with available coverage in all states except Hawaii and Alaska. For more information, call 877-239-0067.

Risk Control Tips for Frequent Claims

Different types of claims will vary with each social service risk, but there were a few similar types of claims that stood out to underwriters when writing Drug & Alcohol Rehabilitation Centers.
These claims happen frequently and there are ways to avoid the risk from becoming more serious.

Suicide often occurs at an Addiction Treatment Center. According to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), research shows that a substance abuse disorder can be a risk factor for suicide. NIMH also explains that usually the substance abuse disorder is associated with other mental disorders.
According to The Canyon, An Exclusive Co-occurring Treatment Program by the Foundations Recovery Network, 25 percent of people who committed suicide had been abusing drugs and/or alcohol at the time and 50 percent of youth that committed suicide had a history using alcohol and drugs.
Since alcohol and drugs have the ability to inhibit the mind and emphasize emotions, it is not uncommon for suicidal thoughts, attempts and occurrences to take place at an addiction treatment center. Treatment centers like The Canyon are aware of this and offer what they call “dual diagnosis” to treat some- one simultaneously for addiction and mental illness.

Fire is also a claim that is seen often by addiction treatment centers since many clients will turn to cigarettes instead of alcohol and drugs. To prevent fires from happening, make sure your insured has a strict policy on cigarette disposal. Try to keep a “smoking section” to a limited outside area away from the building with cigarette-specific disposal containers. Many of our insureds have actually started to enforce a non-smoking environment to eliminate the risk altogether.

Sexual Abuse & Molestation claims arise at addiction treatment centers, specifically when a relationship connection is built between a member of the insured’s staff and a client. To help avoid situations like this, advise your insureds to have a strict no-tolerance policy against fraternizing or socially communicating with clients. Advise your insured to include this policy in their Employee Handbook and reiterate the importance of it during staff meetings.

Insureds should also meet with their employees to discuss the progress of clients and to explain any problems that may be occurring between the client and employee.
Advise your insured to determine accept- able client-and-client behavior as well. There should be written guidelines explaining what is acceptable and this should be posted throughout the building.

WE UNDERSTAND YOUR GENERAL LIABILITY HAZARDS

• Training modules for unique risks such as flagging/traffic control
• Risk control specialists to assist in analyzing digging sites for pipe-laying hazards
• Coverage available for failure-to-supply services and sewer back-up liability
• Utilization of immunities and tort caps where applicable
• Coverage for members of boards, commissions and sewer authorities

WE HAVE AN INDUSTRY-LEADING WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM

• Co-located medical and claims professionals promptly handle, thoroughly investigate and fairly resolve claims, with a focus on return-to-work
• Discounts and savings through carrier’s preferred medical provider network

WE KNOW YOUR MACHINES

• Specialized equipment breakdown  coverage and certified boiler and machinery inspections and consultations through carrier’s Boiler & Machinery

WE PROVIDE SERVICES FOR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

• Complimentary EPL hotline provides access to EPL attorneys* to answer your questions
• Discounts for employee training to help protect against “failure to train” exposures

WE UNDERSTAND EMOTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH SEWER BACKUP

• Our dedicated Sewer Backup Claim Unit  understands the importance of balancing residents’ emotional reactions to water backup events with prompt claim handling
• Specialists work with sewer backup adjusters for valuation of residents’ personal items, antiques, etc.

WE OFFER CYBER LIABILITY PROTECTION

• Coverage to protect against cyber and ID fraud for entities that store data electronically

Our carriers offer water and sewer districts a variety of tools and services – from workers compensation support to bill paying options – to meet your unique needs. Our underwriting, claims and risk control teams are staffed with knowledgeable professionals dedicated solely to serving public entities. Below is a quick rundown of what  we can provide for water and sewer districts:

Underwriting

Underwriters stay abreast of public affairs and evolving legal and social issues in your area. They’re devoted to creating balanced, effective insurance solutions that address your unique needs.
They can provide:
• Broad coverage forms tailored for publicly-owned utilities (such as underground piping and pumps)
• Broadened pollution provision to address chlorine/sodium hypochlorite in water or sewage purification processes as well as sewer backup incidents
• Failure-to-supply limits applicable for water, gas or electric operations

Claim

Our claim professionals are dedicated solely to handling public entity claims. They understand state-specific issues and have extensive knowledge of the immunities and special defenses afforded to public entities. Other claim highlights include:
• 24/7 claim reporting online or our toll-free number
• Dedicated claim professionals assigned to manage and coordinate your claim
• Quick service and local expertise from one of a number of claim offices situated nationwide
• State-of-the-art workers compensation claims technology
• Access to unique workers compensation web site dedicated to injured employees

Risk Control

The risk control team can help strengthen your risk management program with a number of special tools and services:

• Online products and services
–– Assistance with continuity of operations planning
–– Training modules for unique risks like flagging/traffic control
–– Property, Preservation, a one-stop shop for valuable program guides, checklists and technical bulletins
–– Safety self assessments through Virtual Risk Manager
• Certified Boiler & Machinery inspections and consultations
• Risk control specialists to assist in analyzing digging sites for pipe-laying hazards
• Nationwide network of fire protection specialists with experience serving public entities
• Workers compensation specialists available for post-injury management
• Local risk control specialists
• Robust website with broad array of information to help address challenges specific to water and sewer districts

Bill Pay

We offer direct bill and agency bill plans on an annual, semi-annual or quarterly basis in order to fit your cash flow needs.

Backed by Financial Strength
And, as always, you’re backed by the financial strength. Our carriers are a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and have received consistently high ratings for financial strength and claims paying ability from independent ratings services, including A.M. Best, Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s.

For more information, call Diana Motseniat at 877-239-0067 ext. 111.

After nearly a decade of rate declines, insurers also are typically seeking to raise rates on umbrella and excess liability insurance of between 8 and 10 percent, according to Marsh’s August 2012 Construction Market Update.

According to the report, rates for project-specific general liability, general liability wraps, controlled insurance programs, builders’ risk, environmental insurance, and contractors professional insurance, have generally remained flat or up only slightly in 2012.

Although the workers’ compensation market has been relatively stable for good quality risks, rates have increased in many states as underwriters continue to grapple with deteriorating combined ratios and escalating medical costs, Marsh said in its report. Forthcoming changes to the National Council on Compensation Insurance’s experience modification calculations—which help to determine workers’ compensation rate.

Paperless Insurance Services provides insurance quotes for construction companies from A+ rated insurers to B+ rated risk retention group. Get instant quote now at www.paperless-insurance.com

As of today – August 6, 2012, 7 states have passed Electronic Proof of Insurance Laws.

• Alabama
• Arizona
• California
• Colorado
• Idaho
• Louisiana
• Minnesota

Mississippi and Maryland have a version of these laws before their state Assemblies.

A Great Step Forward for You

These laws all make an electronic image of the paper copy of a Proof of Insurance card a legal proof of insurance.  Louisiania’s wording is typical… ” an image of the card or similar documents capable of being displayed on a mobile electronic device”.

No Right to View Other Content

If only a picture is needed, then you can always just take your phone and take a picture of your Proof of Insurance Card setting on a desk or counter top. Just be careful and think twice before letting the police officer look at all the other pictures in your photo gallery while you (or policeman) try and find the one your took of your Proof of Insurance.

All of the laws include language making it clear that the police officer has no right to view any other material on the mobile device or that the action of showing your Proof of Insurance on your mobile device is not permission to provide any other access to your mobile device. Here is the California wording:  “For the purposes of this section, when a person provides evidence of financial responsibility using a mobile electronic device to a peace officer, the peace officer shall only view the evidence of financial responsibility and is prohibited from viewing any other content on the mobile electronic device.”

Important P.S.: For those who travel interstate, don’t forget to take the hard copy of your insurance ID card, as it may appear that in other states electronic proof of insurance is not yet been implemented and actual card may be required.

And the last thing: get instant multiple personal and commercial insurance quotes, compare pricing and coverage from leading carriers and receive images of ID cards upon policy binding instantly.

Gov. Jan Brewer has signed into law a bill to have Arizona join Idaho in permitting motorists to use a wireless communication device to show proof of auto insurance.

Arizona was the second state to approve such a bill. Idaho on Wednesday became the first state in the nation to pass an electronic proof of insurance bill.

A California legislator’s bill to enable auto insurance policyholders to issue proof of coverage verification via a mobile electronic device, such as a smartphone, is among several similar bills in at least a handful of states in various stages of passage.

California Legislator Introduces Smartphone Proof of Insurance Bill 1708, would enable a person required to provide evidence of financial responsibility to do so through the use of a mobile electronic device, according to the bill’s wording.

A similar bill in Idaho, Senate Bill 1319, passed out of the Senate Transportation Committee unanimously and Maryland and Mississippi are among states with bills making their way through  those respective legislatures that would enable motorists to display insurance information in electronic format.

Easy Way to Quote and Bind Online

We offer an advanced and intuitive online application that allows to facilitate the quotation, binding and policy issuance process for our customers. For qualified applicants, a quote and policy may be processed in minutes.

Coverage Features

We’re confident that our program will bring you superior underwriting and service. That said, the policy’s coverage will remain packed with coveted features and include 2 free hours of access to a toll-free, confidential risk management hotline and, for qualifying risks, new coverage endorsements, may be available, including:

• Mold endorsement
• Franchise endorsement
• Subpoena Coverage endorsement
• Network Security and Theft of Data endorsement

Learn More

To learn more about our Real Estate Errors and Omissions, check out our Real Estate E&O page or contact Paperless Insurance Services today at:
Phone: 877-239-0067
E-mail: re@paperlessgroup.com
Web: paperless-insurance.com/get-a-quote-now/