Question

A Question of Ethics—Breach of Contract.King County, Washington, hired Frank Coluccio Construction Co. (FCCC) to act as general contractor for a public works project involving the construction of a small utility tunnel under the Duwamish Waterway. FCCC hired Donald B. Murphy Contractors, Inc. (DBM), as a subcontractor. DBM was responsible for constructing an access shaft at the eastern end of the tunnel. Problems arose during construction, including a “blow-in” of the access shaft that caused it to fill with water, soil, and debris. FCCC and DBM incurred substantial expenses from the repairs and delays. Under the project contract, King County was supposed to buy an insurance policy to “insure against physical loss or damage by perils included under an ‘All Risk’ Builder’s Risk policy.” Any claim under this policy was to be filed through the insured. King County, which had general property damage insurance, did not obtain an all-risk builder’s risk policy. For the losses attributable to the blow-in, FCCC and DBM submitted builder’s risk claims, which the county denied. FCCC filed a suit in a Washington state court against King County, alleging, among other claims, breach of contract.

1.When FCCC and DBM file their claims, the county secretly colluded with its property damage insurer to deny payment. What do these facts indicate about the county's ethics and legal liability in this situation?

2.All-risk insurance is a promise to pay on the “fortuitous” happening of a loss or damage from any cause except those that are specifically excluded. Payment usually is not made on a loss that, at the time the insurance was obtained, the claimant subjectively knew would occur. If a loss results from faulty workmanship on the part of a contractor, should the obligation to pay under an all-risk policy be discharged? Explain.

Answer 1

Answer :-

( 1 ) :-

Sign of realities about the nation's morals and legitimate obligation in the given Situation :-

• On account of Frank Coluccio Construction Co. ( FCCC ) , Inc.v. Lord County ,136 Wash . App.751,150 P.3d 1147 (Div.1 2007 ) the circuit court decided for FCCC .The court of offers asserted .
• The court found that the area abused its inferred obligation of good confidence and reasonable managing by conspiring with the protection agent to secure the region's position and interests , to the inconvenience of FCCC .

( 2 ) :-

Release of the commitment to pay under an all-hazard approach, if a misfortune results from flawed workmanship :-

• As a condition point of reference to inclusion under an all hazard strategy would not be released in case of defective workmanship regardless of whether a proviso in the approach bars installments because of flawed workmanship .
• In most cases,resulting or resulting misfortune arrangements in protection strategies likewise spread harm that pursues as well as brought about by broken work .