Connecticut Supreme Court Again Asked to Determine the Meaning of Collapse
August 20, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiFaced with a series of policies, earlier ones which did not define collapse, newer policies which did, the court determined there was a possibility of coverage under the older policies which did not define collapse. Vera v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100548 (D. Conn. June 15, 2018).
Connecticut courts have faced a rash of collapse cases as a result of cement provided to build house foundations by J.J. Mottes Concrete Co. Many basement foundations built with the concrete have shown cracking and other signs of premature deterioration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Defining a Property Management Agreement
June 22, 2020 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPThis article will serve as a guide to what is needed in a Property Management Agreement to avoid potential real estate disputes between owners and property managers.
What is a Property Management Agreement?
With the known volatility in the stock market since the “Dot-com Bubble” in the late 1990’s the Financial Crisis spanning 2007 to 2009, and even today’s global market crash arising from the COVID-19 Pandemic, people have looked to invest in options such as real estate that have proven to be more stable than the fluctuating and uncertain stock market.
Today, more than ever, people have recognized the benefits in real estate and diversified their investments to include the ownership of residential or commercial property. This has grown to become a lucrative source of income.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate
April 20, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaOn March 26, 2020, Michelin-rated Napa Valley restaurants, French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, and their celebrity chef, Thomas Keller, filed the second known
coronavirus-related declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit by a restaurant. The restaurants filed their DJ against Hartford Fire Insurance Company just seven days after Napa County issued a Shelter at Home Order.1 Chef Keller’s suit comes on the heels of the first such suit by a restaurant seeking to recover business income losses, filed by iconic New Orleans French Quarter restaurant Oceana Grill2 on March 17, just four days after the Louisiana governor issued an order prohibiting gatherings of more than 250 people.
As local governments seek to protect their citizens and prevent an onslaught of cases in area hospitals, they are issuing various “stay home,” “shelter at home,” and similar orders to force social distancing and to help flatten the curve of the growth in COVID-19 cases. Restaurants nationwide are especially hard hit by these orders, as many of these orders contain size limitations on gatherings, which have required that restaurants and bars limit capacity (as in the March 13th Louisiana order). Other such orders require non-essential businesses to “cease all activities in the County” (as in the Napa County Shelter at Home order). The Napa County order does not exempt restaurants as “essential businesses,” except when providing food for take-out or delivery. Other orders, still, directly address restaurants and require them to cease allowing public consumption of food and beverages (as in the subsequent, March 17th Louisiana order).
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Ms. McDonald may be contacted at mam@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Defective Sprinklers Not Cause of Library Flooding
October 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFSprinklers are important in any public building, but libraries with their large collections of nicely flammable paper. Of course, you also want to keep those books dry. The Hilton Head Island library investigated its sprinklers after a malfunctioning sprinkler head flooded the Friends of the Library bookshop, ruining thousands of books.
The investigation found that, apart from the malfunction, the sprinklers had a defect that could have lead to their failure to operate in the event of a fire. The sprinklers had been the subject of a voluntary recall in 2001, however the 220 sprinkler heads were not replaced at that time. The county claimed that they were unaware of the recall at the time, and so failed to take advantage of program under which the manufacturer would pay for the recall. That program ended in 2007.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Must Cover Portions of Arbitration Award
October 14, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that there was coverage in a construction defect case for portions of an arbitration award. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Century Sur. Co., 2019 U.S. DIst. LEXIS 116093 (S.D. Texas July 12, 2019).
Descon Construction contracted with the City of Edinburg, Texas, to build a library. Descon subcontracted with McAllen Steel Erectors to install the library metal roof. The roof began to leak within two months of occupancy. The leaks continued for seven years.
Edinburg sued Descon. The matter was arbitrated. The arbitration panel found that the library roof was defective, the exterior stucco system was defectively installed and certain work, including fire-caulking, had not been performed. The panel concluded that Descon was liable for breach of contract and breach of warranty. The panel determined that Edinburg was entitled to replacement of the existing roof. Further, McAllen was found to have breached its subcontract with Descon by defectively installing the roof, entitling Descon to recover $762,537 from McAllen.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California
September 24, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogStairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so.
A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station.
Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed.
The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].)
The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256.
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Impaired Property Exclusion Bars Coverage When Loose Bolt Interferes with MRI Unit Operation
May 16, 2018 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn All Green Electric v. Security National Ins. Co. (No. B279456, filed 3/19/18, ord. pub. 4/17/18), a California appeals court ruled that the impaired property exclusion barred coverage for a claim based on the insured’s failure to tighten a loose bolt that resulted in stray magnetic fields interfering with operation of an MRI machine and allegedly threatening the health of personnel.
All Green was an electrical contractor hired to perform wiring for an MRI unit installation. Stray magnetic fields interfered with the unit’s operation. Efforts to remediate the problem included installing shielding and ultimately relocating the unit to another room. An expert finally determined that a bolt left loose by All Green was causing the magnetic field, which disappeared when the bolt was properly tightened. The facility sought damages for negligence, including costs for unnecessary modifications and repairs, payments to outside sources for substitute mammography testing, operational costs and expenses, damage to reputation, lost profits, and the loss of an HMO contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021
February 01, 2021 —
Sewar K. Sunnaa & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.SUMMARY
Effective January 1, 2021, a new California law requires employers to notify employees about possible or known exposure to COVID-19 at the workplace. The law requires actual notification to employees within one day.
In addition, the law requires notifications to local public health authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak. The law also gives Cal/OSHA a new emergency police power to issue Orders Prohibiting Use (“OPU”), permitting Cal/OSHA to close workplaces that constitute an imminent hazard to employees due to COVID-19.
ANALYSIS AND GUIDANCE
On January 1, 2021, a new California law took effect, which will enforce stringent new mandatory protocols governing notification of employees of COVID-19 exposures in the workplace. Until now, federal agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and state agencies such as the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal/OSHA”) have released guidance to help employers navigate employee training, workplace surveillance and temperature-taking, among many other issues, that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning January 1st, the new law places mandatory notice requirements of COVID-19 contact on all public and private employers under Labor Code Section 6409.6, with two exceptions: (1) health facilities, as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code and (2) employees whose regular duties include COVID-19 testing or screening, or who provide patient care to individuals who are known or suspected to have COVID-19.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sewar K. Sunnaa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Sunnaa may be contacted at ssunnaa@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
