Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations
May 27, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Tennessee Supreme Court has refused to construe an ambiguous definition of actual cash value to allow for deduction of labor costs as part of depreciation calculations where that subset of repair costs are not clearly addressed in the policy. Despite the split of authority nationwide, the Tennessee case presents a straightforward application of policy interpretation principles to a common valuation issue in first-party property claims.
In Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Co., No. M2017-2546-SC-R23-CV (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2019), insureds brought a class-action lawsuit against their property insurer, Auto-Owners, alleging breach of contract. The plaintiffs each owned buildings damaged by a hail storm and had each submitted claims to Auto-Owners. Auto-Owners accepted the claims and determined that the losses would be determined on an actual cash value basis. In performing those valuations, Auto-Owners depreciated both the building materials and the labor costs associated with repairing the properties. The insureds challenged the labor cost depreciation. Auto-Owners moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response, the insureds requested that the district court certify to the Tennessee Supreme Court whether, “[u]nder Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as ‘the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss,’ or (2) states that ‘actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation?”’
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Convicted of Additional Fraud
November 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA Pennsylvania contractor in prison for fraud has been convicted with insurance fraud. The York Daily Record reports that Steven D. Gebhart was already in jail for fraud for about $350,000 for work he either failed to finish or even start or by using substandard materials and practices when he was convicted of insurance fraud. Gebbert’s offices were destroyed in a fire that was later determined to be arson. He was not charged with this, but instead for overestimating his losses to the insurance company. Sentencing for the fraud charge will be on December 21.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Filling Out the Contractor’s Final Payment Affidavit
February 03, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen preparing a contractor’s final payment affidavit, I always suggest for a contractor (or anyone in privity of contract with the owner) to identify the undisputed amounts their accounting reflects is owed to ALL subcontractors, etc., regardless of whether that entity preserved their lien rights. If the contractor provided a payment bond, I footnote this simply to support that none of the lower-tiered subcontractors have lien rights or are the traditional “lienor.” (Thus, there is no prejudice to the owner if an entity is inadvertently omitted from the affidavit.)
There are times, however, where a contractor does not identify a subcontractor that did not serve a notice to owner and, therefore, has no valid lien rights. Or, a contractor omits a lienor that actually did serve a notice to owner and preserve its lien rights; this happens.
There was an older First District Court of Appeals case that harshly (and, quite, unfairly) held that the contractor must identify everyone in the final payment affidavit regardless of whether that entity timely served a notice to owner or their lien is invalid. This case, however, predated, a 1998 statutory change to Florida’s Lien Law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
South Adams County Water and Sanitation District Takes Proactive Step to Treat PFAS, Safeguard Water Supplies
November 28, 2022 —
Cameron McWilliam – Brown and CaldwellDENVER, Colo., Nov. 15, 2022 — The South Adams Country Water and Sanitation District (District) is enhancing its water treatment process to meet EPA Health Advisory Levels (HALs) for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water supplies.
Deemed “forever chemicals,” PFAS is a group of human-made chemicals used in many applications, including stain- and water-resistant fabrics and carpeting, cleaning products, paints, and firefighting foams. PFAS are resistant to grease, oil, water, and heat and may enter water supplies from landfills, the use of firefighting foam (e.g., at airports, fire training facilities, petroleum fires, etc.), industrial sites, and wastewater treatment plant discharge.
The District’s water supply, serving over 67,000 residents in Commerce City and parts of unincorporated Adams County, comes primarily from 13 groundwater supply wells. As it continues to meet all federal and state drinking water requirements, the District has been proactively pursuing PFAS reduction strategies since it first discovered a low-level presence in its water supply through voluntary testing in 2018. Upon discovery, the District stopped drawing from its most impacted wells and has been purchasing additional treated water to blend into its supply to reduce PFAS levels along with optimizing use of their existing granular activated carbon treatment system.
“Ever since the District first began voluntarily testing for PFAS, we have been monitoring for these compounds and working to reduce their impact on our customers,” said District Manager Abel Moreno. “The EPA has moved the goalposts, and we are taking steps to reduce the presence of PFAS even further. We are committed to finding long-term, sustainable solutions to offer our community high-quality drinking water.”
To tackle the challenge, the District has hired leading environmental and construction services firm Brown and Caldwell to design a new 18 million gallons per day (MGD) ion exchange (IX) process at its Klein Water Treatment Facility. IX treatment is currently the most effective technology in removing PFAS/PFOA, consisting of a highly porous resin that acts as a powerful magnet to adsorb and hold onto the substances. The new system at the Klein facility will consist of seven IX treatment trains, a 375,000-gallon equalization tank, and six vertical turbine pumps to feed the IX trains from the District’s 13 groundwater supply wells.
Furthermore, nine 5-micron cartridge filters will be installed to remove particulate matter in the water before reaching the IX trains, thus increasing the efficacy of the treatment process.
Scheduled for completion by the end of 2026, the new IX treatment facility will provide a peak combined capacity of 26 MGD.
About South Adams County Water and Sanitation District
The South Adams County Water and Sanitation District is a special district providing water and sanitary sewer service to over 67,000 residents in Commerce City and parts of unincorporated Adams County. For more information about the District, please visit www.sacwsd.org
About Brown and Caldwell
Headquartered in Walnut Creek, California., Brown and Caldwell is a full-service environmental engineering and construction services firm with 52 offices and 1,800 professionals across North America and the Pacific. For 75 years, our creative solutions have helped municipalities, private industry, and government agencies successfully overcome their most challenging water and environmental obstacles. As an employee-owned company, Brown and Caldwell is passionate about exceeding our clients’ expectations and making a difference for our employees, our communities, and our environment. For more information, visit www.brownandcaldwell.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Bad Faith In Filing Interpleader
August 19, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eighth Circuit determined that filing an interpleader action in the face of multiple claims against the policy holder did not constitute bad faith. Purscell v. Tico Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10438 (8th Cir. June 22, 2015).
Ben Purscell's vehicle collided with another vehicle, in which Tim and Amy Carr were riding. The Carrs were injured, and Purscell's passenger, Amy Priesendorf, was killed. Before the accident, Priesendorf had stretched her leg over and put her foot on the accelerator, on top of Purscell's foot. As the other car approached, Purscell swerved to avoid an accident, but the two vehicles collided.
Purscell had a policy with Infinity Assurance Insurance Company. The policy limited liability to $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident for bodily injury. Infinity put the full $50,000 per accident limits on reserve, with $25,000 designated to Priesendorf's fatality and $25,000 designated to the Carrs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
2022 Project of the Year: Linking Los Angeles
May 01, 2023 —
Aileen Cho - Engineering News-RecordThe 2023 Oscar awards featured a Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor who reinvented themselves and came back for a second act. The tunnel-boring machine Angeli is the LA performer who did much the same, but entirely underground.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eleventh Circuit Vacates District Court Decision Finding No Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims
November 02, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer finding there was no duty to defend. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Mac Contractors of Florida, LLC, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 23918 (11th Cir. July 29, 2020).
Mac Contractors entered into a contract with homeowners to serve as general contractor for the construction of a custom residence. Problems arose during construction and Mac eventually led the job site before completing the project. The home owners sued, alleging that Mac and its subcontractors had left the residence "replete with construction defects." Damages were sought for having to repair and remediate all defective work performed by Mac.
Mac tendered under its CGL policy to its insurer, Southern-Owners. A defense was granted, but later withdrawn when Southern-Owners filed suit seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or indemnify Mac. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court found in favor of Southern-Owners based on the exclusion for "Damage to Your Work." The Eleventh Circuit vacated on appeal, concluding that the underlying complaint could fairly be construed to allege damages that fell outside of the exclusion.
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
