Finding of No Coverage Overturned Due to Lack of Actual Policy
March 18, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Appellate Division overturned a verdict for the insurer when the actual policy was never introduced at trial. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. v. B&F Land Dev. Corp., 2019 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 264 (N.Y. App. Div. Jan 16, 2018).
The decedent was killed when he fell through a skylight while working on a premises owned by B&F Land Development Corporation. The estate sued B&F for wrongful death.
B&F tendered to its carrier, Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual (PLM). PLM issued a reservations of rights. It later denied coverage because the location of the loss was not a location listed on the policy, an exclusion barred coverage for bodily injury arising out of B&F's ongoing operations conducted by it or on its behalf, and the loss was not reported to PLM as soon as practicable.
PLM sued B&F and the estate for a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or indemnify. A default judgment was entered against B&F after it failed to answer. Trial proceeded against the estate
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
Significant Ruling in PFAS Litigation Could Impact Insurance Coverage
October 10, 2022 —
Sara C. Tilitz & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLPPer- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, have served as a key component in numerous industrial and consumer products for decades. These “forever chemicals,” which have been associated with environmental contamination and adverse health outcomes, have garnered steadily-growing attention from regulatory authorities, the plaintiffs’ bar, and, by extension, the insurance industry.
The current “case to watch” regarding PFAS is the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Gergel presiding. The MDL is comprised of well over 2,000 cases brought by both individual plaintiffs and state and local governments arising out of the manufacturing and/or use of aqueous film forming foam, also known as AFFF. The use of AFFF, which was historically employed in firefighting operations, including those undertaken by the United States military, allegedly causes the release of two types of PFAS into the environment – PFOS and PFOA.
On September 16, 2022, Judge Gergel denied a motion for partial summary judgment filed by defendant 3M Company and other AFFF defendant manufacturers on the government contractor immunity defense. Although not an insurance coverage decision, the ruling is significant in the context of PFAS litigation and could have insurance coverage implications.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sara C. Tilitz, White and Williams LLP and
Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Tilitz may be contacted at tilitzs@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
S&P Near $1 Billion Mortgage Ratings Settlement With U.S.
January 14, 2015 —
Tom Schoenberg and Edvard Pettersson – BloombergStandard & Poor’s is close to a settlement of about $1 billion with the U.S. for allegedly misleading investors about its ratings of mortgage-backed securities before the subprime crisis, a person familiar with the matter said.
The McGraw Hill Financial Inc. (MHFI) unit and the Justice Department may agree to settle the case as early as this quarter, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the negotiations are confidential.
The Justice Department has secured settlements worth tens of billions of dollars during the past two years from mortgage lenders and banks it blamed for the 2008 financial crisis. Those companies generated unprecedented amounts of shoddy mortgages that were packaged and sold to investors as securities, many of which turned out to be worthless despite their investment-grade ratings.
Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Pettersson may be contacted at epettersson@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Schoenberg and Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg
Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued
October 20, 2016 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation BlogOver the past few years, there has been a battle raging on in district courts and arbitration hearing rooms throughout Colorado regarding when a subcontractor’s work is to be deemed “substantially complete,” for purposes of triggering Colorado’s six-year statute of repose. C.R.S. § 13-80-104 states, in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
* * *
(2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.
C.R.S. § 13-80-104 (emphasis added).
As the battle raged on at the trial court level, subcontractors and design professionals argued that their work should be deemed “substantially complete” when they finished their discrete scope of work within a project. Developers and general contractors, seeking to maintain third-party claims against the subcontractors and design professionals, typically argued either that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work should be deemed “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy on the project, or upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor or design professional worked. Trial court judges and arbitrators have been split on this issue, with perhaps a slight majority favoring one or the other approaches advocated by developers and general contractors, that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work is “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy in a project (the minority view) or upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor of design professional worked (the majority view).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Blue-Sky Floods Take a Rising Toll for Businesses
March 04, 2019 —
Eric Roston - BloombergWhen American colonists planned downtown Annapolis, Maryland in 1695, they wanted easy access to the sea. Almost 325 years later, the sea is now closer than ever. It’s so close, in fact, that 16 small businesses lost roughly 2 percent of their revenue in 2017.
In a first-of-its-kind study, Stanford University and Naval Academy researchers looked at the effect of sea-level rise on a single city-block. Specifically, they examined sunny-day floods—inundation that occurs when infrastructure built for lower waters is no longer sufficient to keep back the highest tides—at a central parking lot at City Dock.
As sea levels rise, these “nuisance floods” are becoming more common. From the 1950s to the early 2000s, the days of flooding in the 27 most vulnerable cities across the U.S. grew from two per year to nearly 12.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric Roston, Bloomberg
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
SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability
June 01, 2020 —
Rhonda Kreger – Newmeyer DillionSB 939 is currently working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would impose new obligations on landlords, and provide protections for commercial tenants who meet specified criteria. SB 939 would impose a moratorium on eviction of those qualified commercial tenants while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect. Any eviction actions commenced after the date of the emergency COVID-19 order, but before the adoption of SB 939, would be void and unenforceable. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
Who qualifies as a commercial tenant under SB 939?
To qualify under this legislation, a commercial tenant must be a business that operates primarily in California. The commercial tenant must be a small business, nonprofit, an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue. Publicly traded companies or any company owned by, or affiliated with a publicly traded company, do not qualify. The commercial tenant must have experienced a decline of at least 40 percent monthly revenue, either as compared to two months before the emergency COVID-19 order, or other local government shelter-in-place orders took effect, or as compared to the same month in 2019. If the commercial tenant is an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue, the commercial tenant must also show a decline of 25 percent or more in capacity due to social or physical distancing orders or safety concerns, and show that it is subject to regulations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that will financially impair the business when compared to the period before the emergency COVID-19 order or other local shelter-in-place orders took effect.
What eviction actions are prohibited while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect?
If adopted, SB 939 would add Section 1951.9 to the Civil Code. This section would make it unlawful to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy or otherwise evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency order proclaimed by Governor Newsome on March 4, 2020. Exceptions apply if a tenant poses a threat to the property, other tenants or a person, business or other entity. Any violations of this eviction prohibition would be against public policy and unenforceable.
Any eviction started after proclamation of the state of emergency but before the effective date is deemed void, against public policy and is unenforceable.
Does SB 939 impose new penalties or remedies?
Any landlord who harasses, mistreats or retaliates against a commercial tenant to force the tenant to abrogate the lease would be subject to a fine of $2,000 for each violation. Further, any such violation would be an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and would be subject to all available remedies or penalties for those actions under state law.
When is a commercial tenant required to pay unpaid rent due to COVID-19?
If a commercial tenant fails to pay rent during the emergency COVID-19 order, the sum total of the past due rent must be paid within 12 months following the date of the end of the emergency proclamation, unless the commercial tenant has successfully negotiated an agreement with its landlord to pay the outstanding rent at a later date. Nonpayment of rent during the state of emergency cannot be used as grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding lease terms to the contrary, landlords may not impose late charges for rent that became due during the state of emergency.
Are landlords required to provide notice of protections adopted under SB 939?
Landlords would be required to provide notice to commercial tenants of the protections offered under SB 939 within 30 days of the effective date. SB 939 does not preempt local legislation or ordinances restricting the same or similar conduct which impose a more severe penalty for the same conduct. Local legislation or ordinances may impose additional notice requirements.
Does SB 939 impose new protections for commercial tenants when negotiating lease modifications?
If enacted, SB 939 would permit commercial tenants to open negotiations for new lease terms, and provide commercial tenants the ability to terminate the lease if those negotiations fail. A commercial tenant who wishes to modify its commercial lease, may engage in good faith negotiations with its landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease. The commercial tenant must serve a notice on the landlord certifying that it meets the required criteria, along with the desired modifications.
If the commercial tenant and landlord do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement within 30 days, then within 10 days, the commercial tenant may terminate the lease without any liability for future rent, fees, or costs that otherwise may have been due under the lease by providing a written termination notice to the landlord. The commercial tenant would be required to pay previously due rent, in an amount no greater than the sum of the following: (1) the actual rent due during the emergency COVID-19 order, or a maximum of three months of the past due rent during that period, and (2) all rent incurred and unpaid during a time unrelated to the emergency COVID-19 order through the date of the termination notice. The payment is due within 12 months from date of the termination notice. The commercial tenant would be required to vacate the premises within 14 days of the landlord's receipt of the termination notice. Upon service of the notice, any lease, and any third party guaranties of the lease would terminate. If the landlord and commercial tenant reach an agreement to modify the lease, the commercial tenant would not have the option to later terminate the lease under this provision.
When is the next Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting for SB 939?
The Senate Judiciary Committee set a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The Senate will livestream the hearing on its website at www.sen.ca.gov. Public comments or testimony may be submitted in writing to the Judiciary Committee by emailing Erica.porter@sen.ca.gov. Alternatively, the public may participate via telephone during the public comment period. Any changes to the Judicial Committee schedule may be found at: https://www.senate.ca.gov/calendar.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc.
January 18, 2021 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn St. Mary & St. John Coptic Orthodox Church v. SBS Insurance Services, Inc., ----Cal.App.5th--- (November 23, 2020), the California First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's entry of judgment in favor of SBC Insurance Services ("SBC") regarding a claim for water damage sustained by a residence owned by St. Mary & John Coptic Church ("St. Mary") under property coverage afforded by a policy issued by Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company ("Philadelphia"). The policy was procured by SBC on behalf of St. Mary. Philadelphia denied coverage of the claim based on the vacancy exclusion in its policy, but entered into a settlement and loan receipt agreement, whereby St. Mary gave Philadelphia the right to control litigation in St. Mary’s name against SBC or third parties who might be liable for the loss in exchange for a loan of money to repair and remediate the damage sustained by the residence. The loan was to be repaid out of any recovery made against SBC or third parties. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of SBC and held that the vacancy exclusion was ambiguous. Essentially, the exclusion did not apply to the time period prior to the time St. Mary purchased the residence, such that the 60-day vacancy requirement could not be satisfied. The trial court reasoned that since St. Mary did not have an insurable interest in the property before it purchased the property, the 60-day requirement did not include the period before such residence was purchased and St. Mary held an insurable interest.
The parties’ dispute arose of out of the Pope of the Coptic Church requesting St. Mary to purchase a home to be used as his papal residence in the Western United States. St. Mary also intended to use the home as a residence for visiting bishops. The home was purchased on May 28, 2015. As part of the purchase, SBC placed the home under St. Mary’s commercial policy, rather than purchasing a separate homeowner’s policy for the residence. Subsequently, the home sustained water damage due to a broken pipe. The water damage was discovered on July 24, 2015, 57 days after the inception of the Philadelphia policy and the loss. St. Mary tendered the property loss to Philadelphia, which denied coverage of the claim based on the reasoning that the home had been vacant for 60 consecutive days prior to the loss. Subsequently, St. Mary filed suit against SBC after securing the loan receipt agreement with Philadelphia based on the argument that the vacancy exclusion barred coverage of the claim and SBC breached its duty of care by not securing the proper coverage of the home. The trial court entered judgment in favor of SBC finding that the vacancy exclusion did not apply to bar coverage of the loss, such that SBC did not breach its duty of care owed to St. Mary as its broker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
