California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act
July 20, 2020 —
Kelly Alhadeff-Black & Alexander N. Knaub - Lewis BrisboisIn a recent ruling, California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal clarified the need for supplemental environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose (6th Dist., May 18, 2020). Specifically, the court held that seeking additional discretionary approvals, such as regulatory permits, does not constitute a “new discretionary approval for the project” under the California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162 (the CEQA Guidelines).
In 2014, the City of San Jose approved a project that included the demolition and replacement of a wooden railroad bridge known as the Willow Glen Trestle (the Project). CEQA review for the Project was conducted via mitigated negative declaration (MND). The Project was quickly challenged by a local group called Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle, alleging that the City should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report based on the allegation that the Willow Glen Trestle constituted an historic resource for CEQA purposes. Ultimately, the City prevailed in that litigation (See Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose, et al. (6th Dist., 2016), which remanded the case to the trial court for further review consistent with the Court of Appeal’s verdict) with the court eventually finding that the City correctly analyzed and answered the question of historic resource classification and significance in reference to the Willow Glen Trestle.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kelly Alhadeff-Black, Lewis Brisbois and
Alexander N. Knaub, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Alhadeff-Black may be contacted at Kelly.Black@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Knaub may be contacted at Alexander.Knaub@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Consider the Risks Associated with an Exculpatory Clause
November 24, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAn exculpatory clause in a contract is a clause aimed at relieving another party from certain liability. A disclaimer and insulation from liability. Obviously, if you are the party relieving the other party from liability, you want to consider this risk including the potential enforceability of this risk if something goes wrong. If you are the party asking for the insulation from liability, you do not want to create an exculpatory provision that disclaims and insulates you of all liability arising from the contract as it may create an illusory effect – that the agreement is nothing but a naked promise on your end because your promise is fully disclaimed and you are insulated from liability if you break your promise. This could result in an unenforceable contract.
The validity of such an exculpatory clause was at-issue in Pier 1 Cruise Experts v. Revelex Corp., 2019 WL 3024618 (11thCir. 2019). Although not a construction dispute, the exculpatory clause in this case was with two fairly sophisticated parties and expressly insulated one of the contracting parties from “any…damages regardless of kind or type…whether in contract, tort (including negligence), or otherwise.” Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7. This is a powerful exculpatory clause because it could be broadly construed to insulate that party from its own breaches of the contract.
In Florida:
[A]n exculpatory clause is enforceable so long as (1) the contracting parties have equal bargaining power and (2) the clause’s provisions are clear and unambiguous. With respect to the latter requirement, ‘the intention to be relieved from liability [must be] made clear and unequivocal and the wording must be so clear and understandable that an ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he is contracting away.” In the same vein, exculpatory clauses are ‘strictly construed against the party seeking to be relieved of liability.’
Pier 1 Cruise Experts, 2019 WL at *7 (internal citations omitted).
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
Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Jae Lynn Huckaba, Awarded Miami-Dade Bar Association Young Lawyer Section’s Rookie of the Year Award
June 17, 2024 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogCongratulations to Jae Lynn Huckaba on winning the Miami-Dade Bar Association Young Lawyer Section’s inaugural Rookie of the Year Award. This year, the MDB YLS Officers created the Rookie of the Year Award to recognize one new MDB Board of Director who consistently moves the YLS forward. President of the YLS, Beau Blumberg, stated, “Jae Lynn jumped right into the YLS, helping wherever it was needed, from the Breakfast with the Judiciary event to Miami Nights to multiple service projects and social events. After one year, we know Jae Lynn is destined for great things in the YLS.”
Jae Lynn is a member of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s national Insurance Recovery practice and is based in the Firm’s Miami, Florida office. Jae Lynn serves as a director for the MDB YLS, which consists of MDB members aged 36 or under. The YLS has over 1,300 members.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors
April 25, 2022 —
Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation StrategistIn United States Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exch., et al., No. 21A-CT-580, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 87 (Automatic Sprinkler), the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Court of Appeals) considered whether there is a privity requirement for property damage claims against contractors. The court imposed a privity requirement. The court also addressed whether a subrogation waiver in a contract with a tenant applied to damage caused by work done outside the contract, at the landlord’s request. The court held that the waiver did not apply.
In this case, United States Automatic Sprinkler (Automatic Sprinkler) contracted with a tenant (Contract Tenant) to inspect and test a sprinkler system at a commercial building in Indiana. The contract included a waiver of subrogation provision. The building landlord subsequently hired Automatic Sprinkler to repair a leak in the sprinkler system. After completing the repairs, the system failed and flooded the building, causing significant property damage to several tenancies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLPMs. Kenney may be contacted at
kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com
HHMR Celebrates 20 Years of Service!
October 18, 2021 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationI remember it (almost) like it was yesterday. It was September of 2001, and I was a third-year associate at Long & Jaudon, practicing with the construction litigation group. After a long weekend away, I received word that the firm had just announced that it would cease providing legal services. Long & Jaudon, which formed in 1967, had been a stalwart of Colorado’s defense bar, counting among its number some of the finest and most well-respected defense attorneys in the state. To learn that the firm would be shutting its doors was devastating. I would be out of a job.
Soon after L&J’s announcement, Dave Higgins, one of that firm’s senior partners, inquired as to whether I would be interested in starting a new firm focused on supporting Colorado’s construction industry and its insurers. Instead of riding into the sunset of retirement, Dave wanted to leave a legacy. That legacy is Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell. Shortly after the sprout of the idea, I spent an afternoon at a picnic table in Cheesman Park with Dave Higgins, Steve Hopkins, and Sheri Roswell, sketching out an idea for a new law firm. Twenty years later, HHMR is still here, still serving Colorado’s construction industry and its insurers, and still embodying the principles of service and stewardship upon which the firm was founded.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary
December 31, 2014 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsA recent lawsuit filed in California over the proper documentation necessary for LEED certification (discussed in detail at the Green Building Law Update) emphasizes the fact that, no matter how detailed the LEED certification process seems to be, a mere reference to that process or a certain level of LEED certification is far from sufficient to assure a smooth project.
While I don’t practice in California and don’t have any idea how the lawsuit will turn out, the fact that there is litigation over even the basics of LEED like documentation shows the clear necessity to make sure that your specifications and contract documents are specific and clear from the beginning. Owners, General Contractors and Subcontractors need to remember this fact at all times and particularly in situations where, like in the instance of LEED, the “specification” seems to be set out by others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules that Insurance Salesman had No Fiduciary Duty to Policyholders
July 19, 2017 —
Austin D. Moody - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On June 20, 2017, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a life insurance salesman had no fiduciary duty to his customers where the customers retained decision-making authority regarding which policies to purchase. In Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., the Court returned a 4-2 verdict, overturning the lower court’s finding that it was possible that a fiduciary relationship existed between the parties.
The suit arose from a series of transactions between Eugene and Ruth Yenchi and Bryan Holland, a financial advisor for IDS Life Insurance Corporation.
The relationship began when Holland cold-called the Yenchis and asked to meet with them regarding their “financial stuff.” For a fee of $350, Holland met with the Yenchis on several occasions and counseled them regarding their insurance needs. On Holland’s advice, the Yenchis cashed out several existing polices and purchased a whole-life policy for Mr. Yenchi and a deferred variable annuity in Mrs. Yenchi’s name.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Austin D. Moody, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Moody may be contacted at
adm@sdvlaw.com
Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim
November 23, 2020 —
Christopher P. Leise & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLPAfter an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier.
USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.”
Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and
Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
