Vacation Rentals: Liability of the Owner for Injury Suffered by the Renter
May 13, 2019 —
Kevin J. Parker - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogWith the explosion of the “private” rental business wherein residential property owners rent their house or condo on a short-term basis to third-parties, certain legal issues have arisen with regard to the duties owed by the property owner to the renter.
A recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Haynes-Garrett v. Dunn, 818 S.E.2d 798 (Va. 2018), addressed that issue. In that case, the property owners owned a rental house in Virginia Beach. The property was not the owners’ main residence, but rather a vacation home that was sometimes used by the owners, but mostly used as a rental. The issue addressed by the court was whether – for the purpose of evaluating the owners’ duty of care to the renter – the relationship should be classified as a “landlord-tenant” relationship or an “innkeeper-guest” relationship. This classification was important because the duties of the owner to the renter were significantly different depending on the category. In the landlord-tenant arena, under Virginia law, the landlord has no duty to maintain the property in a safe condition because the property is deemed to be under the tenant’s exclusive control. (An exception being concealment or fraud by the landlord as to some defect in the premises that is known to the landlord but unknown to the tenant.) Assuming that exception does not apply, the tenant takes the premises in whatever condition they may be in, thus assuming all risk of personal injury from defects or dangerous conditions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. Parker, Snell & WilmerMr. Parker may be contacted at
kparker@swlaw.com
Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results
October 21, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.”
Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage.
Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger
January 07, 2015 —
Jay Shapiro, Lori S. Smith and Brittney Edwards – White and Williams LLPThe common interest privilege is a doctrine that operates to maintain the confidentiality of communications between parties and counsel that have aligned interests. It is designed to encourage the free flow of information between these parties, and has historically been utilized primarily in the context of litigation. However, in Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department recently expanded the common interest privilege by holding that it is applicable in transactional contexts. 2014 WL 6803006, No. 651612/10 (1st Dep’t 2014). The Ambac court defined the common interest doctrine as “a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege” when a third party is present during a communication between an attorney and his or her client. The doctrine shields such communications from disclosure when they are (1) protected by the attorney client privilege and (2) “made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties.”
Until Ambac, New York courts touched on, but never squarely addressed, whether a third requirement must be satisfied before the common interest doctrine can be invoked: “that the communication must affect pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.” The Ambac court addressed and rejected this purported third requirement while reversing the decision of the trial court which found that defendant Bank of America failed “to cite any New York case that applied the common-interest doctrine outside of either joint-representation of two parties by one attorney, or where parties reasonably anticipated litigation.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Jay Shapiro,
Lori S. Smith and
Brittney Edwards
Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at shapiroj@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Edwards may be contacted at edwardsb@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage
March 01, 2017 —
Bruce Cleeland & Michael J. Worth - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC, 2017 No. S233096, the California Supreme Court held that when a trial court determines an expert opinion is inadmissible because expert disclosure requirements were not met, the opinion must be excluded from consideration at summary judgment if an objection is raised.
Plaintiff Mr. Perry sued defendants Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, alleging personal injuries after plaintiff fell at a property owned by Bakewell and leased by Chase. Defendant Chase served plaintiff with a demand for the exchange of expert witness information. Plaintiff made no disclosure. Thereafter, the trial date was continued. Defendant Bakewell subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition, plaintiff submitted declarations of two experts opining that the stairs on which plaintiff fell were in disrepair and failed to comply with building codes and industry standards.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com
Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Price Escalation Impacts
August 22, 2022 —
Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogThis Bulletin provides guidance to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others to ensure compliance with contractual change order requirements in the event work on a construction project is impacted by price escalation.
Construction projects are being impacted by increased costs for most construction materials. The Producer Price Index shows a 69% increase in the cost of construction materials from March 2020 to March 2022. Many construction contracts do not address escalation or specifically exclude change orders for material escalation, leaving the risk of escalation of construction materials with the contractor, subcontractor, or suppliers.
Bid Protection Tips:
- Keep bids open for less than 30 days with a designated sunset date:
- Keeping your bids open for less than 30 days can help protect you from sudden changes in pricing and help maintain your bids’ competitive status.
- If asked to extend time a bid is open, reconfirm prices before agreeing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMs. Motta may be contacted at
dmotta@grsm.com
Drone Operation in a Construction Zone
August 17, 2020 —
Mark R. Berry & Freddy X. Muñoz - Peckar & AbramsonThe potential uses of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in the construction industry continue to expand as new technologies enter the market and construction companies realize UAS can perform unique tasks at tremendous cost savings. The full technological capabilities of UAS are, however, limited by law for public safety reasons. UAS share airspace with traditional passenger, military and cargo aircraft, and are potential hazards for humans below. The risk of potential catastrophic collisions has led to a careful approach to the adoption of this technology.
All U.S. airspace is exclusively regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and therefore, most drone regulation originates from this agency. Many states and localities have also enacted additional limits on UAS operations, and many of these nonfederal regulations are presently on unsure footing after a federal court ruling in Singer v. Newton invalidated a local regulation that conflicted with FAA regulations.
What is clear is that all commercial UAS operations must comply with FAA regulations. Any drone operation conducted by any private company, even through use of an employee’s personal drone, would constitute commercial operation subject to regulation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark R. Berry, Peckar & Abramson and
Freddy X. Muñoz, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Berry may be contacted at mberry@pecklaw.com
Mr. Muñoz may be contacted at fmunoz@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers in 2023 “Best Law Firms” Rankings
November 28, 2022 —
Payne & Fears LLPPayne & Fears LLP is pleased to announce that the firm has been recognized by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers 2023 “Best Law Firms” list. Firms included in the 2023 edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. This includes the top 5% of private practicing lawyers in the United States.
Payne & Fears LLP has been ranked in the following practice areas:
- Commercial Litigation
- Employment Law – Management
- Insurance Law
- Labor Law – Management
- Litigation – Labor & Employment
- Litigation – Real Estate
- Litigation – Intellectual Property
Additionally, on August 15, 2022, 11 of our attorneys were selected for inclusion in
The Best Lawyers in America® 2023. Collectively bringing decades of experience and dedication to their practice, Jeffrey K. Brown, Daniel F. Fears, Daniel M. Livingston, Thomas L. Vincent, Benjamin A. Nix, James L. Payne, Scott S. Thomas, and Kelby Van Patten received this respected achievement. Additionally, Leilani E. Jones, Sarah J. Odia, and Matthew C. Lewis were included in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
