Los Angeles Is Building a Future Where Water Won’t Run Out
February 28, 2022 —
Brian Eckhouse & Laura Bliss - BloombergA helicopter whisks off a rooftop in downtown Los Angeles, climbs above a thin layer of haze and soars over barren mountains past the city’s edge. Soon, scars of climatic stress are evident to L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti and Martin Adams, general manager and chief engineer of the city’s water and power department, as they peer out the windows. Trees torched years ago by wildfire. Flats parched by sun and little precipitation.
It’s another July scorcher, days after California Governor Gavin Newsom asked residents to conserve amid one of the worst droughts on record. The crisis spans across the southwestern U.S. Outside Las Vegas, the enormous Lake Mead reservoir that feeds the Golden State as well as Nevada and Arizona plunged in June to its lowest level since 1937. In August, federal officials ordered the first-ever water cuts on a Colorado River system that sustains about 40 million people. Even after pounding holiday storms, 64% of the land in Western states was still experiencing severe to exceptional drought in January, which is on track to be the driest on record in some parts.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Eckhouse, Bloomberg and
Laura Bliss, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Giving Insurance Carrier Prompt Notice of Claim to Avoid “Untimely Notice” Defense
June 12, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to giving your insurance carrier notice of claim, I am an advocate of providing that notice as soon as possible, i.e., prompt notice. The reason is to take away the carrier’s argument to deny coverage because you, as the insured, failed to provide it with prompt notice—the “untimely notice” defense. It doesn’t matter whether it is a first party property insurance claim or third-party liability policy claim, provide notice as soon as reasonably possible to take away that “untimely notice” defense.
The “untimely notice” defense was the issue in Benson v. Privilege Underwriters Reciprocal Exchange, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1085a (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) dealing with a first party property insurance policy. In this case, eighteen months after Hurricane Irma, the plaintiff noticed a smell and observed brown stains on walls and ceiling in his home. The plaintiff called roofing companies to inspect the damage and perform certain repairs. However, the plaintiff still noticed the smell so he called a company to test and remediate mold. The plaintiff, then, contacted his property insurer with numerous claims relative to the leaks and damage. Although there was an initial property insurance payment made, the carrier ultimately denied coverage for subsequent claims stating that “the late notice of the claim and the prior repairs to the roof substantially prejudiced its ability to complete an inspection of [plaintiff’s] property to evaluate the claim.” Benson, supra.
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
Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado
June 28, 2021 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.”
By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Blackstone Said to Sell Boston Buildings for $2.1 Billion
May 21, 2014 —
Hui-yong Yu – BloombergBlackstone Group LP (BX) agreed to sell five office properties in Boston to a venture led by Toronto-based Oxford Properties Group for about $2.1 billion, according to two people with knowledge of the transaction.
The buildings total almost 3.3 million square feet (306,000 square meters) and are mostly in downtown Boston, said the people, who asked not to be named because the sale is private. The sale is Blackstone’s largest of U.S. office properties since the real estate market crash.
Oxford plans to purchase 100 High St. and 125 Summer St., and team with JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s asset-management unit to buy three other properties: 60 State St., 225 Franklin St. and One Memorial Drive in nearby Cambridge, the people said. Blackstone also is selling its roughly half-stake in Boston’s Rowes Wharf to part-owner Morgan Stanley (MS) for about $200 million, according to one of the people.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hui-yong Yu, BloombergHui-yong Yu may be contacted at
hyu@bloomberg.net
New Utah & Colorado Homebuilder Announced: Jack Fisher Homes
July 23, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFHenry Walker Homes announced the creation of Jack Fisher Homes, “a new venture that will continue their tradition of homebuilding excellence in Northern Utah, Southern Utah and Colorado,” according to a press release on PR Web.
“Colin Wright, Owen Fisher, Chad Bessinger and Steve Sandholtz founded Jack Fisher Homes to focus on areas of their proven expertise in real estate, including residential land development and homebuilding, commercial assets in multifamily development and seniors’ housing,” PR Web reported.
Jack Fisher has “1,300 single-family residential units in its pipeline” and “anticipates closing more than 230 homes in the remainder of 2014 with sales expected to exceed $70 million.” The homebuilder expects those numbers to double in 2015.
“All of the original elements that made Henry Walker great are incorporated and improved upon with Jack Fisher Homes,” Wright said, according to the press release. “The influx of new capital, our years of experience, and the improved real estate landscape have us very excited about the future of Jack Fisher Homes.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Antidiscrimination Clause Required in Public Works and Goods and Services Contracts –Effective January 1, 2024
January 22, 2024 —
Travis Colburn - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn July 2023, the Washington legislature passed Senate Bill 5186, which mandates inclusion of select antidiscrimination clauses in every state contract and subcontract for public works, goods, or services executed after January 1, 2024.
[i] RCW 49.60.530(3) codifies the now-required antidiscrimination clauses, which prohibit four categories of discrimination against any person because of age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, race, creed, color, national origin, citizenship or immigration status, honorably discharged veteran or military status, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability (the “Protected Class”).
Under the new law, public contractors and subcontractors (“Public Contractor”) may not refuse to hire a person because that person is a member of the Protected Class, unless that refusal is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or if a person with a particular disability would be prevented from properly performing the particular work involved.
[ii] Similarly, Public Contractors may not discharge or bar a person from employment or discriminate against any person – either in terms of compensation or other terms and conditions of employment – because that person is a member of the Protected Class.
[iii] Last, Public Contractors may not print or circulate (or cause to be printed or circulated) any statement, advertisement, publication, form of application for employment, or make inquiry in connection with prospective employment, which expresses any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to the Protected Class.
[iv] Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Travis Colburn, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Colburn may be contacted at
travis.colburn@acslawyers.com
Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Matching of Materials Decided by Appraisers
March 28, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Connecticut Supreme Court determined that an appraisal panel could resolve whether the insurer must replace undamaged materials so that they match the damaged materials. Klass v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 Conn. LEXIS 2 (Conn. Jan. 11, 2022).
The insured reported damage to the roof of his home to Liberty Mutual. A representative from Liberty Mutual inspected and noticed a few shingles missing from the rear slope of the roof. The representative agreed that the damage was caused by wind damage, a covered loss under the policy. Liberty Mutual accepted coverage and issued an estimate to replace the rear slope of the roof. The insured's contractor inspected the roof and provided an estimate that contemplated replacement of the entire roof at nearly double the cost of Liberty Mutual's estimate.
The insured requested an appraisal. Liberty Mutual responded that the insured could not invoke the appraisal process in the absence of a "competing" estimate (i.e., one that addressed the claim for which coverage was accepted). Any dispute regarding the matching of the front and rear roof slope was a question of coverage, not an issue for appraisal.
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
Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania
August 31, 2020 —
Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded, in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. 200 Christian Street Partners, LLC., that a duty to defend is triggered when product-related allegations are pled in connection with a claim for defective construction.
In Nautilus, the coverage dispute arose out of two independent underlying lawsuits in which homeowners alleged that the homes built by 200 Christian Street Partners (“Christian Street”) were defectively constructed. Christian Street tendered the claim to its insurer, Nautilus Insurance Co. (“Nautilus”), for defense and indemnity.1
Nautilus filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend Christian Street in the underlying actions.2 Specifically, Nautilus asserted that it was not required to provide a defense in the underlying actions because Pennsylvania law does not consider faulty workmanship to constitute an “occurrence” and, therefore, to trigger the policy’s insuring agreement and the insurer’s duty to defend.3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Manobianca may be contacted at
smm@sdvlaw.com
