Hunton Insurance Lawyer, Adriana Perez, Selected to the National Association of Women Lawyers’ 2023 Rising List
March 27, 2023 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogCongratulations to
Adriana Perez on her selection to the
National Association of Women Lawyers’ (NAWL) 2023 Rising List. Adriana is a member of Hunton Andrews Kurth’s national Insurance Recovery practice and is based in the Firm’s Miami, Florida office.
Hunton Insurance Recovery Partner, Michael Levine, commented on the enormous success the team has had in recent years, with recognitions like Adriana’s being emblematic of the team’s high caliber practice and visibility. Team Head, Syed Ahmad, added that the recognition is a tribute to Adriana’s growth as a young lawyer and her trajectory to become an industry leader.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment to Dispose of Hail Damage Claim Fails
November 25, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the insured's complaint requesting coverage for hail damage and a claim for bad faith. Rodriquez v. State Farm Lloyds, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160007 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2024).
Mr. Rodriquez sought coverage under his homeowners policy after a hail and wind storm damaged his roof. After inspection, State Farm agreed that some minimal loss caused by hail was covered, but determined that the covered loss was less than the amount of the deductible. State Farm further determined that any hail damage to the roof was excluded by an endorsement, Exclusion of Cosmetic Loss to Metal Roof Coverings Caused by Hail. State Farm also determined that some damage was caused by previous faulty workmanship or wear and tear, both of which were excluded from coverage.
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
Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries
July 30, 2015 —
Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (No. B252566, filed June 18, 2015), the Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of a brake grinding machine. The Court cited an exception to the general rule that manufacturers may not be held liable, under a strict products liability theory, where the plaintiff’s injuries arise from other products that are used in conjunction with the defendant’s product.
Plaintiff and appellant, Michael Sherman, was an automobile mechanic from 1962 to 1977. Mr. Sherman alleged that during this period he used an arcing machine, which abraded brake linings by means of sand paper moving at high speeds. Sherman alleged the machine released asbestos dust, which he then brought home, exposing his wife Debra Sherman to asbestos. Ms. Sherman developed mesothelioma and passed away from exposure to the asbestos dust carried home by her husband.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristian B. Moriarty,
R. Bryan Martin and
Lee Marshall of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prevailing Parties Entitled to Contractual Attorneys’ Fees Under California CCP §1717 Notwithstanding Declaration That Contract is Void Under California Government Code §1090
December 20, 2017 —
Zachary Price & Lawrence ZuckerIn California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water District (Nos. A146166, 146405, filed 12/15/17), the First District Court of Appeal held that a prevailing party was entitled to an award of contractual attorneys’ fees under Code of Civil Procedure §1717 even though the underlying contracts were declared void under Government Code §1090.
Appellant Marina Coast Water District (“Marina”) and Respondent Monterey County Water Resources Agency (“Monterey”), both public water agencies, and Respondent California-American Water Company (“California-American”), a water utility, entered into several contracts to collaborate on a water desalination project. The parties agreed that the prevailing party of any action in any way arising from their agreements would be entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence Zucker, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Price may be contacted at zprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?
February 03, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case.
In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:
an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.
The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Repair Cost Exceeding Actual Cash Value Does Not Establish “Total Loss” Under Fire Insurance Policy
June 05, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn California FAIR Plan Assn. v. Garnes (No. A143190, filed 5/26/17), a California appeals court ruled that “total loss” under Insurance Code section 2051 refers to physical damage or loss, not the economic fact that the cost of repair exceeds the actual cash value of a home. Thus, where the home is not physically destroyed, the insured is entitled to the actual cost of repair, minus depreciation, even if that amount exceeds the fair market value of the home.
In Garnes, the insured had a fire policy issued by the California FAIR Plan with limits of $425,000. It was agreed that the assessed value of the insured home was only $75,000. The insured suffered a kitchen fire with estimated repair costs of $320,000. The FAIR Plan declared the home a total loss because the cost of repair exceeded the home’s value, and offered to pay the actual cash value as provided by Insurance Code section 2051(b)(1).
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nerves of Steel Needed as Firms Face Volatile Prices, Broken Contracts and Price-Gouging
December 06, 2021 —
Richard Korman, Jonathan Barnes, & Greg Aragon - Engineering News-RecordWhen Elmhurst Group, a Pittsburgh-area developer, started collecting bids for a new mixed-use building last November, the price of the steel frame, roof and cladding panels for the $14-million project came in $382,000 higher than expected—a big enough disappointment to give Elmhurst pause. Overall material costs for the project were running more than $650,000 above what was originally calculated.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record,
Jonathan Barnes, Engineering News-Record and
Greg Aragon, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Recap of the Supreme Court’s 2019 Summer Slate
September 16, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelAs usual, the last month of the Supreme Court’s term generated significant rulings on all manner of cases, possibly presaging the new directions the Court will be taking in administrative and regulatory law. Here’s a brief roundup:
An Offshore Dispute, Resolve – Parker Drilling Management v. Newton
On June 10, 2019, the Court held, in a unanimous ruling, that, under federal law, California wage and hour laws do not apply to offshore operations conducted on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Newton, the plaintiff, worked on drilling platforms off the coast of California, and alleged that he was not paid for his “standby time” which is contrary to California law if not federal law. He filed a class action in state court, which was removed to federal court, where it was dismissed on the basis of a 1969 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that state law applies on the OCS only to the extent that it is necessary to use state law to fill a significant gap or void in federal law, and this is not the case here. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, that court disagreed with the Fifth Circuit, and ruled that state law is applicable on the OCS whenever it applies to the matter at hand. The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Thomas, conceded that “this is a close question of statutory interpretation,” but in the end the Court agreed with the argument that if there was not a gap to fill, that ended the dispute over which law applies on the Outer continental Shelf. This ruling, recognizing the preeminent role that federal law plays on the OCS, may affect the resolution of other offshore disputes affecting other federal statutes.
Preemption Prevention – Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren. et al.
On June 17, 2019 the Court decided important cases involving federal preemption and First Amendment issues. In a 6-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt a Virginia law that “flatly prohibits uranium mining in Virginia”—or more precisely—mining on non-federal land in Virginia. Virginia Uranium planned to mine raw uranium from a site near Coles, Virginia, but acknowledging that Virginia law forbade such an operation, challenged the state law on federal preemption grounds, arguing that the Atomic Energy Act, as implemented by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, preempts the ability of the state to regulate this activity. However, the majority, in an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, notes that the “best reading of the AEA does not require us to hold the state law before us preempted,” and that the1983 precedent that Virginia Uranium cites, Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, can easily be distinguished. Justice Gorsuch rejected arguments that the intent of the Virginia legislators in passing the state law should be consulted, that the Court’s ruling should normally be governed by the exact text of the statute at hand. However, both the concurring and dissenting opinions suggest that the what the legislators intended to do is important in a preemption context.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
