Client Alert: Michigan Insurance Company Not Subject to Personal Jurisdiction in California for Losses Suffered in Arkansas
February 05, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, Filed 1/27/2015) (“Greenwell”), the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, held a California resident could not establish specific personal jurisdiction over an insurance company, located in Michigan, which issued a policy of insurance to the California resident where the claimed loss occurred in Arkansas.
Plaintiff purchased a policy of insurance from defendant, Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (“Auto”), a Michigan corporation. The policy provided commercial property coverage for an apartment building owned by Plaintiff, located in Arkansas. The policy also provided commercial general liability coverage for plaintiff’s property ownership business, which plaintiff operated from California.
Both coverage provisions insured certain risks, losses, or damages that could have arisen in California. The dispute which arose between Plaintiff and Defendant, however, involved two fires that damaged the apartment building in Arkansas. As a result of coverage decisions that Auto made in the handling of the claim, plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and bad faith.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Lawrence S. Zucker II and
Kristian B. Moriarty
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com;
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com;
and Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NY Appeals Court Ruled Builders not Responsible in Terrorism Cases
January 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ StaffIn a ruling on a case related to the September 11, 2001 attacks, New York federal appeals court stated that builders and developers could not be held responsible for losses linked to terrorism, Reuters reports. Circuit Judge Rosemary said the building “would have collapsed regardless of any negligence ascribed by plaintiffs' experts.”
Scott Sweeney writing for the Schinnerer's RM Blog explained, “This decision should make it harder for constructors and designers to be held responsible for damages resulting from major acts of terrorism and unforeseeable events that can be nearly impossible to prepare for.”
Read the full story at Reuters...
Read the full story at Schinnerer's RM Blog...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Professor Senet’s List of 25 Decisions Every California Construction Lawyer Should Know:
January 17, 2022 —
Ted Senet - Gibbs Giden- Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal. 4th 627 – economic loss rule
- Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks ( (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 228 – abandonment does not apply to public works – total cost theory is allowed
- Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (2014) 59 Cal. 4th 568 – architect liable in absence of privity
- Cates Const., Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28 – no tort recovery on bonds – performance bonds can cover contract warranties
- Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. v. Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist., 149 Cal. App. 4th 1384 – liability for concealed conditions
- Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court of Merced County (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 803 – mechanic lien remedy is constitutional
- Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg. (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 541 – indemnity implies obligation to defend [now limited to commercial contracts under CCP 2782 (c)–(h)]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ted Senet, Gibbs GiddenMr. Senet may be contacted at
tsenet@gibbsgiden.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Super Lawyers Selects Haight Lawyers for Its 2023 California Rising Stars List
June 12, 2023 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPCongratulations to Patrick McIntyre, Kathleen Moriarty and Kristian Moriarty who have been selected to the 2023 California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. Super Lawyers magazines also feature editorial profiles of attorneys who embody excellence in the practice of law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
As of July 1, 2024, California Will Require Most Employers to Have a Written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and Training. Is Your Company Compliant?
June 17, 2024 —
Jason L. Morris & Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer DillionThe California legislature passed Senate Bill 553 (SB 553) in 2023. This bill requires most California employers to implement a written Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP) and to train employees on the WVPP. At Newmeyer Dillion, we are dedicated to helping you navigate these requirements and maintain a safe, compliant work environment.
Act Now: Two Weeks to Comply
With SB 553's July 1st compliance deadline, employers have just two weeks to develop and implement a compliant Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP). The clock is ticking, and it is imperative to act swiftly to ensure compliance and protect your employees.
What is SB 553?
SB 553 is a legislative measure aimed at enhancing workplace safety by mandating specific actions from employers to prevent workplace violence. This bill recognizes the growing concern around workplace violence incidents and the need for proactive measures to maintain a safe workplace. The key components of SB 553 include:
- Establishment of a Workplace Violence Prevention Program (WVPP): Employers are required to develop and implement a comprehensive written WVPP tailored to their specific workplace environment and risks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion and
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com
Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2017 Colorado Construction Defect Recap: Colorado Legislature and Judiciary Make Favorable Advances for Development Community
January 24, 2018 —
Kaitlin Marsh-Blake – Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog Last March, the Colorado General Assembly introduced House Bill 17-1279 concerning the requirement that a unit owners’ association obtain approval through a vote of unit owners before filing a construction defect action. The bill, passed in May, requires a home owners’ association to first notify all unit owners and the developer or builder of a potential construction defect action, call a meeting where both the HOA and developer or builder have an opportunity to present arguments and potentially remedy the defect, and obtain a majority vote of approval from the unit owners to pursue a lawsuit before bringing a construction defect action against a developer or builder. The bill amends C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5, which previously only required substantial compliance with the above-mentioned actions. Moreover, the previous version of C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 did not require the HOA to perform these actions prior to a suit being filed. HB 17-1279 also removed the provision of C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 that made it only applicable to buildings of five or more units.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kaitlin Marsh-Blake, Gordon & ReesMs. Marsh-Blake may be contacted at
kmarsh-blake@grsm.com
