D.C. Decision Finding No “Direct Physical Loss” for COVID-19 Closures Is Not Without Severe Limitations
August 24, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Andrews KurthOn August 6, 2020, in Rose’s 1 LLC, et al. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Civ. Case No. 2020 CA 002424 B, a District of Columbia trial court found in favor of an insurer on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether COVID-19 closure orders constitute a “direct physical loss” under a commercial property policy.
At its core, the decision ignores key arguments raised in the summary judgment briefing and is narrowly premised on certain dictionary definitions of the terms, “direct,” “physical,” and “loss.” Relying almost entirely on those definitions – each supplied by the insureds in their opening brief – the court set the stage for its ultimate conclusion by finding “direct” to mean “without intervening persons, conditions, or agencies; immediate”; and “physical” to mean “of or pertaining to matter ….” The court then apparently accepted the policy’s circular definition of “loss” as meaning “direct and accidental loss of or damage to covered property.” Importantly, however, despite recognizing the fundamental rule of insurance policy construction that the court “must interpret the contract ‘as a whole, giving reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all its terms, and ascertaining the meaning in light of all the circumstances surrounding the parties at the time the contract was made,’” the court apparently ignored the insureds’ argument that the term “property damage” is specifically defined in the policy to include “loss of use” without any specific reference to physical or tangible damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blog Completes Seventeenth Year
January 07, 2025 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiInsurance Law Hawaii reaches the end of its seventeenth year this month. We began posting long ago, in December 2007.
We seek to keep readers apprised of developments in insurance-related cases from Hawaii and across the country. Coverage issues surrounding the Maui fires have been top of mind this year. We will continue posting on important coverage developments in the next year.
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
SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability
June 01, 2020 —
Rhonda Kreger – Newmeyer DillionSB 939 is currently working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would impose new obligations on landlords, and provide protections for commercial tenants who meet specified criteria. SB 939 would impose a moratorium on eviction of those qualified commercial tenants while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect. Any eviction actions commenced after the date of the emergency COVID-19 order, but before the adoption of SB 939, would be void and unenforceable. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
Who qualifies as a commercial tenant under SB 939?
To qualify under this legislation, a commercial tenant must be a business that operates primarily in California. The commercial tenant must be a small business, nonprofit, an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue. Publicly traded companies or any company owned by, or affiliated with a publicly traded company, do not qualify. The commercial tenant must have experienced a decline of at least 40 percent monthly revenue, either as compared to two months before the emergency COVID-19 order, or other local government shelter-in-place orders took effect, or as compared to the same month in 2019. If the commercial tenant is an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue, the commercial tenant must also show a decline of 25 percent or more in capacity due to social or physical distancing orders or safety concerns, and show that it is subject to regulations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that will financially impair the business when compared to the period before the emergency COVID-19 order or other local shelter-in-place orders took effect.
What eviction actions are prohibited while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect?
If adopted, SB 939 would add Section 1951.9 to the Civil Code. This section would make it unlawful to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy or otherwise evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency order proclaimed by Governor Newsome on March 4, 2020. Exceptions apply if a tenant poses a threat to the property, other tenants or a person, business or other entity. Any violations of this eviction prohibition would be against public policy and unenforceable.
Any eviction started after proclamation of the state of emergency but before the effective date is deemed void, against public policy and is unenforceable.
Does SB 939 impose new penalties or remedies?
Any landlord who harasses, mistreats or retaliates against a commercial tenant to force the tenant to abrogate the lease would be subject to a fine of $2,000 for each violation. Further, any such violation would be an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and would be subject to all available remedies or penalties for those actions under state law.
When is a commercial tenant required to pay unpaid rent due to COVID-19?
If a commercial tenant fails to pay rent during the emergency COVID-19 order, the sum total of the past due rent must be paid within 12 months following the date of the end of the emergency proclamation, unless the commercial tenant has successfully negotiated an agreement with its landlord to pay the outstanding rent at a later date. Nonpayment of rent during the state of emergency cannot be used as grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding lease terms to the contrary, landlords may not impose late charges for rent that became due during the state of emergency.
Are landlords required to provide notice of protections adopted under SB 939?
Landlords would be required to provide notice to commercial tenants of the protections offered under SB 939 within 30 days of the effective date. SB 939 does not preempt local legislation or ordinances restricting the same or similar conduct which impose a more severe penalty for the same conduct. Local legislation or ordinances may impose additional notice requirements.
Does SB 939 impose new protections for commercial tenants when negotiating lease modifications?
If enacted, SB 939 would permit commercial tenants to open negotiations for new lease terms, and provide commercial tenants the ability to terminate the lease if those negotiations fail. A commercial tenant who wishes to modify its commercial lease, may engage in good faith negotiations with its landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease. The commercial tenant must serve a notice on the landlord certifying that it meets the required criteria, along with the desired modifications.
If the commercial tenant and landlord do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement within 30 days, then within 10 days, the commercial tenant may terminate the lease without any liability for future rent, fees, or costs that otherwise may have been due under the lease by providing a written termination notice to the landlord. The commercial tenant would be required to pay previously due rent, in an amount no greater than the sum of the following: (1) the actual rent due during the emergency COVID-19 order, or a maximum of three months of the past due rent during that period, and (2) all rent incurred and unpaid during a time unrelated to the emergency COVID-19 order through the date of the termination notice. The payment is due within 12 months from date of the termination notice. The commercial tenant would be required to vacate the premises within 14 days of the landlord's receipt of the termination notice. Upon service of the notice, any lease, and any third party guaranties of the lease would terminate. If the landlord and commercial tenant reach an agreement to modify the lease, the commercial tenant would not have the option to later terminate the lease under this provision.
When is the next Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting for SB 939?
The Senate Judiciary Committee set a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The Senate will livestream the hearing on its website at www.sen.ca.gov. Public comments or testimony may be submitted in writing to the Judiciary Committee by emailing Erica.porter@sen.ca.gov. Alternatively, the public may participate via telephone during the public comment period. Any changes to the Judicial Committee schedule may be found at: https://www.senate.ca.gov/calendar.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scotiabank Is Cautious on Canada Housing as RBC, BMO Seek Action
April 12, 2021 —
Shelly Hagan & Erik Hertzberg - BloombergBank of Nova Scotia, Canada’s third-largest lender, waded into the burgeoning debate over whether Justin Trudeau’s government should take immediate steps to cool the nation’s hot housing market, issuing a report that cautioned against rushing to implement new constraints.
In a report released Sunday, Scotiabank’s chief economist Jean-Francois Perrault said the recent run-up in home prices nationally over the past year was in large part driven by sluggish supply that failed to keep up with higher demand -- a trend that could reverse itself as new sellers enter the market in coming weeks. If the government does decide to take action, it should target housing speculators, he said.
Reprinted courtesy of
Shelly Hagan, Bloomberg and
Erik Hertzberg, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Efficient Proximate Cause Applies to Policy's Collapse Provisions
February 23, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court applied the efficient proximate cause doctrine to find coverage under a property policy for a building's collapse. Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co., 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 1181 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2015).
The insured submitted a claim to Amco for damage to the flooring of the house and for mold. Amco's adjustor reported that the house seemed to be settling, possibly due to a water leak. A structural engineer then inspected and found multiple potential leaks in the roof, gutters in disrepair, downspouts that deposited water at the base of the walls of the house, and evidence that a faucet had been spraying the wall in one area. Water damage was noticed in these areas. Further, the kitchen was water damaged and had past termite infestation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Not All Work is Covered Under the Federal Miller Act
May 24, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe recent opinion out of the Eastern District Court of Virginia, Dickson v. Forney Enterprises, Inc., 2021 WL 1536574 (E.D.Virginia 2021), demonstrates that the federal Miller Act is not designed to protect ALL that perform work on a federal construction project. This is because NOT ALL work is covered under the Miller Act.
In this case, a professional engineer was subcontracted by a prime contractor to serve on site in a project management / superintendent capacity. The prime contractor’s scope of work was completed by January 31, 2019. However, the prime contractor was still required to inventory certain materials on site, which was performed by the engineer. The engineer claimed it was owed in excess of $400,000 and filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit on February 5, 2020 (more than a year after the project was completed).
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
Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them
May 15, 2023 —
Laura Nahmias & Skylar Woodhouse - BloombergOne town calls it a “power grab” that “will force Long Island to become the sixth borough of New York City.”
Another warns it will “destroy” life as they know it. A third calls it “radical, unprecedented and a drastic departure” from how localities have governed themselves for decades.
Across the state, but especially around the wealthy suburbs of New York City and Long Island, politicians and residents are sounding the alarm about Governor Kathy Hochul’s plan to address a housing crisis.
To some policy experts and supporters, it’s the most politically ambitious program of its type in years, a rare act of courage in Albany, where incrementalism is king. Others see it as the policy equivalent of an extinction-level event and a bizarrely self-defeating move from a governor who risks permanently alienating the suburban voters she’ll need to win reelection in three years.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Nahmias, Bloomberg and
Skylar Woodhouse, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insured Versus Insured Clause Does Not Bar Coverage
September 17, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit considered whether coverage was barred under the policy's insured versus insured provision. Kinsale Ins. Co. v. Georgia-Pacific, L.L.C., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12976 (5th Cir. July 27, 2015).
Georgia-Pacific hired Advanced Services, Inc. for demolition work at Georgia-Pacific's idled plywood plant. A fire occurred at the plant, damaging equipment Advanced had leased from H&E Equipment for the demolition work.
Several lawsuits followed. One was brought by H&E against Advanced. Advanced filed a third-party demand for indemnification against Georgia-Pacific for any damages Advanced was required to pay H&E.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
