Condo Collapse Spurs Hometown House Member to Demand U.S. Rules
July 19, 2021 —
Parker Purifoy - BloombergA Florida congresswoman called for stricter federal building-safety standards on Thursday to prevent a repeat of the condominium collapse that killed at least 60 people and left dozens more missing in her state.
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat whose congressional district includes the condo development in Surfside, said more buildings could collapse or break down as they age and the federal government needed to have a “minimum floor” of safety requirements.
“We do have standards that are tangentially related at the federal level and so I do think it’s important to look into what standards should be adopted at the national level, at a minimum, because this is a tragedy of epic proportions,” she said on Bloomberg Television’s “Balance of Power” with David Westin. “We can’t allow this to ever happen again.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Parker Purifoy, Bloomberg
Federal Court Rejects Insurer's Argument that Wisconsin Has Adopted the Manifestation Trigger for Property Policy
April 03, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court disagreed with the insurer's strident claim that Wisconsin followed the manifestation trigger for deciding coverage under a homeowner's policy. Strauss v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224 (E.D. Wis. Jan. 2, 2013).
Several years after their house was constructed, the insureds discovered water damage. Chubb denied the claim. The insureds sued. Chubb moved for summary judgment and argued that the loss first manifested many years after its policy expired. Further, Chubb argued that Wisconsin followed the manifestation trigger for first-party property insurance, meaning that only the insurance policy in effect when the loss manifested was required to respond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
U.S. Home Prices Rose More Than Estimated in February
May 07, 2015 —
Kathleen M. Howley – BloombergU.S. house prices rose more than economists estimated in February as the strongest labor market in seven years gives Americans the confidence to bid on property.
Prices climbed 0.7 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis from January, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said in a report Wednesday. The average economist estimate was for a 0.5 percent increase, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Housing demand is climbing as consumer confidence hovers close to an eight-year high. Sales of existing homes rose in March by the most in four years, the National Association of Realtors reported today. The number of U.S. households jumped by almost 2 million in 2014, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kathleen M. Howley, BloombergMs. Howley may be contacted at
kmhowley@bloomberg.net
Construction Law: Unexpected, Fascinating, Bizarre
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFGuy Randles offers an amusing set of odd construction law cases in the Daily Journal of Commerce, which he describes as “the unexpected, the fascinating and even the bizarre.” He noted that in one case “a whistleblower claimed he was terminated for reporting to the owner that the contractor’s painters had not applied the required coating thickness.” The whistleblower was the project manager and “was responsible for ensuring the proper coating thickness.”
A less amusing case was that of an architect who was arrested for manslaughter. Gerard Baker “told investigators that the considered the fireplaces to be merely decorative.” Randles notes that “the mansion’s fireplaces were built of wood framing and lined with combustible drywall.” Further, a “gas fireplace even vented into the house’s interior.” Building officials called the house “a death trap.” According to the LA police chief this may be the only case in which building defects lead to a manslaughter charge.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado
November 23, 2020 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogEarlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.” See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020). As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context.
This significant ruling is at odds with a prior division’s broad statement, while considering a prescriptive easement claim, that “[i]n general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant’s claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use.” See Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo. App. 2006). Perhaps for that reason, Woodbridge II is currently pending certiorari review before the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that should provide some much-needed clarity on what constitutes “adverse use” in the context of a prescriptive easement. As we await the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I thought it worthwhile to provide a brief analysis of the Woodbridge II court’s deep dive into the nuances of “adverse use” in this field of Colorado law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.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
Ohio Court Refuses to Annualize Multi-Year Policies’ Per Occurrence Limits
June 19, 2023 —
Patricia Santelle, Adam Berardi & Lynndon Groff - White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams recently obtained summary judgment against an insured on behalf of an insurer and a guarantor, establishing that two multi-year insurance policies provide per occurrence limits on a per policy rather than a per year basis, which shielded potential exposure by over $100 million.
The insured had previously sought and obtained coverage under two policies in connection with a single occurrence arising out of massive environmental contamination claims involving a large industrial site. The issue of whether the policies provide per occurrence limits on a policy term or annual basis was not resolved in this earlier litigation.
The first policy was effective for three years and provides per occurrence limits of $40 million. The second policy was effective for up to three years and provides per occurrence limits of $15 million.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia Santelle, White and Williams LLP,
Adam Berardi, White and Williams LLP and
Lynndon Groff, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Berardi may be contacted at berardia@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Business Interruption, COVID-19 Claims Under Pollution Policy Fails
January 11, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer was unsuccessful in seeking to dismiss business interruption claims due to COVID-19 under a pollution policy. New York Botanical Garden v. Allied World Assur., 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6012 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct.15, 2021).
The insured was forced to cease operation after executive orders by the governor and mayor were issued in March 2020. The insured also had to reduce its in-person workforce by 100%. The insured's claim for business interruption and contingent business interruption were denied by Allied. The insured sued for a declaratory judgment.
Allied moved to dismiss, arguing that the executive orders were issued for prophylactic reasons in an effort to mitigate the spread of the virus. They were not issued solely to address the presence of COVID-19 at any non-insured owned location, but were issued broadly to limit the risk of spreading the COVID-19 virus. The insured responded that its broader pollution liability policy was not a typical civil authority policy that required the physical loss or damage to property.
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
