Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies
November 21, 2022 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., the Court of Appeals for Ohio’s Eighth District reversed the lower court, finding that money paid by the insured into an abatement fund was “damages” as that undefined term was used in the policyholder’s insurance policies. 2022-Ohio-3031, ¶ 1. Sherwin-Williams is a cautionary tale about how insurers may try to narrow the meaning of undefined terms in their insurance policies.
The dispute in Sherwin-Williams focused on coverage for $400 million that the policyholder and other defendants were ordered to pay into an abatement fund to be used by California cities and counties to mitigate the hazards caused by lead paint in homes. Id. ¶ 1. Although the underlying litigation proceeded in California, Ohio law governed coverage, which raised issues of first impression in Ohio. Id. Among other things, the insurers argued that the money paid into the abatement fund did not qualify as “damages” under the policies. Id. ¶ 57. The insured argued that, because the insurers did not define “damages” in the policies, the term had to be given its ordinary meaning. Id. ¶ 56.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease
May 06, 2019 —
Lauren Podgorski - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIf you are leasing space in a building, there may come a time when you receive a request from your landlord to fill out and sign an estoppel certificate. Estoppel certificates are usually sent to tenants in connection with the sale or refinance of a building, and a third party may rely on the accuracy of the statements and information contained in the estoppel certificate in connection with that transaction. Estoppel certificates can range from a very simple, one-page document, to several pages.
I’ve received an estoppel certificate in the mail. What do I do now?
Consider the following:
Check your lease. Your lease may require you to deliver the signed estoppel certificate and may even give you a timeframe within which you are required to return it. A form of estoppel certificate may also be included in your lease as an exhibit. If you’ve previously agreed to a form of estoppel certificate in your lease, check to ensure the one you have received matches the form you previously agreed to and if it doesn’t make sure to review it carefully to make sure it is acceptable.
Review the estoppel certificate and confirm that all of the information is accurate. Be on the lookout for any terms or provisions that you did not agree to in your lease. If it seems like the landlord is trying to modify your lease, you likely do not need to consent to the change in this document. Cross off (or modify or delete, if you have an electronic copy) any information that is inaccurate. Fill in all blanks (if the blank is not applicable, write “N/A”), and if any exhibits are referenced in the body of the document, make sure they are actually attached.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren Podgorski, Snell & WilmerMs. Podgorski may be contacted at
lpodgorski@swlaw.com
Texas contractual liability exclusion
May 18, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Ewing Construction Co., Inc. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. C-10-256 (S.D. Tex. April 28, 2011), insured Ewing was the general contractor for an athletic facility constructed for a school district. The school district sued Ewing alleging defective construction of the project. The underlying complaint included contract and negligence causes of action, and sought damages for the repair of the damages and loss of the use of the project. The complaint did not allege damage to any property other than the project itself. Ewing tendered its defense to its CGL insurer Amerisure. Amerisure denied a defense and Ewing filed suit against Amerisure. The federal district trial court entered summary judgment for Amerisure. Applying Texas law, the court held that all of the damages fell within the “contractual liability†exclusion precluding any duty to defend or indemnify.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Franchisors Should Consider Signing a Conditional Lease Assignment Rather Than a Franchisee’s Lease
November 17, 2016 —
Richard H. Herold – Real Estate Litigation BlogIn Franchise & High Properties, LLC v. Happy’s Franchise, LLC, a 2015 decision issued by the Court of Appeals in Michigan, the franchisor, Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, signed a five-year lease for the commercial space to be occupied by its franchisee, Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc. The franchisor did so to secure a right of first refusal to purchase the property and to enforce the franchise agreement to have the lease assigned to the franchisor if the franchisee defaulted.
The issue in the case was whether the term “tenant” referred solely to Happy’s Pizza #19 or whether it also included Happy’s Franchise as a co-tenant. “Tenant” was defined as follows: “Happy’s Pizza #19, Inc., 29102 Telegraph Road, Suite 607, Southfield, MI 48034, the lessee, and Happy’s Pizza Franchise, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as `Franchisor’), hereinafter designated as the Tenant.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Herold, Real Estate Litigation BlogMr. Herold may be contacted at
rherold@swlaw.com
Fourteen Years as a Solo!
July 08, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have always found it appropriate that my jump to solo practice and Independence Day are so close in time. Today marks 14 years since
my first day as a solo practitioner of construction law at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. Time sure has flown by thanks to the great clients and friends who followed me to solo practice and whom I have met since the firm’s founding on July 1, 2010. I also could not have made the transition and had the fun and success I have enjoyed over the past 14 years without the support of the best wife and family that any construction lawyer could want.
Since the firm’s last anniversary, my youngest child (who was 7 when this journey began!) started and completed her junior year at N. C. State University and is currently in Idaho working as an intern for Idaho Fish & Game, my second oldest is an assistant director of admissions at Appalachian State University in Boone, NC, and is newly married, and my oldest has bought a home, adopted an adorable golden retriever puppy, and celebrated her third marriage anniversary. Our home in Captiva, Florida has also continued its recovery from Hurricane Ian.
Professionally, I’ve had a great year. I am serving as the Vice Chair of the
Section Council of the Virginia Bar Association Construction and Public Contracts Law section. I was also honored to be nominated and elected to the
Virginia Legal Elite in Construction Law for the 17th straight year and to the
Virginia Super Lawyers in Construction Litigation for the 8th year running. I also continued to have the opportunity to teach in various construction-related venues on relevant topics and to help out some of the best clients around. I have also continued to grow my
ADR practice, including
arbitration and
mediation.
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
When an Intentional Act Results in Injury or Damage, it is not an Accident within the Meaning of an Insurance Policy Even When the Insured did not Intend to Cause the Injury or Damage
June 06, 2022 —
Gary L. LaHendro - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn
Maryam Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Company (No. B311310, filed April 14, 2022, and certified for publication on May 5, 2022), the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District held that Maryam Ghukasian’s insurer, Aegis Security Insurance Company (“Aegis”), had no duty to defend her in an underlying lawsuit alleging she cleared land and cut trees on her neighbors’ property without their consent. The appellate court explained Ms. Ghukasian’s acts of intentionally cutting the trees and clearing the land were not accidental for purposes of insurance coverage, even if she acted on the good faith but mistaken belief the trees were on her property.
Ms. Ghukasian owns a home in Glendale, California. She purchased a homeowner’s insurance policy from Aegis for the policy period of June 13, 2018 to June 13, 2019 (the “Aegis Policy”). In August 2018, Ms. Ghukasian hired a contractor to clear and cut trees she believed were on her property. However, the trees were on the property of her neighbors, Vrej and George Aintablian.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gary L. LaHendro, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. LaHendro may be contacted at
glahendro@hbblaw.com
Washington Supreme Court Upholds King County Ordinance Requiring Utility Providers to Pay for Access to County’s Right-of-Way and Signals Approval for Other Counties to Follow Suit
March 02, 2020 —
Kristina Southwell - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCOn December 5, 2019, the Washington State Supreme Court released its opinion in King County v. King County Water Districts, et al.,[1] upholding King County’s Ordinance 18403, which requires utility companies who are franchise grantees to pay “franchise compensation” for their use of the County rights-of-way. Generally, utility companies must apply for and obtain from the County a franchise permitting it to do necessary work in the County rights-of-way. [2] Previously, King County only charged an administrative fee associated with issuing such a franchise. But with the new franchise compensation charges, King County estimates that it will raise approximately $10 million dollars per year for its general fund.
Ordinance 18403 passed in November 2016 and was the first of its kind in the state. The ordinance created a rule, set forth in RCW 6.27.080, requiring electric, gas, water, and sewer utilities who are granted a franchise by King County to pay “franchise compensation” in exchange for the right to use the County’s rights-of-way. The rule provides that franchise compensation is in the nature of an annual rent payment to the County for using the County roads. King County decides an initial estimate of the charge by considering various factors such as the value of the land used, the size of the area that will be used, and the density of the households served. But utility companies can negotiate with the County over the final amount of franchise compensation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kristina Southwell, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Southwell may be contacted at
kristina.southwell@acslawyers.com
Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act
April 20, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogUnemployment claims hit a historic high this past week as 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits. To give you some context, this is not only the highest number of unemployment claims ever filed, it is five times higher than the previous record of 695,000 unemployment claims in 1982.
Restaurants, hotels, airlines and other businesses have begun to layoff or furlough workers. According to a survey conducted by the Associated General Contractors of America this past week, 39% of respondents reported that project owners have halted or cancelled construction projects due to deteriorating economic conditions, 45% reported project delays or disruptions, and 23% reported supply chain disruptions.
While the construction industry likely won’t be impacted nearly to the same degree as the retail sector has, some involved in the construction industry may nevertheless be faced with the prospect of having to lay off or furlough workers as “shelter in place” orders are extended. If you’re faced with that situation here are a few things to remember:
Paid Sick Leave
Under California law, nearly all employers are required to provide paid sick leave to employees who work for 30 or more days in a given year. Paid sick leave can be used by an employee for illnesses, including COVID-19, the diagnosis, care, or treatment of existing health conditions, and preventative care for the employee or employee’s family member. The important thing to remember here is that use of paid sick leave is an employee’s choice. While an employer, concerned that an employee may have contracted COVID-19, may require that an employee not come to the office, the employer cannot force such an employee to use his or her paid sick leave. For more information, the California Labor Commissioner has created a webpage specific to COVID 19.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
