Indemnity Provision Prevails Over "Other Insurance" Clause
December 06, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Second Circuit predicted that the New York appellate courts would find the contractual indemnity provision prevailed over the application of an "other insurance" provisions. Cent. Sur. Co. v. Metro. Transit Auth., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29860 (2nd Cir. Oct. 5,2021).
Long Island Railroad (LIRR) contracted with general contractor Rukh Enterprises, Inc. to complete a railroad bridge lead paint removal and repainting project on Metropolitan Transit Authority property. Rukh hired subcontractor, East Coast Painting & Maintenance to complete certain lead-related work on the project.
An employee of East Coast suffered an injury while working on the project. The employee sued LIRR and Rukh. A settlement in the underlying case was reached, implicating three of four policies - Admiral (primary for LIRR), Arch (CGL for Rukh), and Harleysville (primary for East Coast). Century Surety (excess liability for Rukh) did not contribute to the settlement and disclaimed all 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
Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022
December 27, 2021 —
Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & FearsGov. Gavin Newsom closed California’s 2020-2021 Legislative Session with a flurry of bill signings, many of which created and/or updated employment-related laws. A few of these bills were “emergency bills” which became effective immediately (such as the COVID-related right to rehire and sick pay laws), while others do not become effective until Jan. 1, 2022. Employers should ensure that their policies, procedures, and systems comply with these new and updated laws.
California’s Regulation of Quotas in Warehouse Distribution Centers
On Sept. 22, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 701, aimed at regulating quotas in warehouse distribution centers, into law. Effective Jan. 1, 2022, employers with 100 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state must provide to each nonexempt employee, upon hire, or by Jan. 31, 2022, a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject. This bill also sets certain standards for what constitutes an enforceable quota and for the employer’s obligation to respond to information requests.
Employers should carefully review their quota systems to first determine if the quotas are necessary, and if so, ensure compliance with this new law by preparing clear written descriptions for each and every quota. A more in-depth discussion of the provisions of the AB 701 can be found
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Contractors Should Request Debriefings As A Matter Of Course
May 30, 2018 —
Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight BlogFederal Contractors—especially those engaging in FAR Part 15 direct contract negotiations—should make it a routine practice to timely request debriefings after the Contracting Agency excludes the bidder from the competitive range (“pre-award debriefing”) or after the Agency issues the award (“post-award debriefing”). Debriefings allow the Contractor to understand the evaluation process used by the Contracting Agency and to receive an assessment of how it fared in that evaluation. This is not a one-sided presentation as Contracting Agencies are required to answer the contractor’s relevant questions about the decision-making process. Properly run debriefings can be used to better tailor future bids and negotiations, as further marketing to the Contracting Agency for future awards, and, occasionally, to unearth grounds for a potential protest if any part of the evaluation process is out of sync with the FARs. In the event the contractor learns of a basis for protest at the debriefing, the deadline to file a protest begins running from the date of the debriefing—whether it was required or not.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. MacDonald may be contacted at
scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com
Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires
February 16, 2017 —
Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages.
In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts
August 17, 2020 —
Jeff Kaatz - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn 2015, the City of Puyallup (“City”) and Conway Construction Company (“Conway”) executed a public works contract for road improvements (“Project”). On March 9, 2016, approximately four months after work started on the Project, the City issued Conway a notice of suspension and breach of contract and identified nine defective and uncorrected work and safety concerns. Conway denied any wrongdoing, and on March 25, 2016, the City issued a notice of termination for default and withheld payments due to Conway.
Conway subsequently filed suit in Pierce County Superior Court and alleged the City’s termination for default breached the contract and sought a determination that the City’s termination for default was improper and should be deemed a termination for convenience. Conway sought approximately $1.25 million in damages and recovery of its attorney fees and costs. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court found the City breached the contract and awarded Conway damages, attorney fees, and costs. The City appealed.[1]
On appeal, after affirming the trial court’s determination that the City improperly terminated Conway, the Court of Appeals considered two other issues raised by the City. First, whether the City was entitled to a set-off for replacing defective work discovered after Conway was terminated. Second, whether Conway is entitled to attorney fees if it did not make the statutorily required offer of settlement per RCW 39.04.240.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Kaatz, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Kaatz may be contacted at
Jeff.Kaatz@acslawyers.com
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
Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied
September 07, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer had no duty to defend claims against the insured for faulty workmanship. HT Services, LLC v. Western Heritage Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123664 (D. Colo. July 10, 2020).
Western Heritage Insurance Company issued three concurrent general liability policies to HT Services, LLC. The policies insured two properties owned by HT in Colorado Springs, its offices and vacant land. HT eventually developed a residential community on the vacant land. In January 2016, the homeowners' association filed suit against HT for negligent design and construction of a retaining wall at the project.
HT requested Western to defend and indemnify against the suit. Western denied coverage and HT sued. HT asserted that Western had a duty to defend and asserted claims for declaratory relief, breach of contract and bad faith. HT moved for partial summary judgment on its claims for declaratory relief, seeking a determination of its rights under the policies. Western moved for summary judgment on all of HT's claims.
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
Privette: The “Affirmative Contribution” Exception, How Far Does It Go?
August 10, 2020 —
Courtney Arbucci, Peter A. Dubrawski & Austin F. Smith - Haight Brown & BonesteelIn Horne v. Ahern Rentals, Inc. (No. B299605, filed 6/10/2020 ord. publ. 6/10/2020), Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against Defendant Ahern Rentals, Inc. (“Ahern”) arising out of the fatal incident involving Ruben Dickerson (“decedent”), while employed by independent contractor 24-Hour Tire Service, Inc. Decedent was ultimately crushed on Ahern Rentals, Inc.’s property when a forklift that was improperly placed on uneven ground collapsed as decedent laid under the raised forklift as he performed tire maintenance.
Plaintiffs’ suit would normally be barred by the Privette line of decisions which arise out of the foundational principle that an independent contractor’s hirer presumptively delegates to the contractor its tort law duty to provide a safe workplace for the contractor’s employees. (Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 (Privette).) The Privette rule is subject to a number of exceptions including the “peculiar risk” exception, the “nondelegable duty” exception and the “affirmative contribution” exception. (See Privette, supra.) Here, Plaintiffs’ claimed that their suit against Ahern arose out of the “affirmative contribution” exception to Privette as defined by Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198, 202 (Hooker). Hooker allows suits otherwise barred by Privette to go forward if the hirer of the independent contractor “exercised control over safety conditions at the worksite in a way that affirmatively contributed to the employee’s injuries.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys
Courtney Arbucci,
Peter A. Dubrawski and
Austin F. Smith
Ms. Arbucci may be contacted at carbucci@hbblaw.com
Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com
Mr. Smith may be contacted at asmith@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
