CDC Issues Moratorium on Residential Evictions Through 2020
October 05, 2020 —
Steven E. Ostrow, C. Jason Kim, & Marissa Levy - White and Williams LLPOn September 1, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that it was issuing an order (CDC Order) to temporarily halt residential evictions to prevent the further spread of COVID-19. The CDC Order became effective on September 4, 2020 and will remain in effect through December 31, 2020.
The purpose of the CDC Order is to keep tenants in their residences to reduce crowding in shelters or other shared housing and to reduce the number of unsheltered homeless, as those conditions have been shown to increase the spread of COVID-19.
APPLICABILITY & PROTECTIONS
The CDC Order is broader than the previous eviction moratorium under the Coronavirus Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), which applied only to federally-funded housing and expired on July 24, 2020. Eligible renters include those who qualified for a stimulus check under the CARES Act and individuals who expect to make less than $99,000 this year or a joint-filing couple that expects to make less than $198,000.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven E. Ostrow, White and Williams LLP,
C. Jason Kim, White and Williams LLP, and
Marissa Levy, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Kim may be contacted at kimcj@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Levy may be contacted at levymp@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Additional Insured for Construction Defect Claim
July 02, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurers, finding there was no coverage for the additional insured on a construction defect claim. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Walsh Construction. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10285 (7th Cir. April 29, 2024).
The City of Chicago hired Walsh Construction Company as general contractor for the Facade and Circulation Enhancement (FACE) project at O'Hare International Airport. The FACE project involved building and installing a new canopy for Terminals 1, 2 and 3. The project also called for the construction of a steel and glass curtain wall that would be integrated with the curtain wall at Terminals 2 and 3. Walsh contracted with Carlo Steel Corporation to manufacture the steel and curtain wall. Carlo, in turn, subcontracted with LB Steel, LLC to manufacture and install the steel elements of the wall, which included steel columns, hammer heads and box girders. The subcontract between Carlo and LB Steel included an indemnity provision that required LB Steel to indemnify Carlo and Walsh for any property damage resulting from LB Steel's negligent performance.
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
Appeals Court Explains Punitive Damages Awards For Extreme Reprehensibility Or Unusually Small, Hard-To-Detect Or Hard-To-Measure Compensatory Damages
November 10, 2016 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (No. B234271A, filed 11/3/16), (“Nickerson II”) a California appeals court outlined the requirements for complying with the single-digit multiplier annunciated as a Constitutional limitation on punitive damages by the United States Supreme Court in State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell (2003) 538 U.S. 408, for awards of punitive damages against insurers in cases of extreme reprehensibility or unusually small, hard-to-detect or hard-to-measure compensatory damages.
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
California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies
November 12, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPOn August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context.
The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Napa Quake Seen Costing Up to $4 Billion as Wineries Shut
August 27, 2014 —
Michael B. Marois, Zachary Tracer and Dan Hart – BloombergThe earthquake that struck northern California yesterday will lead to economic losses of as much as $4 billion, fueled by damaged wineries and shuttered businesses that rely on tourists.
Insurers will probably cover about $2.1 billion, according to an estimate from Kinetic Analysis Corp., which projected total losses of about twice that sum. Costs borne by the industry may be limited because many homeowners don’t have earthquake coverage, according to the Insurance Information Institute.
“The main source of claims could well be commercial claims, those coming from wineries and vineyards and other commercial interests,” Robert Hartwig, the institute’s president, said in an interview today. “It will take a while for the business owners to sort this out.”
Mr. Marois may be contacted at mmarois@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hart may be contacted at dahart@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael B. Marois, Zachary Tracer and Dan Hart, Bloomberg
Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?
March 09, 2020 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe design-build delivery method offers many benefits to owners. Among the cited benefits are that projects are generally completed faster, at a lower cost, by allowing innovative approaches through early and continual contractor involvement in the design process. The design contractor serves as a single point of contact responsible for both the design and construction of the project.
The Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) utilized the design-build procurement method on the largest project ($2 billion) of its type in the state of Washington: the Highway 99 Tunnel, which was finished almost three years late after the tunnel-boring machine (“Bertha”) broke down six years ago. The sorted tale of the SR-99 Tunnel Project was the source of many of this firm’s blog articles.[1] The State of Washington staunchly maintained that the design-build contract protected its taxpayers from covering the repair costs to the tunnel-boring machine when it broke down in 2013. Bertha did not resume tunneling for almost two years, putting on hold removal of the Alaska Way viaduct and rebuilding of the Seattle Waterfront without an elevated highway.
In December 2013, the contractor for the project, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), contended that a 110-foot long 8” steel pipe which Bertha hit caused the breakdown. That pipe had been installed for groundwater testing by WSDOT in 2002 during its preliminary engineering for the viaduct replacement project. The project’s Dispute Review Board (“DRB”) composed of three tunneling experts found that the pipe constituted a “differing site condition” for which the State was responsible to disclose to contractors. The Board, whose views were non-binding, did not opine about how much damage the undisclosed pipe cost.[2] In other words, the mere fact that a differing site condition occurred did not establish that there was a causal connection between the damages which STP was seeking (in excess of $600 million) and the differing site condition (the 8” steel pipe which WSDOT lawyers at trial derisively referred to as “nothing more than a toothpick for Bertha’s massive cutter head”). STP maintained that Bertha had made steady progress except for three days immediately after hitting the pipe. It didn’t help the contractors’ case that during the discovery phase of the two-month trial, WSDOT lawyers uncovered documents showing that the contractor’s tunnel workers encountered and logged the pipe before digging began.[3]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
Exculpatory Provisions in Business Contracts
May 30, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAn exculpatory provision in a contract is a provision that relieves one party from liability for damages. It shifts the risk of an issue entirely to the other party. Such a provision is generally drafted by the party preparing the contract that is looking to eliminate or disclaim liability associated with a particular risk, oftentimes a risk within their control. These provisions are also known as limitation of liability provisions because they do exactly that — limit liability as to a risk. For this reason, they can be useful provisions based on the context of certain risks, and are provisions that are included in business contracts (such as construction contracts).
While such clauses are disfavored, they are enforceable if they are drafted clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally. If they are unclear, ambiguous, or equivocal, they will construed against enforcement. See Obsessions In Time, Inc. v. Jewelry Exchange Venture, LLP, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1033a (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (finding exculpatory clause in lease ambiguous and, therefore, unenforceable as to lessor looking to benefit from the exculpatory clause).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Competent, Substantial Evidence Carries Day in Bench Trial
February 26, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA number of construction disputes, if tried, are tried through a bench trial meaning the judge is serving in the role of the jury in the construction trial. In a bench trial, two points are important. First, “the factual findings of the judge are entitled to the weight of a jury verdict.” Q.G.S. Development, Inc. v. National Lining Systems, Inc., 2024 WL 357984 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Second, “[t]he appellate court is only authorized to reverse if such findings are not supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Id. These two points need to be appreciated when participating in any construction dispute that will be resolved through a bench trial.
A recent construction dispute highlights these two points. In Q.G.S. Development, a contractor was hired to refurbish a golf course which included constructing a lake. The contractor was going to construct the lake, prepare the subgrade, perform dewatering, and it hired a subcontractor to install a reservoir liner at the bottom of the lake.
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
