Adjuster's Report No Substitute for Proof of Loss Under Flood Policy
July 30, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's claim for flood coverage was denied when the insurer refused to accept an adjuster's report submitted without a proof of loss. Jackson v. Fid. Nat'l Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66589 (E.D. La. May 21, 2015).
Plaintiff's property was damaged by Hurricane Isaac. Defendant Fidelity provided flood coverage for the property through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). After plaintiff submitted a flood claim, she executed a proof of loss for $53,803.02. A second proof of loss for contents was submitted in the amount of $26,556.13. Fidelity paid both these claims.
Thereafter, an adjuster's estimate of plaintiff's damages, totaling $284,332.91, was submitted to Fidelity. Plaintiff did not submit a supplemental proof of loss for this claim. Fidelity refused to pay the claim and plaintiff filed suit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Blog: Congress Strikes a Blow to President Obama’s “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” Executive Order 13673
March 22, 2017 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCOn October 25, 2016, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council (FAR Council) and the U.S. Department of Labor implemented former President Obama’s Executive Order 13673: “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” rules. The rules became effective on October 25, 2016 and fundamentally altered the way federal contractors and subcontractors will need to handle and resolve employment and labor claims, as well as compliance issues involving their entire workforce. The final rules can also result in otherwise-capable companies being “blacklisted” and effectively barred from federal contracts and subcontracts based on labor and employment law violations related or unrelated to prior or current federal contract performance. The centerpiece of the new regulatory scheme was the new disclosure and responsibility requirements. Contractors and subcontractors needed to disclose all “labor law decisions” that they had during the three years (prior to bid submission) as part of the process of applying for a new federal contract or subcontract. If a contractor or subcontractor has too many “labor law decisions” to report or the few it has are too severe, pervasive, repeated, or willful in the eyes of the government “experts,” the company could be deemed “non-responsible” and denied a contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
In Construction Your Contract May Not Always Preclude a Negligence Claim
March 30, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings I have discussed the interaction of the so called “economic loss rule,” construction contracts and tort claims on numerous occasions. The general rule is that where a duty to perform in a certain way arises from the contract, the Virginia courts will not allow a plaintiff to turn a contract claim into a tort claim such as fraud or negligence.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Connecticut Court Holds Unresolved Coverage Issues Makes Appraisal Premature
July 18, 2018 —
Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters & Geoffrey B. Fehling – Hunton Insurance Recovery Law BlogA Connecticut court recently denied a motion to compel appraisal of a claim for coverage of a commercial property damage claim, holding that, where the insurance policy at issue provides for appraisal of disputes related to the value or quantum or a loss suffered—not the rights and liabilities of the parties under the policy—appraisal is premature. The decision relied on law that equates insurance appraisal to arbitration and follows a number of decisions holding that parties cannot expand the scope of appraisal clauses to resolve questions of coverage or liability where, as in this case, those issues are not supported by the applicable policy language.
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys
Michael S. Levine,
Lorelie S. Masters and
Geoffrey B. Fehling
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New California "Construction" Legislation
November 08, 2018 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerGovernor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate Bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings late last month. These Bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to be caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists the repair of which were deferred by the property manager, despite indications of water damage.
SENATE BILL 721 ESTABLISHES HEIGHTENED “LOAD-BEARING” INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
On August 21, 2018, the California State Senate passed SB 721, one of two bills by Senator Jerry Hill introduced this year seeking to address the safety of multifamily rental residences. Now that the Governor has signed the Bill, a new section will be added to the California Health and Safety Code, requiring that every 6 years, destructive testing be performed on at least 15% of each type of load-bearing, wood framed exterior elevated element (such as balconies, walkways, and stair landings) in apartment buildings with 3 or more units. Interestingly, prior to being passed by the State Senate, SB 721 was revised in June 2018, such that the inspection requirements do not apply to common interest developments (i.e., condominiums).
As set forth in the new Health and Safety Code Section 17973:
"the purpose of the inspection is to determine that exterior elevated elements and their associated waterproofing elements are in a generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from any hazardous condition caused by fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered."
The inspection must be paid for by the building owner and performed by a licensed contractor, architect, or civil or structural engineer, or a certified building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association. Emergency repairs identified by the inspector must be made immediately. For non-emergency repairs, a permit must be applied for within 120 days and the repair completed within 120 days of the permit’s issuance. If repairs are not completed within 180 days, civil penalties of $100-$500 per day may be imposed.
The required inspection must be completed by January 1, 2025 and every 6 years thereafter, unless an equivalent inspection was performed during the 3 years prior to January 1, 2019, the effective date of the new law. For a building converted to condominiums that will be sold after January 1, 2019, the inspection required by Health and Safety Code Section 17973, must be performed prior to the first close of escrow.
SENATE BILL 1465 SETS CONTRACTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Governor also signed SB 1465, adding Sections 7071.20, 7071.21, and 7071.22 to the California Business and Professions Code. The new law requires that a contractor licensed with the Contractors’ State License Board "report to the registrar in writing within 90 days after the licensee has knowledge of any civil action resulting in a final judgment, executed settlement agreement, or final arbitration award in which the licensee is named as a defendant or crossdefendant, filed on or after January 1, 2019," that meets certain and specific criteria, including that it is over $1 million and arises out of an action for damages to a property or person allegedly caused by specified construction activities of the contractor on a multifamily rental residential structure.
Where more than one contractor was named as a defendant or cross-defendant, each of the contractors apportioned more than $15,000 in liability must report the action. Importantly, the new statute also imposes similar reporting requirements on insurers of contractors. SB 1465 also addresses an impacted party’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements.
COMMENT
Both SB 721 and SB 1465 are potentially significant and seek “legislative reform” to address construction issues by placing a greater burden on apartment owners as well as builders and subcontractors. How pragmatic and what impact they will have on the industry is obviously developing. If you are interested in receiving further detail concerning the Bills, please contact us. We are analyzing the new legislation and its intent and will be providing our ongoing comments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. CHELSEA L. ZWART, ESQ., CGDRBChelsea L. Zwart may be contacted at
czwart@cgdrblaw.com
New 2021 ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey Standards Effective February 23, 2021
March 01, 2021 —
Emily K. Bias & Josh D. Morton - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate BlogThe “Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys” is a document jointly promulgated by the American Land Title Association (ALTA), representing the title insurance industry, and the National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS), representing professional land surveyors, which describes the uniform minimum standards with which surveyors must comply when preparing a survey to be used by a title insurance company for the purpose of deleting the general survey exception from ALTA title policy forms. The first such set of standards was developed in 1962 and has since been revised 10 times. The standards are currently updated every five years and are relied on by real estate professionals, including purchasers, lenders, title insurers and their attorneys, nationwide. In October 2020, a joint committee comprising representatives of both ALTA and NSPS adopted the “2021 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements for ALTA/NSPS Land Title Surveys,” which will become effective on February 23, 2021. The significant changes between the 2021 standards and the previous 2016 standards are summarized below.
Survey Matters
The 2021 standards clarify that only survey-related matters must be summarized on the survey. This revision was intended to foreclose a practice common among some institutional lenders to require that the survey list all items shown in Schedule BII of the title commitment on the face of the survey regardless of whether those items may in fact be survey related. The 2021 standards also add a requirement that the surveyor include a note specifying whether the location of a right of way, easement or other survey-related matter is shown on the survey. This change incorporates common lender and purchaser requirements that were not previously enumerated in the survey standards.
Reprinted courtesy of
Emily K. Bias, Pillsbury and
Josh D. Morton, Pillsbury
Ms. Bias may be contacted at emily.bias@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Morton may be contacted at josh.morton@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Changes to the Federal Rules – 2024
November 18, 2024 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistUnless Congress moves quickly, several amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence will take effect December 1, 2024. Below is a brief description of the amendments.
Rules of Evidence
Rule 107 is a new rule. This rule addresses illustrative aids, stating that, if such aid helps the trier of fact to understand the evidence or an argument, a party may use the aid if its utility is not substantially outweighed by the danger of, among other things, unfair prejudice. As noted under the discussion of Rule 1006, below, an illustrative aid - offered only to help the trier of fact understand the evidence - is generally not admissible into evidence.
Rule 613 currently states that extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and the adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires. As amended, the court has the discretion to forego this requirement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Contractor’s Unwritten Contractual Claim Denied by Sovereign Immunity; Mandamus Does Not Help
September 22, 2016 —
David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law BlogIn a very well-reasoned opinion, the Supreme Court of Georgia upheld the denial of a contractor’s unwritten-contract claim against a county based on sovereign immunity. Based on an alleged oral contract, Contractor built a sewer pumping station for the County in exchange for an interest in the station’s pumping capacity. When the County denied Contractor’s demand for an interest, he filed suit.
As noted in many prior posts, the Georgia constitution reaffirms sovereign immunity of the state – which the courts interpret to include counties. One common exception in the public works area is the Constitution’s “ex contractu clause,” which waives sovereign immunity for claims based on written contracts. Of course, a precondition to the waiver of sovereign immunity is the existence of a written contract – which Contractor did not have.
Applying these rules, the court affirmed the denial of Contractor’s claims based on contract and quasi contract. In the absence of a written contract, there can be no contractual claim against the County. The same rule applies for quasi-contractual claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
