Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss
November 28, 2018 —
CDJ STAFFThe Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income.
Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Investigators Eye Fiber Optic Work in Deadly Wisconsin Explosion
July 18, 2018 —
Jeff Yoders – Engineering News-RecordA hole punched into a 4-in.-dia gas pipeline during fiber-optic line laying is blamed for an explosion that killed a 34-year-old fire captain and injured nine other people, including four firefighters, in downtown Sun Prairie, Wis., on July 10. The injured were treated at nearby hospitals and have since been released.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Yoders, ENRMr. Yoders may be contacted at
yodersj@enr.com
Contrasting Expert Opinions Result in Denial of Cross Motions for Summary Judgment
February 27, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiGiven the opposing experts' contradictory reports, the court denied both the insured and insurer's motions for summary judgment regarding coverage for a pipe leak. Pronti v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222306 (W.D. N. Y. Dec. 9, 2022).
The insured had a swimming poll and spa, which functioned using a subsurface plumbing system, covered with concrete decking. A subsurface pipe began to leak, preventing the pool from properly functioning. The insureds gave notice under their homeowners' policy and contended that significant portions of the pool, spa, concrete decking and other landscaping had to be torn out to do repairs. The insurer retained an expert, Sarah G. Byer, a structural engineer, to investigate. The parties agreed that the pipe had a leak, but disputed if the location of the leak was specifically identified.
The parties also disputed the cause of the leak. Byer found that the most likely cause was deterioration incurred over the pipe's lifetime based on the age of the plumbing system and Byer's personal observation of the pipe. Byer further stated that the physical qualities of flexible PVC piping made it susceptible to damage from chlorine and water over time.
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
Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case
February 21, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe builder has been sentenced to jail for theft. The building has been condemned over construction defects. And the settlement conference probably won’t bring an end to the case. The building in question is a condominium complex, located at 770 Sandy Street in Norristown, Pennsylvania. Bruce Fazio took out a $2.5 million construction loan to build it. And when it was done, there were inspections over construction defects, the building was condemned, and then the court ordered repair work. The city of Norristown has sued Fazio to recover the more than $1.5 million it took to repair the building and allow at least some condominium owners to move back in.
The suit alleges that Norristown officials failed to properly inspect the construction work, and that inspectors were not properly certified. Further, it is alleged that secretaries and clerks signed off on inspection reports and certificates of occupancy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats
January 04, 2018 —
William Hussey – White and WilliamsMany clients and friends have inquired about accelerating the payment of their 2018 real property taxes as a result of the recent enactment of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Pursuant to that Act, the deduction for state and local income, real property and other taxes will be capped at $10,000 in tax years 2018 through 2025. The Act, moreover, specifically disallows a deduction in 2017 for 2018 state and local income taxes that are prepaid before year-end.
The Act was not clear on whether a prepayment of 2018 real property taxes would be deductible in 2017. For certain taxpayers that are not subject to the alternative minimum tax, a prepayment of those 2018 real property taxes might be of current benefit to them.
Yesterday, the IRS issued an advisory to taxpayers outlining which real property tax prepayments will be deductible in 2017 and which are not. The text of that advisory, together with the illustrative examples, is set out below for your consideration.
IR-2017-210, DEC. 27, 2017
WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service advised tax professionals and taxpayers today that pre-paying 2018 state and local real property taxes in 2017 may be tax deductible under certain circumstances.
The IRS has received a number of questions from the tax community concerning the deductibility of prepaid real property taxes. In general, whether a taxpayer is allowed a deduction for the prepayment of state or local real property taxes in 2017 depends on whether the taxpayer makes the payment in 2017 and the real property taxes are assessed prior to 2018. A prepayment of anticipated real property taxes that have not been assessed prior to 2018 are not deductible in 2017. State or local law determines whether and when a property tax is assessed, which is generally when the taxpayer becomes liable for the property tax imposed.
The following examples illustrate these points.
Example 1: Assume County A assesses property tax on July 1, 2017 for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. On July 31, 2017, County A sends notices to residents notifying them of the assessment and billing the property tax in two installments with the first installment due Sept. 30, 2017 and the second installment due Jan. 31, 2018. Assuming taxpayer has paid the first installment in 2017, the taxpayer may choose to pay the second installment on Dec. 31, 2017, and may claim a deduction for this prepayment on the taxpayer’s 2017 return.
Example 2: County B also assesses and bills its residents for property taxes on July 1, 2017, for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. County B intends to make the usual assessment in July 2018 for the period July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019. However, because county residents wish to prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017, County B has revised its computer systems to accept prepayment of property taxes for the 2018-2019 property tax year. Taxpayers who prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017 will not be allowed to deduct the prepayment on their federal tax returns because the county will not assess the property tax for the 2018-2019 tax year until July 1, 2018.
The IRS reminds taxpayers that a number of provisions remain available this week that could affect 2017 tax bills. Time remains to make charitable donations. See IR-17-191 for more information. The deadline to make contributions for individual retirement accounts - which can be used by some taxpayers on 2017 tax returns - is the April 2018 tax deadline.
IRS.gov has more information on these and other provisions to help taxpayers prepare for the upcoming filing season.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Hussey, White and WilliamsMr. Hussey may be contacted at
husseyw@whiteandwilliams.com
Chinese Telecommunications Ban to Expand to Federally Funded Contracts Effective November 12, 2020
September 21, 2020 —
Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & AbramsonIn our previous
alert, we discussed the Federal Government’s Ban (the “Ban”) on certain Chinese covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services in federal government contracts. The ban prohibits government contractors and subcontractors from supplying to the Federal Government or using in their own internal operations certain telecommunications or video surveillance equipment or services produced by Huawei Technologies Company, ZTE Corporation, Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, and Dahua Technology Company, as well as their subsidiaries and affiliates. The Ban currently applies to companies contracting directly with the Federal Government. Soon, however, the Ban – at least in part – will expand to contractors and subcontractors who are awarded certain federally assisted contracts and subcontracts.
On August 13, 2020, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) published Final Guidance revising its grants and agreements regulations (2 CFR Part 200) to prohibit recipients and subrecipients from using loan or grant funds to purchase or obtain covered telecommunications and video surveillance equipment or services. Effective November 12, 2020, recipients and subrecipients are prohibited from obligating or expending loan or grant funds to:
- Procure or obtain;
- Extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain; or
- Enter into a contract (or extend or renew a contract) to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and
Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com
Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections
July 02, 2018 —
Jason Feld & Alex Chazen - Kahana & Feld LLPCalifornia law mandates that any person who conducts roof inspections for a fee can no longer effectuate the actual repairs to the same property. Effective January 1, 2018, Business & Professions Code Section 7197 (Unfair Business Practices) deems it to be an unfair business practice for a home inspector who charges a homeowner a monetary fee for inspecting the property, to perform or offer to perform additional repairs due to the inherent financial interest and conflict raised by identifying alleged defects necessitating repairs. The new law is a result of California AB 1357, which was signed into law on October 5, 2017. The goal of the new law is to disincentivize a roof inspector from creating a report for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid to perform those documented repairs. The roof contractor can perform repairs identified in their report only after a twelve month “cooling period” which provides the homeowner an opportunity to obtain multiple bids/estimates for repairs based upon the inspector’s report. The new law also discourages home inspectors from providing a list of contractors who provide monetary referral fees back to the home inspector upon receiving repair work from the homeowner based exclusively on the home inspection report.
The California Business & Professions Code Section 7195(a)(1) defines a “home inspection” as a “non-invasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with the transfer…of the real property…or essential components of the residential dwelling.” Home inspection includes “any consultation regarding the property that is represented to be a home inspection or any confusingly similar term.” Business & Professions Code section 7195(a)(2) further defines a “home inspection” as including energy efficiency and solar. A “home inspection report” is a written report prepared for a fee issued after an inspection. Business & Professions Code section 7195(c). It is noted that a home inspector does not have to be a licensed architect, professional engineer, or general contractor with a Class “B” license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but “it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, or architect, or registered as a professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. Business & Professions Code section 7196.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and
Alex Chazen, Kahana & Feld LLP
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanalaw.com
Mr. Chazen may be contacted at achazen@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property
October 26, 2020 —
Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers.
The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”).
After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
