Mortgage Firms Face Foreclosure Ban Until 2022 Under CFPB Plan
April 05, 2021 —
Alex Wittenberg - BloombergMillions of homeowners who’ve fallen behind on mortgage payments due to the pandemic would have more time before facing foreclosure under rules proposed Monday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The revamp would generally prohibit mortgage servicers from starting foreclosures until after Dec. 31, the CFPB said in a statement. The goal is to give the nearly 3 million borrowers who’ve delayed or stopped making payments a chance to resume them before lenders initiate forced home sales.
A key reason why the CFPB said the change is necessary is because an estimated 1.7 million consumers will exit U.S. forbearance relief programs in September and the ensuing months, meaning they will have to start making payments again.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alex Wittenberg, Bloomberg
Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement
October 21, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015).
Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired.
After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations
November 21, 2017 —
Mark Himmelstein & Jenny Guzman – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOriginally published by CDJ on June 15, 2017
Since 2008 when the California legislature limited subcontractor indemnity obligations, the design professional community has been shouting “what about us?” Well, the legislature finally responded and a new law that limits design professional’s defense and indemnity obligations to their percentage of fault goes into effect on January 1, 2018.
THE NEW LAW – SB 496
SB 496 amends California Civil Code section 2782.8 and states that indemnity agreements must be limited to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the indemnitee (i.e. no more Type I indemnity with design professionals). The amendment also provides that “in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional’s proportionate percentage of fault”, with a limited opportunity for reallocation in the event another defendant is judgment proof.
However, the duty to defend still remains and still arises at the time of the tender of the defense (both issues that were unsuccessfully targeted by the design professional lobbyists).
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Himmelstein, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP and
Jenny Guzman, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Mr. Price may be contacted at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com
Ms. Zucker may be contacted at jenny.guzman@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues
July 05, 2021 —
Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLPClaims against manufacturers and distributors of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) are hurtling forward. Two important developments in this opening salvo of PFAS-related claims against numerous defendants could have important ramifications not only on future PFAS litigation, but on insurance coverage for potential PFAS liabilities as well. First, ten bellwether cases are progressing closer to trial. Second, the key “government contractor defense” has been slated for briefing.
In December 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation established a multi-district litigation (MDL 2873) for AFFF PFAS claims in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Unlike previous PFAS lawsuits (primarily against DuPont and/or 3M), the lawsuits in MDL 2873 target dozens of defendants who manufactured and distributed AFFF and its constituent chemicals. MDL 2873 now houses approximately 1,200 member cases, which include the following categories of claims: (i) claims for property damage asserted by water providers, (ii) claims for property damage asserted by property owners, (iii) bodily injury claims, and (iv) claims for medical monitoring for potential future injury.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and
Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim
January 20, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiFacing yet another collapse claim based upon alleged poorly mixed cement, the Federal District Court in Connecticut denied the insurer's motion to dismiss. Oliveria v. Safeco Ins Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147256 (D. Conn. Aug. 29, 2019).
In 1993, the insureds' purchased their home that had been built in 1986. Safeco insured the property. In February 2017, the insureds noticed that the basement walls had a series of cracks. They consulted professionals and learned that the cracking was due to a chemical compound found in certain concrete walls constructed in the late 1980s with concrete most likely from the J. J. Mottes Concrete Company.
The insureds submitted a claim to Safeco for the substantial impairment to the structural integrity of their basement walls. Safeco denied the claim. The insureds filed suit. Safeco moved to dismiss.
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
Foundation Arbitration Doesn’t Preclude Suing Over Cracks
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Louisiana Court of Appeals has reversed the decision of a lower court, allowing a construction defect case to go through. In Greer v. Town Construction Company, the Greers hired Town Construction to build a home in Baton Rouge. The business relationship went sour, with disputes over “costs, change orders, workmanship, and timeliness issues.”
Town Construction filed an arbitration claim for the unpaid contract balance. In the counterclaim, the Greers made claims of mold and mildew problems, and wall cracks that they attributed to a “structural defect in the foundation.” In arbitration, Town Construction was awarded the full contract balance plus extra costs and interest, while the Greers were awarded for their structural claims.
Three years later, the Greers found additional cracks and filed a suit against Town Construction. Town Construction argued that the Greer’s lawsuit should be dismissed, as the claims had already been through the arbitration process. The district court agreed with Town Construction and dismissed the suit.
The appeals court noted that the Greers would have no ground for a suit if the arbitration was a “valid and final judgment,” and went on to note that there was no evidence in the trial record that the arbitration met this qualification. The court noted that although it was clear that both parties had agreed to the decisions of the arbiter, under Louisiana law, arbitration is not final until it has been “rendered by a court with jurisdiction over subject mater and over parties.”
The court remanded the case to the lower court, noting that “the district court is obligated to first determine whether a valid arbitration award is in existence and had been confirmed before considering the merits of the exception. The court noted that their decision “should not be read to express any opinion as to the merits of the claims or as to the propriety of damages sought in the Greer’s lawsuit.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supply Chain Delay Recommendations
August 07, 2022 —
Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogThis Bulletin provides guidance to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others to ensure compliance with contractual change order requirements in the event work on a construction project is impacted by supply chain delays.
Contract Protection Tips:
The construction industry is being impacted substantially by inability to obtain necessary construction products due to supply chain issues. Most construction contracts do not accommodate time extensions due to supply chain impacts. To address this gap in contract terms, we recommend including language such as: “lack of or failure of or other inability to obtain necessary transportation, fuel, power, materials, machinery, equipment or facilities, delays caused by other contractors, subcontractors or their subcontractors of any tier, or any materialmen or suppliers” as part of the defined force majeure event under the contract.
This provision can be included in the Change Order section of the contract as well by including a provision such as: “If the Work is delayed by the failure of or other inability to obtain necessary transportation, fuel, power, materials, machinery, equipment or facilities, delays caused by other contractors, subcontractors or their subcontractors of any tier, or any materialmen or suppliers, contractor shall be entitled to a change order for its costs and time associated with the delay.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMs. Motta may be contacted at
dmotta@grsm.com
The Privette Doctrine, the Hooker Exception, and an Attack at a Construction Site
July 05, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogYou don’t often hear about workers being attacked by ne’er-do-wells on a construction project. But, as they say, shite happens . . .
Construction contracts often address health and safety issues, as well as site security to protect the improvement, materials, equipment and tools, as well as to protect the public from getting hit by say a large crane with a demolition ball, but site security to protect the workers from thugs, not so much.
This is exactly what happened to a construction worker in Degala v. John Stewart Company (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 158 who was jumped and injured by three hoodlums who attacked him while he was working at a job site. The injured worker, an employee of a subcontractor, was covered by workers’ compensation insurance, but also brought claims against the general contractor and project owner for negligence and premises liability and they, in turn, argued they were immune from liability under the Privette doctrine.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
