Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations
August 20, 2019 —
Jessica Burtnett & Jessica N. Kull - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of their client after oral argument for a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull represented an insurance broker who was sued by one of its customers, a property management company, for failure to procure a correct policy of insurance that would have provided coverage for an underlying class action lawsuit asserting statutory violations.
In their motion, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the Plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable two year statute of limitations outlined in the Illinois Insurance Producers Act 735 ILCS 5/13-214.4. Based on a recent ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop, 2018 IL 122556, ¶ 13, reh’g denied (Nov. 26, 2018), Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the statute of limitations began to accrue at the moment the allegedly non-conforming policy was delivered to the customer Plaintiff. In this case, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the subject policy was purchased and received before it became effective on November 25, 2015. Thus, at the absolute latest, the statute of limitations expired two years later on November 25, 2017. Since the lawsuit was not filed until October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was approximately 10 months too late to assert a valid claim.
In response, the Plaintiff tried to factually distinguish the Krop case by arguing it involved a claim against a captive agent rather than a broker. Plaintiff further argued that a broker maintains a fiduciary duty to its clients and, therefore, the two year statute of limitations applied in Krop did not apply to a broker. Plaintiff also argued the Illinois Insurance Placement Liability Act was unconstitutional.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Burtnett, Traub Lieberman and
Jessica N. Kull, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Burtnett may be contacted at jburtnett@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kull may be contacted at jkull@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Topic 606: A Retrospective Review of Revenue from Contracts with Customers
October 12, 2020 —
Christopher Sisk & Robert Mercado - Construction ExecutiveThe anticipation has been building regarding implementation of the new revenue recognition standard, known as Topic 606, by private companies. Public companies have reported under Topic 606 since the beginning of 2019. For private companies, the time is now. As of January 2020, private companies became subject to Topic 606 for all entities with a year-end of Dec. 31, 2019, or subsequent. However, with the COVID-19 pandemic affecting businesses across the board, this year any company with a year-end financial statement not yet issued can defer implementation of Topic 606 until the contractors’ next year end that falls after Dec. 15, 2020.
What have we learned about the impact of Topic 606, if any, on construction contractors’ financial statements? The most significant impact relates to the presentation of contract assets and contract liabilities, and the disclosures associated with Topic 606. The recording of what is known as “the cost to fulfill a contract” is another area that has been affected.
PRESENTATION OF CONTRACT ASSET AND CONTRACT LIABILITY
A contract asset is defined in Topic 606 as an entity’s right to consideration in exchange for goods or services the entity has transferred to a customer, conditional on something other than the passage of time.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Sisk & Robert Mercado, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Sisk may be contacted at Christopher.sisk@marcumllp.com
Mr. Mercado may be contacted at Robert.mercado@marcumllp.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beyond the Disneyland Resort: World Class Shopping Experiences
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIf you don’t want to venture far from the Disneyland Resort, consider heading to
the Outlets at Orange. Formerly known as the Block of Orange, this open air shopping center features outlet stores such as Neiman Marcus Last Call, Nordstrom Rack, and Sax Fifth Avenue’s Off Fifth, as well as an AMC movie theater, restaurants, Lucky Strike Bowling Alley, and Dave and Buster’s.
For another local option, head to
the Brea Mall, where you can find department stores such as Macy’s and Nordstrom’s and a host of other stores like Apple, Guess, and Tommy Bahama.
For a more exclusive shopping experience, travel to south Orange County's
Fashion Island of Newport Beach. Their department stores include Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, Neiman Marcus’s, and Nordstroms, and the shopping center also contains many boutique shops and eateries.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homebuilders Call for Housing Tax Incentives
May 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe National Association of Home Builders has asked Congress to support tax incentives for home buyers and renters, including the Low Income Housing Tax Credit and the mortgage interest deduction. Robert Dietz, an economist at the NAHB, noted that in 2009, 35 million home owners were able to claim the mortgage deduction. Dietz responded to arguments that the deduction simply lead to people buying bigger homes by saying that “the need for a larger home created the higher loan deduction, not the other way around.”
The NAHB notes that one hundred new single-family homes creates more than 300 jobs and generates substantial tax revenues. “Housing provides the momentum behind an economic recovery because home building and associated businesses employ such a wide range of workers” said Dietz.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Your Construction Business Feeling the Effects of the Final DBA Rule?
June 04, 2024 —
Nathaniel Peniston - Construction ExecutiveThe Biden administration’s final rule “Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations” took effect on Oct. 23, 2023. In “the first comprehensive regulatory review in nearly 40 years,” the Department of Labor has returned to the definition of “prevailing wage” it used from 1935 to 1983—before Microsoft released the first Windows operating system.
Construction industry leaders must be aware that this is the most comprehensive review and overhaul of the act in 40 years; with it, the DOL has attempted to modernize its approach to wage creation and fringe benefit allocation. There are more than 50 procedural changes to the act, which means it is very important for contractors to be aware of wage classifications when bidding, performing work on Davis-Bacon Act projects and using applicable fringe dollars for bona fide benefits.
UNDERSTANDING THE CHANGES
Some of the critical adjustments included in the final rule that contractors should be aware of include:
Wage determination changes during a project: Historically, contractors could rely on the wage determinations used to win a project for the life of the project. However, the final rule now requires the contractor to use current wage determinations when a contract is changed or extended. The DOL “proposed this change because—like a new contract—the exercise of an option requires the incorporation of the most current wage determination.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Nathaniel Peniston, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Peniston may be contacted at
npeniston@fbg.com
A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022
November 01, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a selection of significant environmental and regulatory law cases decided by the federal courts after the Supreme Court’s 2021 Term concluded.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission
On July 12, 2022, the DC Circuit held that an order of the FCC requiring radio broadcasters to follow a prescribed five-step process to verify the identity of program sponsors was not authorized by the Communications Act. According to the court, the FCC “decreed a duty that the statute does not require, and that the statute does not empower the FCC to impose.” Here, the agency failed to identify the statutory authority it needed to authorize the issuance of such an order. While certainly not as significant as the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, decided only a few days before this decision was released, it is a strong reminder that the courts want to know if a challenged rule is authorized by law.
Humane Society of the U.S., et al., v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
On July 22, 2022, the court decided a case involving the steps the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Register Act require to be taken before a final agency rule is legally promulgated. Customarily, when there has been a change in Presidential administrations, the incoming administration “quietly” withdraws rules awaiting Federal Register publication without much ceremony. The majority of this panel agreed that public notice should have been provided to the regulated community to comment on the new administration’s action to pull back a new rule which had been made available for public inspection before Federal Register publication that would have strengthened the protections afforded “show horses,” as now required by law. The court noted that “it seems clear that filing with the Federal Register constituted promulgation of a regulation even though publication may not occur until a later date.” Circuit Judge Rao filed a strong dissent. “By cutting off agency discretion at public inspection, the majority imposes judicial burden on agency procedures that conflicts with circuit precedent, the statutory framework and a longstanding regulation permitting withdrawals prior to publication.” There could be a further review of this unique ruling.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Hard to Believe It, Construction Law Musings is 16
January 07, 2025 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsOn this date back in 2008 (wow, that seems so long ago), I began Construction Law Musings on the Blogger platform with a brief announcement. Little did I know that this corner of the internet (or is it Blawgosphere?) would still be around in 2024!
In the time since I made that short entry 16 years ago (I know, I can’t believe it either), I’ve met several construction lawyers here in Virginia who refer to me as the “blog guy.” To be recognized for the work I do here at Construction Law Musings, something that benefits me (and I hope the readers), and which I do for the fun of it, is an honor.
The blog has since taken on a life of its own in many respects, allowing me to meet some of the great construction pros who have provided a guest post or two for Musings and added their different perspectives. Musings also kept me up on at least most of the trends in Virginia construction law by making me post consistently (though sometimes less consistently than others). Now, around 975 posts and 16 years later, I find it hard to believe that so much time has passed and effort has been put into what started on a whim and the plan that I’d post thoughts on the legal landscape and construction from the perspective of a Virginia construction lawyer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
$24 Million Verdict Against Material Supplier Overturned Where Plaintiff Failed To Prove Supplier’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Caused A SB800 Violation
June 05, 2017 —
Jon A. Turigliatto & Chelsea L. Zwart - CGDRB News & PublicationsThe Fourth District California Court of Appeal published its decision, Acqua Vista Homeowners Assoc. v. MWI, Inc. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1129, holding that claims against a material supplier under SB800 (Civil Code §895, et. seq.) require proof that the SB800 violation was caused by the supplier’s negligence or breach of contract.
In this case, Acqua Vista Homeowners Association (“the HOA”) sued MWI, a supplier of Chinese pipe used in the construction of the Acqua Vista condominium development. The HOA’s complaint asserted a single cause of action for violation of SB800 standards, and alleged that defective cast iron pipe was used throughout the building. At trial, the HOA presented evidence that the pipes supplied by MWI contained manufacturing defects, that they leaked, and that the leaks had caused damage to various parts of the condominium development. The jury returned a special verdict against MWI, and the trial court entered a judgment against MWI in the amount of $23,955,796.28, reflecting the jury’s finding that MWI was 92% responsible for the HOA’s damages.
MWI filed a motion for a directed verdict prior to the jury’s verdict and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict following the entry of judgment, both on the grounds that the HOA had failed to present any evidence that MWI had caused a SB800 violation as a result of its negligence or breach of contract, and had therefore failed to prove negligence and causation as required by SB800. MWI relied on the Fourth District’s prior decision in Greystone Homes, Inc. v. Midtec, Inc. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1194, and its interpretation therein of Civil Code §936, which states, in relevant part, that the statute applies “to general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals to the extent that the general contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, individual product manufacturers, and design professionals caused, in whole or in part, a violation of a particular standard as the result of a negligent act or omission or a breach of contract….” (emphasis added.) However, the trial court denied both motions, relying on the last sentence of Civil Code §936, which states in part, “[T]he negligence standard in this section does not apply to any…material supplier…with respect to claims for which strict liability would apply.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Jon A. Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
