Latosha Ellis Selected for 2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity Pathfinder Program
April 10, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews KurthHunton Andrews Kurth has selected Latosha Ellis, an associate in the firm’s Insurance Coverage practice, for the 2019 Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Pathfinder Program. Pathfinder is a national yearlong program that trains diverse, high performing, early-career attorneys in critical career development strategies, including foundational leadership and building professional networks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews KurthMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Insurer Incorrectly Relies Upon "Your Work" Exclusion to Deny Coverage
June 10, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's determination that there was no coverage based upon the policy's "your work" exclusion. Southern-Owners Ins. Co. v. Mac Contractors of Fla, LLC, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10689 (11th Cir. April 11, 2019).
Mac Contractors contracted with the homeowners to custom build their home. After construction began, Mac left the site before completing the project and before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The homeowners sued, alleged damage to wood floors and the metal roof.
Southern-Owners originally agreed to defend under the CGL policy, but later withdrew the defense and filed this action for declaratory relief. The parties cross-filed motions for summary judgment. Southern-Owners argued that the "your work" exclusion applied to bar coverage. The "your work" exclusion barred coverage for "'property damage' to 'your work' arising out of it or any part of it and included in the 'products' completed operations hazard.'" The "products' completed operations hazard" included all "'property damage' occurring away from premises you own or rent and arising out of . . . 'your work' except . . . (1) products that are still in your physical possession; or (2) work that has not yet been completed or abandoned."
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
Beyond the Statute: How the Colorado Court Upheld Modified Accrual in Construction Contracts
November 13, 2023 —
Hal Baker - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn a case of first impression, the First Division of the Colorado Court of Appeals recently reviewed whether parties may contractually alter the accrual time established by Colorado’s statute of limitations for construction defect actions, C.R.S. § 13-80-104, in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 v. Wold Architects, Inc., 2023 COA 85 (2023), decided on September 21, 2023. The Court held that sophisticated parties may contractually alter the accrual time standards, enlarging the accrual time as was the issue in this case. Notably, the Court’s decision was made in the context of commercial construction, not residential.
The issue in South Conejos Sch. Dist. RE-10 arose from the construction of a school in Antonito, Colorado. Prior to construction, the South Conejos School District RE-10 (the “School District”) and Wold Architects, Inc. (“Wold”) entered a contract that provided:
Unless a longer period is provided by law, any action against [Wold] brought to recover damages for deficiency in the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction or observation of construction or for injury to person or property shall be brought within two years after the claim for relief arises and is discovered by [the District]; … “Discovered” as used herein means detection and knowledge by [the District] of the defect in the improvement that ultimately causes the injury, when such defect is of a substantial or significant nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hal Baker, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Baker may be contacted at
baker@hhmrlaw.com
Partners Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe Secure Seventh Circuit Win for Insurer Client in Late Notice Dispute
November 12, 2019 —
Jeremy S. Macklin & Mark F. Wolfe - Traub Lieberman PerspectivesIn a written decision dated August 12, 2019, authored by Chief Judge Diane P. Wood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurer client, affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the insurer’s favor. Partners, Jeremy S. Macklin and Mark F. Wolfe, represented the insurer client in the District Court and before the Seventh Circuit. Macklin argued the case before the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the insurer on May 28, 2019.
The insurer client issued an excess liability policy to Deerfield Construction, a telecommunications construction company, which incorporated the notice requirements of the primary liability insurance policy issued by American States Insurance Company. The insured’s employee was involved in an automobile accident in 2008, during the effective dates of the excess liability policy. A lawsuit arising from the accident was filed and served in 2009. While Deerfield Construction, through its retained insurance intermediary, provided immediate notice of the accident and lawsuit to the primary liability insurer, the insurer client did not receive notice of either the accident or the lawsuit from any source until December 2014, approximately six weeks before trial.
Following a $2.3 million judgment, the insurer client filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a finding that Deerfield Construction materially breached the excess liability policy by not providing reasonable notice of the accident or the lawsuit, as required by the policy. The District Court found that the notice given to the insurer client was unreasonable as a matter of law. The District Court rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that an insurance broker involved in the purchase of the excess liability policy, Arthur J. Gallagher, was the insurer client’s apparent agent for purposes of accepting notice. The District Court also rejected Deerfield Construction’s argument that the insurer client’s acts of requesting discovery, reviewing trial reports, and participating in settlement discussions raised equitable estoppel concerns.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and
Mark F. Wolfe, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Wolfe may be contacted at mwolfe@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws
May 18, 2020 —
Colton Addy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogApplicability of California’s Rent Control Laws: California Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 took effect on January 1, 2020, and implement statewide rent control in California for most residential properties. The rent control laws, however, do not apply to a rental property that was issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(4), 1946.2(e)(7)). The statutes also do not apply to most single-family residences, provided that (a) the owner is not a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or a limited liability company where one of the members is a corporation, and (b) the required statutory language is included in the lease agreement for tenancies commencing or renewing on or after July 1, 2020. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(5), 1946.2(e)(8)).
Annual Increases Permitted Under California’s Rent Control Laws: Commencing on January 1, 2020, unless otherwise permitted by California law, a Landlord cannot increase the gross rental rate for a rental unit over a continuous 12-month period more than the change in the regional cost of living index where the property is located plus 5%, and gross rental rate increases are subject to a maximum cap of 10% over a continuous 12-month period regardless of the change in the cost of living index. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(1)). The gross rental rate is determined using the lowest rental amount charged in any month in the immediately preceding 12 months. (Id.) Any incentives, discounts, concessions, or credits are not taken into account. (Id.) Even if a rent increase does not exceed the amount permitted under the statute, a Landlord is prohibited from increasing rent more than twice in any continuous 12-month period. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(2)).
Retroactive Applicability of Restrictions on Rent Increases: Although the statute took effect on January 1, 2020, the statute retroactively applies to all rent increases that occurred on or after March 15, 2019. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(1)). If a landlord increased the rent amount more than the amount permitted under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1) after March 15, 2019, and prior to January 1, 2020, the rent amount on January 1, 2020, is reduced to the amount of the rent on March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1). (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(2)). The Landlord does not have to refund the tenant any rent payments that were in excess of the permissible rent increase that the tenant made prior to January 1, 2020. (Id.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colton Addy, Snell & WilmerMr. Addy may be contacted at
caddy@swlaw.com
The Overlooked Nevada Rule In an Arena Project Lawsuit
August 04, 2016 —
Scott Van Voorhis – Engineering News-RecordWhen crunching the numbers on the construction wrap-up program for the T-Mobile Arena project outside Las Vegas, insurance broker Aon Risk Services South allegedly failed to take into account a Nevada workers’ compensation rule, one of many intricate features of the state’s workers’ compensation regulations. Others had apparently missed this aspect of the rule, too. “Many business owners and executives are unaware of this regulation and … are paying more premium to their workers’ compensation carriers than they should be,” warned Bradley Rowe, a commercial insurance broker in Las Vegas, in a blog post in 2014. Two years later, the prime contractor joint venture on the completed $230-million arena is battling in court with Aon, charging the broker with professional negligence and breach of contract, according to court documents filed in U.S. District Court in Nevada.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-RecordYou may send questions or comments to
enr.com@bnpmedia.com
The Future of Construction Tech Is Decision Tech
August 06, 2019 —
Bassem Hamdy - Construction ExecutiveIt doesn’t take much to be catastrophically wrong in construction; some bad information, a touch of misleading intel, a few biased opinions mixed with human error and perhaps a little bad luck to top it off. A poor decision early in a project plants itself like a weed—it grows benignly at first, and becomes gravely pervasive at the end.
Being wrong in construction is dangerous. Error leads to leaning towers and broken buildings. Poorly-built structures can hinder economic growth and deprive communities of good infrastructure. For the enterprise, bad decisions can lead to massive financial loss and—worse—human loss on a jobsite.
Despite knowing all the dangers, it seems that flawed data, misleading intel and human error have become traits the industry can’t shake. To be clear, construction is one of—if not the most—complex industry in today’s economy. Companies walk a tight rope between a 2% margin on one side and ruinous loss on the other. Under such conditions, it’s easy to see why sustained good judgement is difficult.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bassem Hamdy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation
November 23, 2020 —
Craig Rokuson - Traub LiebermanIn the recent case of DeLuca v. RLI Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5931054 (October 7, 2020), the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department held that RLI had a duty to pay a judgment obtained by an underlying plaintiff against RLI’s insured, MLSC. The underlying plaintiff brought the action directly against the carrier after obtaining a judgment against MLSC, and when the judgment remained unsatisfied, serving RLI with the judgment. As an initial matter, the court found that the direct action by the plaintiff was proper under New York Insurance Law 3420(a), which allows for an injured plaintiff to maintain a direct action against a carrier if a judgment against that carrier’s insured remains unsatisfied for a period of 30 days and the carrier is served with that judgment. In that event, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of the insured and is entitled to the rights of the insured (and is also subject to the carrier’s coverage defenses).
Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
