2016 Hawaii Legislature Enacts Five Insurance-Related Bills
May 12, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe 2016 Hawaii legislative session passed five insurance-related bills. Bills that have been enacted are the following:
HB 260 - The bill establishes motor vehicle insurance requirements for transportation network companies and drivers that will take effect on September 1, 2016. The Insurance Commissioner is directed to examine the effects of this measure on personal motor vehicle insurance policy rates in the State and submit an annual report to the Legislature. The bill will sunset on September 1, 2021. The measure has been transmitted to the Governor for signature.
HB 1705 - Electronic insurance cards, in addition to paper cards, are permitted by the bill. The card serves as proof of insurance for motor vehicles and is to be carried in the vehicle at all times. The legislation has been forwarded to the Governor for signature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Evergrande’s Condemned Towers on China’s Hawaii Show Threat
January 24, 2022 —
Bloomberg NewsThe wrecking ball headed for 39 apartment blocks on a tropical island at the southern tip of China poses the latest threat for China Evergrande Group as local governments race to reclaim land ahead of a looming restructuring of the embattled developer.
The government of Danzhou, a city in the province of Hainan, has asked Evergrande to tear down what it says are illegal buildings within 10 days. The order was signed Dec. 30, meaning the company could start demolition work on the near-complete condos by Jan. 9. Evergrande has appealed the order, according to a media report.
The Hainan edict is among the most extreme in a spate of government actions to seize Evergande’s property and land holdings, underscoring risks to its most-prized assets as the firm prepares for what could be the largest restructuring ever in China. In recent months, at least 11 land parcels have been targeted for confiscation by local authorities for reasons ranging from idle projects to missing fee payments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
Alabama Supreme Court Reverses Determination of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship
August 26, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the lower court held that the insured contractor was entitled to coverage and indemnification under a CGL policy despite claims based upon faulty workmanship, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. David Group, Inc., 2019 Ala. LEXIS 52 (Ala. May 24, 2019).
The David Group (TDG) specialized in custom-built homes. The Shahs purchased a newly built home from TDG in October 2006. After moving in, the Shahs experienced problems with their new home that TDG was unable to correct. In February 2008, the Shahs sued TDG. The complaint alleged that serious defects existed, resulting in health and safety issues, building code violations, poor workmanship, misuse of construction materials, and disregard of property installation methods. The case went to arbitration and an award of $12,725 was issued to the Shahs.
Nationwide was TDG's CGL carrier and initially defended TDG. After Nationwide withdrew its defense, TDG sued seeking a judgment declaring that Nationwide was obligated to defend and indemnify. The trial court denied Nationwide's motion for summary judgment and issued a partial summary judgment in favor of TDG on the issue of coverage. Nationwide appealed.
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
BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office Obtains Major Victory in Arbitration!
July 25, 2022 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Theresa Mallen recently achieved a major victory in binding Arbitration.
The subject action involved a construction project in the backyard of homeowner’s residence. Homeowner maintained that BWB&O’s contractor client abandoned the project. Furthermore, homeowner alleged that the work performed by BWB&O’s client was deficient. The primary construction defect claim is that the pool deck is not properly sloped which is preventing surface water from running off the top of the retaining wall as designed.
The Arbitrator ultimately sided with BWB&O’s client finding that BWB&O’s client did not abandon the project, but rather was terminated by homeowner. Additionally, BWB&O successfully proved that despite the fact that the three pertinent elevations that determine the slope of the concrete pool slab were pre-established before BWB&O’s client even got on the project, that BWB&O’s client properly installed the concrete pool slab and would have established the necessary slope of the pool deck had it not been terminated from the project. Homeowner asserted many other secondary construction defect claims and the Arbitrator found in BWB&O’s client’s favor on each and every issue.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Idaho District Court Affirms Its Role as the Gatekeeper of Expert Testimony
March 15, 2021 —
Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation SpecialistMany subrogation claims involving fire losses rely heavily on expert testimony. Expert testimony is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 if it is both relevant and reliable. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), whose standard has been incorporated into Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the Supreme Court instructed federal trial courts to act as a “gatekeeper” of expert testimony, giving them the power to exclude expert testimony that is not supported by sufficient evidence. In Maria Fernanda Elosu and Robert Luis Brace v. Middlefork Ranch Incorporated, Civil Case No. 1:19-cv-00267-DCN, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14449 (D. Idaho Jan. 22, 2021) (Brace), the United States District Court for the District of Idaho exercised its gatekeeper role when it granted in part and denied in part the defendant’s motion to exclude expert testimony pursuant to Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Brace, involved a fire at a vacation cabin in McCall, Idaho. The cabin, owned by Maria Elosu (Elosu) and Robert Brace (Brace and collectively with Elosu, Plaintiffs) was part of a homeowner’s association called Middlefork Ranch, Incorporated (MFR). The cabin had a “wrap around” deck with a propane-fired refrigerator on the north side. On the day before the fire, Brace stained the deck using an oil-based stain. That night, Elosu smoked cigarettes on the deck. The next morning, Plaintiffs used rags to clean up excess oil from the deck and an MFR employee changed the propane on the refrigerator and relit the pilot light. At 4:00 p.m., a fire started in or around the cabin while no one was home. The fire was discovered by a group of contractors who testified that the fire was isolated to the east side of the cabin when they first arrived. Importantly, one witness testified that there was no fire and no flames around the propane-fired refrigerator. The fire destroyed the cabin and the contents within.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLPMs. Kenney may be contacted at
kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com
Plaintiffs Not Barred from Proving Causation in Slip and Fall Case, Even With No Witnesses and No Memory of Fall Itself
February 01, 2022 —
David Hoynacki, Arezoo Jamshidi & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn January 19, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), held that a plaintiff is not barred as a matter of law from proving causation in a slip and fall case if there were no witnesses to the fall, and the plaintiff does not remember the fall itself. The Court of Appeal stated specifically that circumstantial evidence would permit a jury to make a “reasonable and probable inference” regarding contributing factors to a fall, even with no eye-witness evidence.
In
Kaney v. Mazza (BC619247, Jan. 19, 2022), plaintiff and appellant Lydia Kaney (Kaney), was visiting her sister in her rented home in September of 2014. At some point during the visit, the light in the bathroom at the top of the stairs stopped working—Kaney used the stairs, and fell. Kaney filed suit against her sister and the owner of the home alleging premises liability, negligence, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In her deposition, Kaney testified that she remembered going up to the bathroom, and then waking up on the floor in pain. She could not remember how she fell; she did not know if she had missed a step, or if she had slipped and fallen backwards. She speculated that a worn-out bath mat may have been the cause of the slip and fall because the rubber traction on the bath mat was worn away.
Reprinted courtesy of
David Hoynacki, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Hoynacki may be contacted at dhoynacki@hbblaw.com
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NTSB Faults Maintenance, Inspection Oversight for Fern Hollow Bridge Collapse
March 19, 2024 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordThe City of Pittsburgh’s failure to act for more than a decade on repeated maintenance and repair recommendations regarding the Fern Hollow Bridge was the probable cause for the structure’s dramatic 2022 collapse, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said at its Feb. 21, 2024, meeting. The city is the owner of the bridge.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues
August 10, 2020 —
Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Douglas M. Weck - White and WilliamsThe COVID-19 pandemic has generally put a stop to in-person depositions nationwide. Many litigants and their attorneys have also resisted attempts to proceed with remote video depositions, some holding out for the pandemic to subside and for the return of in-person business as usual while others are resistant to using new or unfamiliar virtual video technology. However, with COVID-19 cases still increasing nationwide, courts are beginning to mandate that depositions proceed remotely regardless of these apprehensions. It looks like remote video depositions may become part of a new set of best practices and perhaps mandatory in some circumstances for the foreseeable future.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey, for example, has ordered that “[t]o the extent practicable . . . depositions should continue to be conducted remotely using necessary and available video technology.” The court has not explicitly mandated remote depositions, but has certainly encouraged trial courts to do so, indicating in orders litigants are “strongly encouraged” to depose witnesses remotely. Other jurisdictions, such as Philadelphia’s First Judicial District, have given trial court’s similar authority and flexibility.
Recently, a trial court in Middlesex County, New Jersey granted a motion to compel a defense deposition of the plaintiff to proceed remotely, if not in person, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel in a slip-and-fall case. This is one of the first such rulings in this area. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the remote deposition on the grounds that his client was elderly with a heavy accent, had no technology knowledge, and had no internet access. That would seem to be a pretty good argument that a remote deposition would be impracticable. However, the defendant bolstered their case with an offer to cover the cost of renting and delivering a remote deposition technology package to the plaintiff, complete with a tablet, phone, speaker, internet hotspot and remote training beforehand. Although the trial court acknowledged the plaintiff’s “significant hardship,” the court ordered that the deposition proceed remotely if not in person.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Robert Devine,
Douglas Weck and
Victor Zarrilli
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
