Insurance Law Alert: California Appeals Court Allows Joinder of Employee Adjuster to Bad Faith Lawsuit Against Homeowners Insurer
April 08, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Bock v. Hansen (No. A136567, filed 4/2/14), a California appeals court held that an adjuster employed by an insurer can be sued personally for falsely representing that a first party claimant's policy does not cover a loss.
In Bock, a 41-foot long, 7,300 pound tree limb crashed onto the insureds' home, damaging the roof, chimney, living room walls, windows and floors. The assigned adjuster was alleged to have engaged in "appalling" conduct, including instructing the insureds to clean up the damage themselves (leading to personal injury); denying that the tree cracked the chimney; insulting and disparaging the insureds; altering the scene before taking photographs; misrepresenting the terms of the policy; preparing false claim reports; conspiring with a contractor to prepare an intentionally false report; and knowingly relying on the false report in order to deny a legitimate claim.
The homeowners sued the insurer and named the adjuster personally on causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. But the adjuster demurred arguing that he could not be sued personally because, as an employee of the insurer, he owed no duty to the insureds. The adjuster relied on Sanchez v. Lindsey Morden Claims Services, Inc. (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 249 and Lippert v. Bailey (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 376, to argue that employees and agents of insurers cannot be held personally liable since, under the law of agency, the proper cause of action is against the principal and not the agent.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
All Risk Policy Only Covers Repair to Portion of Dock That Sustains Damage
January 06, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA portion of a dock on Lack Michigan operated by the Ports of Indiana suffered visible damage. See Ports of Indiana v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130979 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 14, 2011). Lexington Insurance Company insured the port. Lexington agreed that a portion of the dock was damaged and paid $1.2 million for repairs. A dispute arose, however, over whether additional sections of the dock were damaged and whether the damage was the result of more than one "occurrence."
An expert report opined that a significant drop creating record lows in the water level of Lake Michigan in 2007 caused damage to the dock. Lexington maintained that only 128 feet of the dock was damaged; other portions of the dock did not sustain "direct physical loss or damage."
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Lisa M. Rolle and Vito John Marzano Secure Dismissal of Indemnification and Breach of Contract Claims Asserted against Subcontractor
November 24, 2019 —
Lisa M. Rolle & Vito John Marzano - Traub Lieberman PerspectivesOn August 7, 2019, TLSS Partner Lisa M. Rolle and associate Vito John Marzano obtained a dismissal of all claims on behalf of their client, the subfloor subcontractor at the worksite, in a severed action filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings.
In April 2014, plaintiff commenced suit against several defendants, including the general contractor, after he sustained an injury when he fell through temporary plywood while installing a staircase at a worksite in Brooklyn. In May 2018, plaintiff filed a note of issue and certified the matter as ready for trial. Immediately thereafter, the general contractor initiated a second third-party action against the subcontractor seeking common-law and contractual indemnification and breach of contract. The Court subsequently granted Traub Lieberman’s motion to sever the second third-party action and instructed the general contractor to file a new action.
After the general contractor recommenced suit, Traub Lieberman, on behalf of its client, the subcontractor, immediately moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. In relevant part, Traub Lieberman pointed to the deposition testimony of the general contractor’s principal to establish that the subcontractor had finished its work on the permanent subfloor no less ten months to over a year prior to plaintiff’s accident, and that the subfloor required no alteration, repair or maintenance prior to or as a result of plaintiff’s accident. Further, the general contractor’s testimony pointed to work performed by another subcontractor that directly resulted in plaintiff’s injuries. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that plaintiff had testified that he fell through a temporary plywood floor, and that the subcontractor had only installed a permanent subfloor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa Rolle, Traub Lieberman and
Vito John Marzano, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Marzano may be contacted at vmarzano@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)
August 24, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed how fraud and contracts are often like oil and water. While there are exceptions, these exceptions are few and far between here in Virginia. The reason for the lack of a mix between these two types of claims is the so-called “source of duty” rule. The gist of this rule is that where the reason money is owed from one party to another (the source of the “duty to pay”) is based in the contract, Virginia courts will not allow a fraud claim. The rule was created so that all breaches of contract, claims that are at base a failure to fulfill a prior promise and could, therefore, be considered to be based on a prior “lie,” would not be expanded to turn into tort claims. This rule has been extended to claims that most average people (read, non-lawyers) would consider fraud because there was no intent to fulfill the contract at the time it was signed.
Just so you don’t think that lawyers are exempt from this legal analysis, I point you to a recent case where a law firm sued a construction client of theirs for failure to pay legal fees. In EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred General Contracting, the Fairfax County Circuit Court considered a motion by the Plaintiff law firm seeking to add a count of fraud to its breach of contract lawsuit. The Court considered the following facts.
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
The Death of Retail and Legal Issues
June 15, 2017 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsThe
National Review recently published an article about the wide ranging economic and social impacts of the death of traditional mid-market shopping malls. The article is not overtly political and at time waxes nostalgic about the prototypical 1980’s shopping mall. However, the article highlights real problems facing the owners of these malls and other traditional shopping centers.
As expected, the economic issues have spurred legal and litigation issues for landlords. One of the issues I have been dealing with is what are a big box tenant’s obligations after a lease expires. Many of the big box tenants that are now vacating malls and shopping centers have been long term tenants. Sometimes, their leases go back decades. In the meantime, the mall may have changed hands. The original lease signed with a second or third removed owner and no doubt amended several times might be long forgotten.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Breach of Contract Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect Claim
March 19, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined the policy's breach of contract exclusion precluded coverage for a claim against the general contractor insured for construction defects. Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. McAtamncy, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 497 (N. D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2024).
McAtamney, a general contractor dong business as Kilrea Construction, was hired by Jeffrey Horowitz for a home-renovation project. After completion of the project, Horowitz discovered defects in the work. He filed a complaint alleging that Kilrea breached obligations to construct and complete the work in an expeditious and workmanlike manner, free from any faults and defects. He brought claims for breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, negligence, neglignet supervision, and declaratory relief.
Kilrea's insurer, Mt. Hawley, agreed to defend, but reserved the right to later deny coverage for any uncovered claims. The breach of contract exclusion provided there was no duty to defend a claim for property damage arising from breach of an express or implied contract or warranty.
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
The Looming Housing Crisis and Limited Government Relief—An Examination of the CDC Eviction Moratorium Two Months In
December 14, 2020 —
Zachary Kessler - Gravel2GavelMonths after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a nationwide eviction moratorium using its emergency pandemic powers under the Public Health Service Act, the efficacy of this unprecedented measure remains unclear. While the Order ostensibly protects tenants facing homelessness or housing insecurity due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic through the end of 2020, legal challenges have been initiated in Ohio and Georgia, with additional lawsuits appearing likely. Further, even barring legal challenges, courts have not handled these cases in a uniform manner. With lawmakers unable to reach any stimulus or COVID-19 relief agreement before the election, the CDC Order appears likely to remain the only federal eviction moratorium through its expiration on December 31, 2020.
Since the Order’s enactment, the CDC has since released new guidance, answering some of the open questions not covered by the initial Order. This guidance, while non-binding, is largely more favorable to landlords and property management companies than the initial text of the Order, as it provides that landlords are not required to make tenants aware of the Order’s protections and may challenge the truthfulness of the tenants’ declarations in any state or municipal court. The guidance also clarified the potential criminal penalties for violating the Order and the criminal penalties for perjury for bad faith submissions of the requisite declaration by tenants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, PillsburyMr. Kessler may be contacted at
zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits
October 20, 2016 —
Gregory R. Begg & Aaron C. Schlesinger – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.What Action Should Owners, Developers and Contractors Take in Anticipation of Successful Challenges to PLA Requirements?
Recently, a federal court in New Jersey issued a decision which very well may invalidate all Project Labor Agreements (“PLA’s”) entered into as a condition to receipt of tax incentives for private development. Tax incentives utilized to promote private development are different, according to the court, than typical public works projects where PLA requirements have generally been held valid. Owners, developers, contractors and governmental entities must assess the consequences of this decision upon contracts already and to be awarded in the future where tax benefits may be linked to a PLA requirement.
In 1993, in what has become known as the Boston Harbor Case, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governmental entities may condition the award of public works contracts on the contractor’s agreement to enter into PLA’s.
That decision has been followed nationwide since then to uphold the validity of various state and local law bidding conditions requiring successful bidders to negotiate and enter into project labor agreements as a condition to the award of public works contracts. The rationale is that when the government, like any other private party, is participating in an economic market, it may exercise its discretion in setting terms and conditions it believes best suit its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services in that market. Therefore, a PLA requirement by a governmental entity engaged in market activity is no more or less valid than a PLA requirement on a purely private project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
