Order for Appraisal Affirmed After Insureds Comply with Post-Loss Obligations
April 15, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Florida Court of Appeal affirmed an order compelling an appraisal because the insureds complied with their post-loss obligations under the policy. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Cardelles, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 2559 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2015).
The insureds suffered damage to their home after Hurricane Katrina on August 25, 2005, and again after Hurricane Wilma on October 24, 2005. After each hurricane, State Farm was notified. With the assistance of their public adjuster, the insureds submitted sworn proofs of loss for damages caused by each hurricane. After the deductible, State Farm paid $19,000 for the Hurricane Katrina claim and $13,000 for the Hurricane Wilma claim. The insureds repaired their roof and made minor repairs to their home with the State Farm payment, but claimed the payment was insufficient to fully repair the damage from the two hurricanes.
Four years later, the insureds hired a second public adjuster, who submitted a supplemental claim to State Farm for $127,000 in damages. State Farm requested documents and an updated sworn proof of loss. The insureds did not submit any additional documents because they had not made any additional repairs without further payment from State Farm. The insureds did, however, allow State Farm to make a further inspection of the damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage
July 20, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.
The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.
Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.
After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.
The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”
Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”
The court concluded:
Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year
August 15, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – JULY 23, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is proud to be selected as one of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County in the category of medium sized companies. This marks the seventh consecutive year Newmeyer & Dillion LLP has made the list, affirming that its profound commitment to professionalism and client service is shared among its workforce. The ranking was released in a special section of the Orange County Business Journal's July 23 issue.
Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion's Managing Partner, commends the effort of each employee in achieving this result. "Together, we strive to maintain an innovative, collaborative and creative culture that cannot be matched anywhere else, and we are sincerely grateful for each of our employees' ongoing commitment to the firm's values."
The awards program was created in 2009 and is a project of the Orange County Business Journal and Best Companies Group. This county-wide survey and awards program was designed to identify, recognize and honor the best places of employment in Orange County, California, benefiting the county's economy, its workforce and businesses.
For more information on the survey process for the Best Places to Work in Orange County program, visit www.BestPlacestoWorkOC.com or contact Jackie Miller at 877-455-2159.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to Partner Vik Nagpal on his Nomination for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!
March 27, 2023 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is honored to share that Downtown San Diego and Encinitas Managing Partner Vik Nagpal is nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!
Every year, West Coast Casualty recognizes an individual who is committed, trustworthy, and has contributed to the betterment of the construction defect community. The award is named after the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver who is considered a “founding father” in the alternate resolution process in construction claims and litigation. Each year, members of the construction community are asked to nominate individuals who invoke the same spirit as Judge Oliver.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
In Massachusetts, the Statute of Repose Applies to Consumer Protection Claims Against Building Contractors
January 28, 2019 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistIn Bridgwood v. A.J. Wood Construction, Inc., 105 N.E.3d 224 (Mass. 2018), the Supreme Court of Massachusetts determined that the statute of repose barred the plaintiff’s consumer protection claims commenced more than six years after the occurrence of the event that gave rise to the claims. In Bridgwood, the homeowner filed suit against the contractors who had performed renovations 15 years earlier. The homeowner asserted that concealed faulty electrical work caused a fire 11 years after the work was completed. The complaint alleged that the contractors, by violating Mass. Gen. Laws. Chapter 142A §17(10), committed an unfair and deceptive act pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Chapter 93A.
Section 17(10) prohibits contractors from violating building laws and specifically states that a violation of Section 17(10) constitutes an unfair and deceptive act as defined by Chapter 93A. Chapter 93A is regarded as one of the most stringent consumer protection statutory schemes in the nation, and allows litigants to seek remedies such as treble damages and attorney fees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and WilliamsMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Could This Gel Help Tame the California Fires?
November 28, 2018 —
Gordy Megroz - BloombergIn 2009, Jeff Denholm was making a living as an adventure athlete, competing in stand-up paddleboard races and riding giant waves at Mavericks, the famous surf break near his home in Santa Cruz, Calif. Denholm was sponsored by Patagonia Inc., but to generate extra cash—“Adventure athletes don’t make a ton of money,” he says—he had a side gig leasing a fire truck to state and county crews that had run out of equipment battling wildfires.
One firefighting tool that Denholm kept onboard was retardant, which helps tamp down existing fires and can prevent them; he used a type known as a foam suppressant. Last year the U.S. Forest Service spent about $72 million on retardants, but in researching them, Denholm discovered some discouraging information.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordy Megroz, Bloomberg
Constructive Suspension (Suspension Outside of an Express Order)
December 13, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn the federal procurement arena, there is a concept known as “constructive suspension.” Constructive suspension, while known in the federal arena, should reasonably apply to all projects when work is stopped outside of an express order to stop the work based on the law below. An unreasonable suspension is an unreasonable suspension and an express order to stop the work does not negate the effects of what really amounts to a suspension.
“Constructive suspension occurs when work is stopped absent an express order by the contracting officer and the government is found to be responsible for the work stoppage.” P.R. Burke Corp. v. U.S., 277 F.3d 1346, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The government delay must be unreasonable to support a constructive acceleration claim. Id.
“To demonstrate such a constructive suspension of work, the contractor must show that the delay (1) was for an ‘unreasonable length of time,’ (2) was proximately caused by the government’s actions, and (3) resulted in some injury to the contractor.” Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. U.S., 2001 WL 36415627, *6 (Fed.Cl. 2001) (citation omitted). “Relative to proving that the delay was directly caused by the government, the contractor must concomitantly show that it was not delayed by any concurrent cause that would have independently generated the delay during the same time period even if it does not predominate over the government’s action as the cause of the delay.” Beauchamp Const. Co. v. U.S., 14 Cl.Ct. 430, 437 (Cl.Ct. 1988).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims
September 28, 2017 —
John Anooshian & Sean Mahoney - White & Williams LLPEarlier today, in a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the Terletsky two-part test for proving a statutory “bad faith” claim under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, which requires that a plaintiff present “clear and convincing evidence (1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis.” Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company, No. 28 WAP 2016 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2017). The court further ruled that proof of an insurer’s “subjective motive of self-interest or ill-will,” while potentially probative of the second prong of the test, is not a requirement to prevail under § 8371. Evidence of an insurer’s “knowledge or reckless disregard for its lack of a reasonable basis” for denying a claim alone, according to the court, is sufficient even in cases seeking punitive damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Anooshian, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Sean Mahoney, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at majoneys@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
