California Home Sellers Have Duty to Disclose Construction Defect Lawsuits
October 21, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIf you’re selling a home in California that has been the subject of a construction defect lawsuit, you probably have to disclose this, according to Steven G. Lee, an attorney at Reid & Hellyer. Mr. Lee notes that California law mandates the disclosure of “any lawsuits by or against the Seller threatening to or affecting the Property, including any lawsuits alleging a defect or deficiency.” He further notes that “for those selling units in a condominium or townhouse development, this includes defects in the common areas.”
He notes that failure to disclose will not invalidate the sale, but the seller may be “liable for actual damages suffered by the buyer.” Merely disclosing the former defect may not be enough. Mr. Lee notes that the California Court of Appeals ruled in one case that although buyers had been informed of past water intrusion, knowledge of the construction defect lawsuit may have affected the buyer’s decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eleven WSHB Lawyers Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars
July 28, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFWood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced that eleven of their attorneys were recognized on the list of 2016 Rising Stars. According to their press release, “The attorneys honored on the Rising Stars list are 40 years or younger and demonstrate the finest qualities of a good lawyer: first-rate legal skills, preparation, judgment, creativity, dedication and ethics. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in each state are named to Rising Stars.”
The WSHB lawyers on the list practice out of Southern California, Northern California, the Pacific Northwest, Arizona, and Florida, and include Raymond Babaian, Emil Macasinag, Amy Pennington, Christopher Perez, Keith Smith, Kevin Gillispie, Alicia Kennon, Eugene Zinovyev, Timothyf Repass, Jodi Mullis, and Vincent Beilman.
“We are pleased to have 11 of our best selected for this year’s lists,” said Dan Berman, Firm Chairman and Founding Partner. “We value our selections to Rising Stars because the choices come from our peers. It is truly an honor and a validation of all of the great work we do at WSHB.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy
February 22, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you have read prior articles (see
here and
here as an example), then you know that when it comes to first-party property insurance policies, an insured must comply with post-loss obligations in the policy. Failure to comply with a post-loss obligation gives the insurer the argument that the insured materially breached the policy and, therefore, forfeited rights to coverage. Naturally, this is avoidable by ensuring post-loss obligations are complied with, ideally under the guidance of counsel and qualified public adjusters to ensure your rights are being preserved and maximized.
[W]hen an insurer has alleged, as an affirmative defense to coverage, and thereafter has subsequently established, that an insured has failed to substantially comply with a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer from the insured’s material breach is presumed, and the burden then shifts to the insured to show that any breach of post-loss obligations did not prejudice the insurer.
Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Horne, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D201b (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) quoting American Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So.3d 905, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
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
Arizona Supreme Court Holds a Credit Bid at a Trustee’s Sale Should Not be Credited to a Title Insurer Under a Standard Lender’s Title Policy To the Extent the Bid Exceeds the Collateral’s Fair Market Value
March 01, 2017 —
Richard H. Herold - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Arizona Supreme Court recently addressed what impact, if any, a lender’s credit bid at an Arizona trustee’s sale has on an insurer’s liability under Sections 2, 7 and 9 of the standard’s lender’s title policy (“Policy”), holding in Equity Income Partners, LP v. Chicago Title Insurance Company, 241 Ariz. 334, 387 P.3d 1263 (February 7, 2017) as follows:
1. Section 2 of the Policy, entitled “Continuation of Insurance,” not Section 9, entitled “Reduction of Insurance; Reduction or Termination of Liability,” applies when a lender acquires property at a trustee sale by “either a full- or partial-credit bid” since Section 2 directly addresses the existence and amount of coverage in such circumstances. Id. at 1267.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Herold, Snell & WilmerMr. Herold may be contacted at
rherold@swlaw.com
SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages
November 26, 2014 —
Neil P. Casey & Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLPThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.
Background
Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii]
Reprinted courtesy of
Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and
Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Buy America/Buy American, a Primer For Contractors
March 23, 2020 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCPresident Trump has promoted his campaign agenda—bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States (especially jobs relating or pertaining to the steel industry.) To do this, he has strengthened domestic preferences through the Buy America and Buy American Acts.[1]
1. Buy America Act:
The Buy America Act refers to a collection of domestic contract restrictions pertaining to the U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration projects (highway, mass transit and other transportation projects). The USDOT grants provided to state and local governments prohibit the federal government from obligating funds unless the steel, iron and manufactured products used in the projects are produced in the U.S. Generally, Buy America applies to projects where USDOT provides part of the funding, applies to steel, iron and manufactured products, and requires that “all manufacturing processes, including application of a coating, for these materials…occur in the United States.”
- Buy American:
Buy American is critical for construction contractors because FAR 52.225-9 requires that all federal construction contracts under approximately $7 million[2] contain a clause which mandates that contractors use “only domestic construction material in performing [the] contract.” [Note: This requirement is not limited to steel and steel products, as the Buy America Act is.]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer
June 26, 2023 —
Jeremy S. Macklin & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Jeremy Macklin and Associate Danielle Kegley obtained judgment on the pleadings in favor of Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”), in a matter brought before the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In the underlying case, an injured employee sued various companies, and their agents, for injuries he sustained on a construction project. The insureds, one of the defendant companies and its employee, sought coverage for the underlying lawsuit under a professional liability policy issued to that company by Admiral. The policy at issue provided coverage for the company and its employees, for negligent acts or omissions committed in the rendering of “professional services,” defined as services “involving specialized training and skill while in the pursuit of” mechanical and process engineering.
After initially defending the insureds, Admiral filed a declaratory judgment action asking the Court to declare that the company has no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds in the underlying lawsuit and to allow Admiral to immediately withdraw its defense of the insureds. Admiral argued there is no coverage under the professional liability policy, as the underlying lawsuit does not contain allegations that the underlying plaintiff’s injuries arose from the rendering of or failure to render “professional services.” The insureds argued that since they were hired as mechanical and process engineers for the project, that any lawsuits against them must necessarily arise from their “professional services.” Further, the insureds asked the Court to disregard the express allegations in the underlying lawsuit concerning their role on the project as a general contractor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and
Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
District Court Awards Summary Judgment to Insurance Firm in Framing Case
August 04, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Continental Western Insurance Company v. Shay Construction Inc., Judge Walker Miller has granted a summary judgment against Shay Construction and their co-defendant, Milender White Construction Company.
Shay was the framing subcontractor for Milender White on what the court described as “a major construction project in Grand County, Colorado.” Two of Shay’s subcontractors, Wood Source Inc. and Chase Lumber Company furnished materials, labor, and equipment to Shay. They subsequently sued for nonpayment and sought to enforce mechanic’s liens, naming both Shay and Milender as defendants. Milender White alleged that Shay had “breached its obligation under its subcontracts with Milender White.”
Shay’s insurance provider, Continental Western, stated that its coverage did not include “the dispute between Shay, its subcontractors, particularly the cross claims asserted by Milender White.” Shay then sued Continental Western, alleging breach of contract and statutory bad faith.
The court, however, has found with Continental Western and has granted them a summary judgment. They found “no genuine issue as to any material fact.” The judge did not side with Continental Western on their interpretation of the phrase “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages.” The court found that the Colorado courts have not limited this to tort actions only. However, as Milender’s cross claim included claims of faulty workmanship on the part of Shay, Judge Miller found for Continental.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
