Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit
May 24, 2021 —
Michael S. Levine & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas denied Factory Mutual’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on their property caused covered physical loss or damage in the case of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 4:21-CV-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2021). This is the third COVID-19-related business interruption decision from Judge Amos Mazzant since March, but the first in favor of a policyholder. Taken together, the three decisions have two key takeaways and provide a roadmap for policyholders in all jurisdictions.
First, the Cinemark decision recognizes that the alleged presence of COVID-19 viral particles that physically altered the policyholder’s property is sufficient under federal pleading standards and controlling state law. In its motion, FM relied on Judge Mazzant’s recent decision in Selery Fulfillment, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., No. 4:20-CV-853, 2021 WL 963742 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021), which dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the policyholder’s losses were caused by government orders that closed its business, rather than from the actual presence of the virus on its property. The Court held that government orders alone do not constitute physical loss or damage, and declined to rule on whether the physical presence of the virus does. Judge Mazzant reached the same conclusion weeks later in Aggie Investments, L.L.C. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 4:21-CV-0013, 2021 WL 1550479 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reinsurer's Obligation to Provide Coverage Determined Under English Law
July 24, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Second Circuit turned to English law to determine the obligations of the reinsurer. Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. v. Equitas Ins. Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12461 (2nd Cir. May 22, 2023).
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP) provided an umbrella policy to a predecessor of Dole Food Company for a policy period from October 1968 to October er 1971. Equitas then reinsured part of ICSOP's exposure for the same three-year period. English law governed the reinsurance policy.
In 2009, homeowners in Carson, California sued Dole for polluting their soil and groundwater. Dole and ICSOP settled these claims and allocated $20 million of the settlement liability to the ICSOP-Dole policy, even thought the homeowners' property damage and personal injuries continued to accrue after the ICSOP-Dole policy period ended. In doing so, the settlement followed The California law for allocation, known as the "all sums rule." This rule treated any insurer whose policy was in effect during any portion of the time during which the continuing harm occurred as jointly and severally liability for all property damages or personal injuries caused by a pollutant.
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
Eleventh Circuit Set to Hear Challenge to Florida Law Barring Foreign Citizens From Buying Real Property
April 22, 2024 —
Michael Gnesin - Lewis BrisboisFort Lauderdale, Fla. (April 2, 2024) - This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will hear a challenge to a recently-enacted Florida law, Senate Bill 264, which restricts foreign ownership or investment in Florida real property from specific countries and imposes a near ban on property purchases by Chinese, Russian and other foreign nationals.
On July 1, 2023,
Senate Bill 264 [codified under Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 692.201 to 692.205] took effect. The bill, titled “Interests of Foreign Countries,” prohibits Chinese nationals and nationals from other countries, including Russia, from buying real property unless they are American citizens or permanent residents.
Prior to the new law's effective date, on May 22, 2023, four Chinese citizens who hold nonimmigrant visas and reside in Florida, along with a Florida-based real estate firm,
sued the state of Florida in federal district court, alleging that the new law is unconstitutional and discriminatory, and that it violates the Fair Housing Act [Shen v. Simpson, Case No. 4:23-cv-208].
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Gnesin, Lewis BrisboisMr. Gnesin may be contacted at
Michael.Gnesin@lewisbrisbois.com
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight’s 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
July 06, 2020 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight congratulates partners
Michael Parme and
Arezoo Jamshidi who were selected to the 2020 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list.
Each year no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eleven WSHB Attorneys Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars
September 01, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFWood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced that eleven of their lawyers were recognized on the list of 2016 Rising Stars®:
- Raymond Babaian: Partner, Rancho Cucamonga
- Emil Macasinag: Senior Counsel, Los Angeles
- Amy Pennington: Partner, Los Angeles
- Christopher Perez: Senior Counsel, Rancho Cucamonga
- Keith Smith: Partner, Riverside
- Kevin Gillispie: Partner, Concord
- Alicia Kennon: Senior Counsel, Concord
- Eugene Zinovyev: Senior Associate, Concord
- Timothy Repass: Partner, Seattle and Portland
- Jodi Mullis: Senior Associate, Phoenix
- Vincent Beilman: Partner, Tampa and Miami
“We are pleased to have 11 of our best selected for this year’s lists,” Dan Berman, Firm Chairman and Founding Partner stated. “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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Client Alert: Catch Me If You Can – Giorgio Is No Gingerbread Man
November 26, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic, Jesse M. Sullivan, & Colin T. Murphy - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Giorgio v. Synergy Management Group, LLC (2014) Case No. B248752, a California Court of Appeal held in an opinion published on November 6, 2014, that the Los Angeles County trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting service by publication on Defendant John Giorgio ("Giorgio") after numerous attempts to find his current address produced a single address in Los Angeles from which mailed service was returned. The Court ruled that publication in a Los Angeles newspaper was proper because Plaintiff had a reasonable belief that service by publication in that county was most likely to give actual notice to the party to be served.”
In this intentional tort action, Synergy Management Group, LLC ("Synergy") alleged in its Complaint that Giorgio converted assets of Synergy's assignor by submitting false expense reports which resulted in the misappropriation of the assignor's assets. Synergy personally served Giorgio with the original Complaint at a North Carolina airport and Giorgio failed to respond. Synergy subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint and attempted service via an address in the Netherlands. Again, Giorgio did not respond. Synergy then filed a request for entry of default against Giorgio which was entered that day.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Steven M. Cvitanovic, Jesse M. Sullivan and Colin T. Murphy
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal
January 07, 2015 — Jerrold P. Anders and Michael W. Jervis - White and Williams LLP
In Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the gist of the action doctrine that distinguishes between tort and contract claims. In doing this, the Court also ruled that a Certificate of Merit in a professional liability claim is necessary only if the plaintiff is in a direct client relationship with the licensed professional. This clarification of the Certificate of Merit requirement may limit the ability of architects and engineers to obtain an early dismissal in lawsuits.
Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co. involves a common scenario. The Brunos filed a claim with their homeowners’ insurer after discovering mold in their home during remodeling. The policy included an endorsement providing coverage for mold. As part of the claim adjustment, Erie hired an engineer to inspect the mold and to provide an opinion on its severity to determine the extent of remediation required. The engineer hired by Erie reported to Mr. Bruno that the mold was harmless, that concern over health problems due to mold was merely a “media frenzy,” and that the Brunos should continue with their renovations.
Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and Michael W. Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
