No Coverage Under Property Policy With Other Insurance and Loss Payment Provisions
September 17, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the other insurance and loss payment provisions relieved the insurer of coverage obligations. Moroney Body Works, Inc. v. Central Ins. Co., 2015 Mass. App. LEXIS 97 (Aug. 6, 2015).
A fire destroyed Moroney's custom-built bookmobile that had just been completed. Moroney had two policies: a commercial property policy issued by Central, and a garage insurance policy issued by Pilgrim Insurance Company. Central denied liability for the bookmobile. Pilgrim covered the cost of repairing the bookmobile. It paid $12,449.82 based on the appraiser's estimate of the repair costs. Moroney thought this amount was inadequate given its own estimate of the repair costs.
Moroney sued both insurers. Pilgrim settled by paying Moroney an additional amount which, when added to Pilgrim's earlier payment, resulted in Moroney receiving more than the repair cost. Moroney and Central both moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Moroney's motion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Corps of Engineers to Prepare EIS for Permit to Construct Power Lines Over Historic James River
May 01, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn March 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided National Parks Conservation Assoc. v. Todd T. Simonite, Lieutenant General, et al. The case involves an application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a construction permit to build electric power lines over the “historic James River, from whose waters Captain John Smith explored the New World.”
The Corps concluded after reviewing the thousands of comments submitted to it in connection with this application, and after considering the views of several government agencies and conservation groups, that an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) was not required, and that its Environmental Assessment assured the Corps that the project would not result is significant environmental impacts. The Court of Appeals has concluded that, based on this evidence, the Corps’ refusal to prepare an EIS thoroughly discussing all these points was arbitrary and capricious. The Corps has been ordered to prepare the EIS and to take special note of its obligations under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act (CWA) and its obligations under the National Historic Preservation Act.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Colorado’s Federal District Court Finds Carriers Have Joint and Several Defense Duties
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiAn issue that has plagued builders in Colorado construction defect litigation is the difficulty of getting additional insured carriers to fully participate in the builder’s defense, oftentimes leaving the builder to fund its own defense during the course of the litigation.
Many additional insurers offer a variety of positions regarding why they will not pay for fees and costs during the course of a lawsuit. Some insurers argue that, until after trial, it is impossible to determine its proper share of the defense, and therefore cannot make any payments until the liability is determined as to all of the potentially contributing policies. (This is often referred to as the “defense follows indemnity” approach.) Others may make an opening contribution to defense fees and costs, but fall silent as fees and costs accumulate. In such an event, the builder may be forced to fund all or part of its own defense, while the uncooperative additional insured carrier waits for the end of the lawsuit or is faced with other legal action before it makes other contributions.
Recent orders in two, currently ongoing, U.S. District Court cases provide clarity on the duty to defend in Colorado, holding that multiple insurers’ duty to defend is joint and several. The insured does not have to go without a defense while the various insurers argue amongst themselves as to which insurer pays what share.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
California Supreme Court Hands Victory to Private Property Owners Over Public Use
June 21, 2017 —
Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn 1970 the California Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, private property owners impliedly dedicate their property to the public if they permit the public to use it. Gion v. City of Santa Cruz (1970) 2 Cal.3d 29. This holding was controversial, and the next year the California Legislature enacted Civil Code section 1009 limiting the public’s ability to permanently use private property through an implied dedication.
In the 40-plus years since then, the lower courts have wrestled with the issue of whether the statute limiting implied dedication applies only to recreational uses by the public, or also to nonrecreational uses. On June 15, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous opinion in Scher v. Burke (June 15, 2017, S230104) ___ Cal.4th ___, holding that the limitations on implied dedication apply to nonrecreational as well as recreational uses. The case is significant because it demonstrates that the Supreme Court will apply the plain language of the state’s statutes to uphold private property rights.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & WilmerMr. Sherlock may be contacted at
ssherlock@swlaw.com
Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List
July 18, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionWALNUT CREEK, Calif. – JULY 10, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that litigation attorney Alan Packer has been selected to the 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers list. No more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers each year.
Packer is a partner in the firm's expanding Walnut Creek office. He has practiced law in California for over 30 years, mostly representing parties involved in real estate, home building, commercial construction, and insurance matters. He represents business clients, homebuilders, property owners, and others in a broad range of legal matters.
Packer is a frequent speaker at seminars and in-house training sessions for clients on issues relating to risk management, construction litigation, and insurance.
Earlier this year, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys in Newport Beach and Las Vegas were also selected to Super Lawyers lists. Packer brings its total to 19 Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys recognized.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations, resulting in a comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
Alan Packer
Partner
Walnut Creek
Contact
925.988.3200
alan.packer@ndlf.com
Practices
Business Litigation
Construction Litigation
Insurance Law
Real Estate Litigation
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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Conditional Judgment On Replacement Costs Awarded
January 07, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The appellate court determined that a conditional judgment on replacement costs was appropriate after the insurer denied coverage. Stephens & Stephens XII, LLC v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 1073 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 2014).
Stephens operated a large industrial warehouse. It initially purchased a commercial liability policy from Fireman's Fund when an tenant occupied the building. After the tenant left, Stephens purchased from Fireman's Fund property coverage on June 28, 2007. On July 1, Stephens discovered that burglars had caused more than $2 million in damage to the property. All conductive material was stripped from the building and taken away. There was water damage throughout the building. The estimated cost of repair exceeded $1 million.
Stephens notified Fireman's Fund. The insurer paid emergency repairs, but it neither accepted nor denied coverage for the loss. Finally, five years after the incident and on the eve of trial, Fireman's Fund denied coverage.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule
September 23, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste.
The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations
January 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
If you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances.
Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
