Key Amendments to Insurance Claims-Handling Regulations in Puerto Rico
September 23, 2019 —
Andres Avila & Richard W. Brown - SDV InsightsPolicyholders in Puerto Rico should be aware of significant benefits provided by recent amendments to the Insurance Code. New rules establish an expedited method of property insurance dispute resolution, mandatory expedited partial payments in the event of catastrophic events, and protection against bad faith claims handling by insurers.
Appraisal Process with a Puerto Rican Twist
A key amendment is the establishment of an appraisal process, widely used for many years in the United States and now adopted in Puerto Rico. Commercial and personal property insurers in Puerto Rico shall include, in their policies, a clause for an appraisal process according to Article 11.150 of the Insurance Code of Puerto Rico, 26 L.P.R.A. § 101 et seq. (“the Code”).
The appraisal process provides both policyholders and insurers the option to submit insurance claims to an impartial umpire if a dispute arises over the value of covered damages or losses. The umpire and appraisers do not have authority to resolve coverage or legal issues. They can only resolve disputes over the quantum claimed for losses already determined to be covered by the insurer. Id. Each party is required to pay its own appraiser’s fees and split equally the fees of the umpire. Id.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bad Welds Doom Art Installation at Central Park
October 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFLast year, the sculpture “How I Roll” was supposed to be doing its rolling at Central Park from June through August of last year, but the exhibit was taken down a month early, over concerns that the welding had rendered the moving piece “structurally unsound and unsafe.” Now the Public Art Fund is suing the company hired to do the welding.
Titon Builders of Lake Park, Florida was supposed to do the welding, but they subcontracted the work to Tru-Steel Corp. of Fort Pierce, Florida. The Public Art Fund is claiming that Titon’s contract obligated them to do the fabrication, not subcontract it. Jeffrey Klein, a lawyer for the Public Art Fund, said, “it’s sad that it had to be taken down because of shoddy workmanship.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
State of Texas’ Claims Time Barred by 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act
June 13, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the case of State of Texas v. U.S., et al. The Court of Appeals held that the petition for mandamus filed by the State of Texas essentially seeking to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish a schedule for the operation of the Yucca Mountain, NV nuclear waste depository was untimely filed. The depository is very controversial in Nevada, and as a consequence, none of the many deadlines established by Congress have been met.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLPMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Turmoil Slows Rebuilding of Puerto Rico's Power Grid
August 28, 2018 —
Associated Press - Engineering News-RecordSAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Ten months after Hurricane Maria destroyed Puerto Rico's electric grid, the local agency responsible for rebuilding it is in chaos and more than $1 billion in federal funds meant to strengthen the rickety system has gone unspent, according to contractors and U.S. officials who are anxious to make progress before the next hurricane.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Insurer's Summary Judgment Motion to Reject Claim for Construction Defects Upheld
August 15, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Third Circuit upheld the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer on a claim seeking coverage for construction defects. Lenick Constr. v. Selective Way Ins. Co., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 15197 (3d Cir. June 6, 2018).
Westrum was the general contractor for a 92 unit development, and it subcontracted with Lenick to perform rough and finish carpentry and to install paneling, windows, and doors provided by the developer. After the project was completed, it was discovered that some units experienced water infiltration, leaks and cracked drywall.
The condominium development sued Westrum, alleging contract and warranty claims. Westrum impleaded Lenick, asserting claims for breach of contract and indemnification. Lenick sought a defense from its insurer, Selective. Selective defended under a reservation of rights.
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
Nevada Lawmakers Had Private Meetings on Construction Defects
February 21, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFBoth Democratic and Republican members of the Nevada legislature had closed door meetings with representatives of the construction industry. Democratic lawmakers also met with the other side of the discussion over construction defect laws, lobbyists representing trial lawyers. When asked by the Las Vegas Sun why this was done in private meetings instead of a public hearing, Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick didn’t have an answer, other than that “everyone in the building did it yesterday.”
The meetings were described as briefings on general policy issues, offering legislators a chance to ask questions. The Sun notes that under Nevada’s open meeting law, government agencies would not be allowed to do this in a closed meeting, but that the legislature exempted itself from the law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases
November 26, 2014 —
Casey J. Quinn - Newmeyer & Dillion LLPIn Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder.
The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim.
A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id.
Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006).
In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id.
It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ.
Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy.
About the Author
Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums
January 18, 2021 —
William E. Underwood Partner, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsWithholding sums during a dispute can be an effective and perfectly legitimate means to protect against the harms caused by another party’s breach. However, withholding too much money during a dispute can turn a position of strength into one of weakness.
“Why should I fund the other side’s litigation war chest?” and “Isn’t this just a display of weakness?” are common questions raised by contractors when this issue is discussed. Often, the contractor is well within its contractual or legal rights to withhold money from a breaching subcontractor (another topic for another day). But it may not always be in a contractor’s best interest to withhold every single penny available.
This article addresses some of the long-term implications for failing to return withheld sums, including the potential to recover attorneys’ fees, possible bad faith, accruing interest, and overall litigation costs. Admittedly, it can be hard to give money back in the middle of a dispute. But sometimes it can positively impact the overall outcome of the case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)Mr. Underwood may be contacted at
wunderwood@joneswalker.com
