Condominium's Agent Owes No Duty to Injured Apartment Owner
August 28, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the agent's motion to dismiss claims asserted by a condominium owner's claim for injuries due to a fire in his unit. Great Am. Allliance Ins. Co. v. Village Gardens Homeowners Association, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102900 (C.D. Calif. June 12, 2023).
Village Gardens' agent, Roy Palacios Insurance Company, obtained umbrella and excess policies from Great American for apartment buildings located on the property. In obtaining the policies, Village Gardens represented to Great American through Palacios that the property's roof, HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems had been updated.
On Febaruary 16, 2019, the apartment in which Vicencio Flores resided caught fire, causing him to suffer severe burns. Flores alleged that the fire was caused by Village Gardens' "improper construction, use of poor construction materials and negligent maintenance of the property."
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
Re-Thinking the One-Sided Contract: Considerations for a More Balanced Approach to Contracting
November 21, 2022 —
William Underwood - ConsensusDocsConstruction projects can be inherently risky – often there are multiple parties (owners, architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, vendors, government officials, sureties, insurers, and many others), unforeseen site conditions, tangled supply chains, acts of God, inadequate funding, site safety matters, and a whole host of other issues that can make even a relatively straight-forward job complex. Parties necessarily want to minimize their individual risk to the greatest extent possible on construction projects. And to do so, they may seek to push as much risk as possible onto the other side through one-sided terms in their construction contract.
But is an entirely one-sided contract the best way to mitigate risk? In many instances, the answer is no. Every contract is different – and many considerations should be taken into account when drafting and negotiating contracts – but entirely one-sided can often have unintended consequences and create risks that otherwise might not exist in a contract that allocates and balances risk more equally across the parties.
This article reviews several considerations (although it is not an exhaustive list) for avoiding one-sided contracts, including some of the benefits created through the use of equitable contract clauses. And for context, some examples of one-sided contract clauses include no relief for other contractor/owner-caused delays; no relief for force majeure events; no relief for unforeseen site conditions; and broad form indemnification clauses (i.e. one party assumes the obligation to pay for another party’s liability even if the other party is solely at fault). Again, this is a non-exhaustive list, and many other standard contract provisions can be altered to become one-sided. But the general premise of a “one-sided contract clause” is that it shifts all risk, obligation, and liability to one party. And this article examines why that might not be the best idea.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Underwood, Jones Walker LLPMr. Underwood may be contacted at
wunderwood@joneswalker.com
Insured Entitled to Defense After Posting Medical Records Online
September 17, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer had a duty to defend the insured contractor's publication of medical records online, making them accessible to anyone. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Portal Heathcare Solutions, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. 110987 (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 2014).
Portal specialized in safekeeping of medical records for hospitals, clinics, and other medical providers. Portal was sued in a class action suit filed in New York state court for failing to safeguard the confidential medical records of patients at Glen Falls Hospital. Two patients of Glen Falls conducted a Google search of their respective names, and found a direct link to their Glen Falls medical records.
Travelers provided policies to Portal in 2012 and 2013, obligating Travelers to cover damages because of injury arising from (1) the "electronic publication of material that . . . gives unreasonable publicity to a person's private life" (the 2012 policy) or (2) the "electronic publication of material that . . . disclosed information about a person's private life" (the 2013 policy).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Miller Law Firm Helped HOA Recover for Construction Defects without Filing a Lawsuit
July 16, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to a press release published on the PR Newswire, The Miller Law Firm “recovered $910,000 for the 1635 California Owners' Association for construction defects without ever filing a complaint.” William Nagle, Special Master & Mediator, facilitated the settlement “a year after putting the builder on notice under SB 800, California’s Right to Repair Law.”
“Independent forensic expert inspections revealed building standard violations ranging from improperly installed gutters resulting in water intrusion in the units project wide, active leaks, standing water and inadequate gutters resulting in staining and efflorescence on the garage walls, balcony, and tile grout, discoloration and extensive cracking in the stucco project wide, inadequate weather stripping with evidence of condensation staining at windows, window frames and adjacent paint, inadequate ventilation, and ADA violations including loose glass guardrails and in regards to accessible rooftop common areas,” according to the press release.
“This case settled prior to any formal mediation and I credit the diligence of both the Association and builder counsel,” Nagle stated. “Tom Miller is one of the most knowledgeable and respected plaintiffs' lawyers in the construction defect area. And I compliment both counsel on their preparation and cost-effective handling of the case in reaching a fair and reasonable result for their respective clients."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tightest Credit Market in 16 Years Rejects Bernanke’s Bid
October 08, 2014 —
Prashant Gopal – BloombergJames Bregenzer, a 31-year-old marketing strategist in Chicago, was rejected for a mortgage in May after successfully financing two previous home purchases. The hitch this time: his monthly payment would have been $100 more than the lender was willing to approve.
Bregenzer is in good company. Standards in the U.S. are so high and inflexible that former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, now a Brookings Institute fellow-in-residence with a net worth of at least $1.1 million, said at a conference last week that he couldn’t refinance his house in Washington. Even some doctors struggle to get home loans if they’re self-employed.
“We asked if we could go over by $100 and were told that’s just not going to work,” said Bregenzer, who bought his first home before getting married in 2008. “The process of buying a home used to be stupid easy. Now, my wife and I were buying a home with two salaries, we make a heck of a lot more than I used to, and I have to go into great and terrible detail to show documentation.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal, BloombergMr. Gopal may be contacted at
pgopal2@bloomberg.net
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Build Back Better Includes Historic Expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program
December 20, 2021 —
James M. Grosser & David W. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn November 19, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act (H.R. 5376), a bill that represents a large portion of the Biden-Harris Administration’s agenda. Among other spending and tax measures, the bill includes an unprecedented expansion of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. Four proposals are headlining this expansion:
- Increasing the 9% LIHTC allocation cap by 10% plus inflation annually from 2022 to 2024. With this increase, the 2024 LIHTC allocation cap will rise to $3.97 per capita and a small state minimum of around $4.58 million, constituting a 41 percent increase in allocable LIHTC over current levels. The allocation cap would then decrease to $2.65 per capita and a small state minimum of $3.12 million in 2025 and would thereafter be indexed to inflation from the 2025 baseline.
- Reducing the 50% threshold for 4% tax-exempt bond-financed projects to 25% for five years, beginning in 2022.
Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Grosser, Pillsbury and
David W. Wright, Pillsbury
Mr. Grosser may be contacted at james.grosser@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey’s Governor Puts Construction Firms on Formal Notice of His Focus on Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors
May 24, 2018 —
Kevin J. O'Connor & Joseph M. Vento - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.We have written quite a bit about the mounting threat to employers, both nationally and locally, of claims of misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than employees. New Jersey’s new Gov. Phil Murphy signed an executive order last week that establishes a task force on employee misclassification to punish contractors who commit fraud by classifying their employees as independent contractors.
In the words of Governor Murphy: “I am signing this order to crack down on unscrupulous contractors who commit 1099 fraud to exploit workers and rob them of family and medical leave and safe workplace protections that the law provides,” Murphy said. “The employer gives themselves an unfair business advantage and this practice is illegal. This is a question of enforcing what is already on the books.” He has vowed that any employer caught misclassifying workers will either be brought into compliance or put out of business. The task force will foster compliance with the law and conduct a comprehensive review of existing practices.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. O'Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Joseph M. Vento, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com
Mr. Vento may be contacted at jvento@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
