Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit
September 09, 2024 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only.
In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Construction and AI: What Contractors Need to Know from ABC’s New Report
November 05, 2024 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) has just released its fourth annual construction
technology report, which dives deep into AI’s evolving role in the construction industry.
“ABC contractor members and the overall contracting community want more information on AI and how it can help them improve safety, quality and profitability—and win more work,” said Matt Abeles, ABC vice president of construction technology and innovation. The newly released ABC AI Tech Report delivers on this need, highlighting AI-driven case studies, resources, and thought leadership from ABC’s Tech Alliance.
Understanding AI’s Role in Construction
The report provides a comprehensive AI Resource Guide, breaking down the basics of artificial intelligence and how it applies to construction. Understanding AI is key for contractors to stay competitive in the rapidly changing industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
New York State Legislature Reintroduces Bills to Extend Mortgage Recording Tax to Mezzanine Debt and Preferred Equity
March 15, 2021 —
Steven E. Coury & Marissa Levy - White and WilliamsCompanion bills in the New York State Legislature, Assembly Bill No. A3139 and Senate Bill No. S3074, if enacted, would subject mezzanine loans and preferred equity investments to the same recording and taxation requirements placed on mortgages.
The bills were reintroduced last month after similar bills (S7231/A9041) were introduced in the 2019-2020 legislative session. The prior bills died in committee when last year’s legislative session adjourned.
As discussed in our prior alert, the proposed bills would require: (1) a financing statement evidencing any mezzanine debt and/or preferred equity investments related to real property to be filed in the county in which the real property is located and (2) a recording tax, at the same rate as the applicable mortgage recording tax rate (2.80% for commercial mortgages over $500,000 in New York City), to be imposed on the amount of the debt and/or investment at the time the financing statement is filed. The bills contain a limited carve-out for owner-occupied residential cooperatives.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven E. Coury, White and Williams and
Marissa Levy, White and Williams
Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Levy may be contacted at levmp@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Arbitration Act Preempts Pennsylvania Payment Act
June 15, 2020 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsI am back. It feels like an entirety since I last posted. But a hellacious trial schedule got me off the blogosphere for some time. Plus, there was nothing to write about.
But I am back with a bang thanks to a decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning the interplay of a forum selection clause appearing in an arbitration clause in a construction contract and the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. In Bauguess Electrical Services, Inc. v. Hospitality Builders, Inc., the federal court (Judge Joyner) ruled that the federal arbitration act preempted the Payment Act’s prohibition on forum selection clauses and held that an arbitration must proceed in South Dakota even though the construction project were the work was performed was located in Pennsylvania.
The Payment Act applies to all commercial construction projects performed in Pennsylvania. As some you might know, Section 514 of the Payment Act, 73 P.S. 514, prohibits choice of law and forum selection clauses. It states “[m]aking a contract subject to the laws of another state or requiring that any litigation, arbitration or other dispute resolution process on the contract occur in another state, shall be unenforceable.” Therefore, if a construction contract is for a project located in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania law must apply and all disputes must be adjudicated in Pennsylvania.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Additional Insured Coverage Confirmed
February 23, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Court of Appeals found that Exxon Mobil Corporation was an additional insured under the CGL policy for Exxon's service provider. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12757 (Tex. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015).
Exxon contracted with Wyatt Field Service Company to perform "services" as set forth in various work orders from Exxon's affiliates. The contract also required Wyatt to maintain $5 million of commercial general liability insurance. The contract provided that the policies must cover Exxon and its affiliates "as additional insureds in connection with the performance of Services."
In 2008, Wyatt was assigned to work on a flexicoker unit at Exxon's refinery. Wyatt was to reinstall dummy nozzles and chains. It completed this service in October 2008. Three years later, one of the dummy nozzles pulled free, and the escaping steam and coke burned three individuals who were working on the unit. After the accident, it was discovered that the safety chain had been installed in the wrong location so that it did not properly secure the dummy nozzle.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement
June 18, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality.
In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose. Court Finds Indemnity Provision Went Too Far
May 25, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWe all love David and Goliath stories. The underdog winning against the far stronger (and dastardly) opponent. Think Rocky Balboa versus Ivan Drago, the Star Wars Rebellion versus the Galatic Empire, Indiana Jones versus a good chunk of the Third Reich. And now, we have Margaret Williams.
The Story of Margaret Williams and her LLC
The story, told in Long Beach Unified School District v. Margaret Williams, LLC, Case No. B290069 (December 9, 2019), is about Margaret Williams. Ms. Williams (we’ll just call her “Margaret” going forward because it just sounds better when telling a story) worked for nearly ten years full-time for the Long Beach Unified School District, toiling day in and day out doing construction management and environmental compliance work, including work involving the clean up of material at a school construction site contaminated with arsenic.
Although she worked full-time for the District for nearly ten years, she wasn’t an employee. Rather, she was a contractor. And, on top of it all, as a condition of working for the District, the District required that she form a company in order to contract with the District. According to Margaret, “In order to work with the District, I was directed . . . to form a corporation or partnership. This was the only way I could work for the District: I could not enter into a contract with the District as an individual.” So, in 2006, she formed a company, simply called Margaret Williams, LLC.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Haight Welcomes New Attorneys to Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco
October 07, 2019 —
Haight Brown & BonesteelHaight Brown & Bonesteel is happy to announce the addition of new attorneys to our Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco offices.
- Alexandra Angel – Los Angeles: Alexandra is a member of the firm’s Business Solutions, General Liability and Transportation Law Practice Groups. Her practice focuses on a variety of civil litigation matters involving premises liability, personal injury, judgment collection, breach of contract, and landlord-tenant. Her clients have included individual private clients, international property management companies, national and local real estate investment companies, a large car finance company, and local businesses.
- Josh Maltzer – San Francisco: Josh is a partner in the firm’s Construction Law, General Liability and Risk Management & Insurance Law Practice Groups. He is a seasoned civil litigator who focuses his practice on construction defect, general liability and insurance coverage. Josh is an experienced trial attorney who has litigated matters in state and federal courts throughout California and in Arizona, Washington and Wyoming. He has represented business owners, property managers, developers, real estate purchasers and public housing agencies in matters that resulted in millions of dollars in insurance recovers, judgments and settlements for his client.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys
Alexandra Angel,
Josh A. Maltzer,
Philip E. McDermott,
Patrick F. McIntyre,
Evan M. Reese, and
Amanda F. Riley
Ms. Angel may be contacted at aangel@hbblaw.com
Mr. Maltzer may be contacted at jmaltzer@hbblaw.com
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@hbblaw.com
Mr. McIntyre may be contacted at pmcintyre@hbblaw.com
Mr. Reese may be contacted at ereese@hbblaw.com
Ms. Riley may be contacted at ariley@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
