Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine
September 26, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Texas jury has found that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus on the property of Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) caused “physical loss or damage” and resulting economic loss, triggering coverage under BCM’s commercial property insurance program. The jury awarded BCM over $48 million following a three-day trial; the award consisted of $42.8 million in business interruption, $3.3 million in extra expense, and $2.3 million in damage to research projects.
The verdict came after the court denied the insurers’ pre-trial motion for summary judgment, rejecting the insurers’ contention that a virus cannot—as a matter of law—cause physical loss or damage to property. In denying the motion, the court held that whether the presence of the virus causes physical loss or damage presents a question of fact for the jury to resolve; a copy of the order rejecting the insurers’ summary judgment argument can be found
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Condominium Warranty Against Structural Defects in the District of Columbia
July 24, 2023 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Cowie Law GroupTHE CONDOMINIUM WARRANTY AGAINST STRUCTURAL DEFECTS
Condominium developers in Washington DC are required by statute to warrant against structural defects in residential condominiums. District of Columbia Condominium Act (“DC Condo Act”) § 42-1903.16(b). The warranty applies to both condominium common elements and each condominium unit. It requires a developer to repair structural defects, including any resulting damage to the condominium caused by a common element structural defect. DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16(a-1)(2). The statute creating this warranty is called the “Warranty Against Structural Defects,” contained in the DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16.
“Structural Defects” Defined
The warranty applies to “structural defects,” which are very broadly defined to include many types of construction defects. Structural defects are not just limited to defects in the supporting structure of the building. Rather, a structural defect can be any condition that:
“(A) Reduces the stability or safety of unit or common elements below standards commonly accepted in the real estate market,” or
(B) Restricts the normally intended use of all or part of the common elements of a unit and which requires repair, renovation, restoration, or replacement to serve the purpose for which it was intended.”
DC Condo Act § 42-1903.16(j)(6).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law GroupMr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowielawgroup.com
The Court-Side Seat: FERC Reviews, Panda Power Plaints and Sovereign Immunity
April 26, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a brief report on new environmental law decisions, regulations and legislation.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Massachusetts Lobsterman’s Association v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce
On March 22, 2021, the Supreme Court rejected a petition to review a Presidential decision to invoke the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate as a monument “an area of submerged land about the size of Connecticut” in the Atlantic Ocean. This action forbids all sorts of economic activity, which compelled the filing of litigation in the First Circuit challenging this designation. Chief Justice Roberts supported the Court’s denial of certiorari, but remarked that a stronger legal case may persuade the Court to review such liberal uses of the Antiquities Act.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Best Lawyers® Recognizes 45 White and Williams Lawyers
September 25, 2023 —
White and Williams LLPThirty-two White and Williams lawyers were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® 2024. Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers® employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services.
In addition, thirteen lawyers were recognized as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. This recognition is given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States.
The firm is also pleased to announce Best Lawyers® has recognized
Christopher P. Leise as a 2024 "Lawyer of the Year" for Litigation – Insurance in Cherry Hill, NJ. Chris works with regional and national brokerage firms defending professional liability claims and handling disputes with insurance companies throughout the mid-Atlantic region, as well as with commercial insurance carriers defending allegations of bad faith.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
The Almost-Collapse of a Sarasota, Florida Condo Building
July 11, 2021 —
Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ StaffFive years ago, residents of the Dolphin Tower in Sarasota, Florida were forced to evacuate after cracks appeared in their fourth-floor condominium units.
“My assistant calls me and says, ‘[Kris] thinks the building is falling down,’” David Karins of Karins Engineering told Sarasota Magazine. “I said, ‘I doubt that.’ Then I got there and saw what was going on and I said, ‘You know, the building may be falling down.’”
In July of 2010, city officials ordered all residents to evacuate. Five years and $11 million dollars in rehabilitation and residents were finally able to move back in last month.
The Herald-Tribune had previously interviewed John Bonacci, an engineer at Sarasota’s Karins Engineering: “I’d say yes, there was grave danger. It was luck that it didn’t come all the way down. Getting shoring in there quickly was instrumental in preventing it from collapsing.”
Read the full story, Sarasota Magazine...
Read the full story, Herald-Tribune...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homeowner’s Claims Defeated Because “Gravamen” of Complaint was Fraud, not Breach of Contract
September 29, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogBe careful what you wish for or, as in the next case, what you plead. In Vera v. REL-BC, LLC, Case Nos. A155807, A156823, and A159141 (June 30, 2021) 1st District Court of Appeal, a the buyer of a remodeled home who asserted breach of contract and fraud claims against a developer discovered that her claims, including her breach of written contract claim, was subject to a shorter 3 year statute of limitations because the “gravamen” of her complaint was fraud.
The REL-BC Case
Homeowner Adriana Vera purchased a remodeled home in Oakland, California from developers REL-BC, LLC and SNL Real Estate Solutions, LLC. The developers had purchased the home in July 2011, remodeled it, and sold it to Vera in November 2011.
As is typical in such transactions, the purchase agreement for the house required that the sellers disclose known material facts and defects affecting the property. In their disclosure, the sellers stated that they were not aware of any significant defects or malfunctions with respect to the property. The disclosure also stated that the sellers were not aware of any water intrusion issues with respect to the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Michigan Finds Coverage for Subcontractor's Faulty Work
August 24, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Michigan Supreme Court held that under a CGL policy, an "accident" may include unintentional subcontractor work that damages the insured's work product. Skanska USA Building Inc. v. M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors, Inc., et al., 2020 Mich. LEXIS 1194 (Mich. June 29, 2020).
Skanska USA Building Inc. was the construction manager on a renovation project for a medical centre. The heatng and cooling portion of the project was subcontracted to M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors, Inc. (MAP). MAP installed a steam builder and piping for the heating system. The installation included several expansion joints. After completion, Skanska learned that MAP had installed some of the expansion joints backward. This caused significant damage to concrete, steel and the heating system. The medical center sent a demand letter to Skanska, who send a demand letter to MAP. Skanska did the repairs and replacement of the damaged property. Skanska then submitted a claim of $1.4 million for its work to Amerisure Insurance Company. The claim was denied.
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
