Architectural Firm Disputes Claim of Fault
May 27, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFLake-Flato Architects has disputed the arbitration panel’s conclusion that problems with the home of Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson were due to design flaws. The firm settled with the couple for $900,000, however the Idaho Mountain Express reports that David Lake said, “the settlement in the case in no way represents that Lake Flato was responsible for faulty design.” The Express reported that “the arbitrators found that problems at the home were attributable to design errors that did not take into account the cold winter climate of the Sun Valley area.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFRandall E. Presley was a homebuilder in Southern California for more than thirty years, acting as head of Presley Development Company from 1956 until selling the firm to Lyon Homes in 1987. The two companies merged in 1991 as the Presley Cos. Mr. Presley saw the need in the 1950s to provide people in Southern California with low- to medium-priced quality homes.
His firm built more than 160 communities and was among the ten largest homebuilding firms in the country, expanding beyond California. Mr. Presley was 93 when he succumbed to pneumonia. He is survived by a wife, three children, seven grandchildren, and 11 great-grandchildren.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses
April 20, 2020 —
James Hultz - Newmeyer DillionInsurers across the country are nearly universally denying claims for business interruption stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Those denials have in turn been met with swift litigation and potential legislative action. The first business interruption coverage lawsuit related to COVID-19 was filed in New Orleans on March 16. There are now no less than 13 such cases nationwide and many more are likely to follow. Further, legislatures in at least seven states are considering legislation that would, to varying degrees, mandate business interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, notwithstanding any seemingly contrary policy provisions.
From the early stages of the pandemic, we have consistently advised our clients to promptly notify their insurers of all COVID-19 related losses, even where coverage appeared uncertain. The deluge of coverage litigation and contemplated legislation could drastically alter how insurers handle COVID-19 claims. But policyholders who have failed to satisfy policy notice requirements could miss out on the benefits of those changes. Therefore, policyholders would be ill-advised to sit on the sidelines and wait it out.
Now, draft Federal legislation appears to add further impetus to instructions to “tender early.” The contemplated “Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020” would reportedly devote billions of dollars of federal funds through a Department of Treasury administered reinsurance program designed to offset losses sustained by insurers who actually pay business interruption losses. The legislation is still taking shape but would reportedly create “a Federal program that provides for a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease.” President Trump is also reportedly pressuring insurers to provide business interruption coverage. The massive influx of federal funds and pressure from the White House could encourage insurers to reconsider denials of COVID-19 business interruption claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Hultz, Newmeyer DillionMr. Hultz may be contacted at
james.hultz@ndlf.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2024 “Top Lawyers” in New York by Hudson Valley Magazine
July 15, 2024 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce four New York partners have been included in the 2024 edition of the Hudson Valley Magazine "Top Lawyers in the Hudson Valley in 2024.” This annual guide recognizes over 260 of the region's leading attorneys.
Lisa Shrewsberry, Hillary Raimondi and Jonathan Harwood are noted for their professional skills in the category of Professional Malpractice Non-Medical Defense and Copernicus “Cope” Gaza in the Insurance category.
Insurance:
Professional Malpractice Non Medical Defense:
- Jonathan R. Harwood
- Hillary J. Raimondi
- Lisa L. Shrewsberry
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
More (and Simpler) Options Under New Oregon Retention Law
October 21, 2024 —
Michael Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCSimilar to the changes made by the Washington Legislature last year, the Oregon Legislature recently changed its retention law. Oregon public works agencies and large commercial project owners are now required to accept surety bonds in lieu of withholding retainage on construction projects. There is also no longer a requirement to deposit retention funds in an interest-bearing escrow account.
The owner or public agency must accept the bond in lieu of retainage unless specific grounds exist. For example, public agencies must find there is “good cause” for rejection of the bond based on the “unique project circumstances. Private owners have less discretion to reject a bond and if the bond meets the statutory requirements, per ORS 701.435(1)(a) “the owner and lender shall accept” the bond “in lieu of all or any portion of the retainage…”
Courts have not analyzed when “good cause” exists for public agencies to reject bonds or exactly what will allow a private owner to reject a bond. However, an agency or owner cannot have a general policy to reject retention bonds. The statute does not provide next steps if the contractor disagrees with a decision to reject the bond. It may be necessary to proceed under the contract’s dispute resolution procedure or it may be more appropriate to take the issue directly to the courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Yelle may be contacted at
michael.yelle@acslawyers.com
Toward Increased Citizen Engagement in Urban Planning
November 14, 2018 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessDigitalization creates new opportunities for citizen engagement in urban planning. I gave a short presentation on the topic at the Digitalization in Urban Planning event in Helsinki.
The event was organized by CHAOS Architects, a tech company. Its AI cloud platform allows citizens to share ideas about their city and co-create it with their community. The platform contains engagement-driven applications and third-party APIs that process business intelligence for better interaction and decision-making.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIs an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action.
In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses.
The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085).
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Two Worthy Insurance Topics: (1) Bad Faith, And (2) Settling Without Insurer’s Consent
February 20, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, American Builders Insurance Company v. Southern-Owners Insurance Company, 56 F.4th 938 (11th Cir. 2023), is an insurer versus insurer case that touches on two important insurance topics: (1) common law bad faith against an insurance company, and (2) an insurer’s affirmative defense that an insured settled a claim without its consent. The Eleventh Circuit provides invaluable legal discussion on these topics that any insured (and an insured’s counsel) need to know and appreciate. While this article won’t go into the granular facts as referenced in the opinion, it will go into the law because it is the law the facts of a case MUST cater to and address.
In this case, a person performing subcontracting work fell from a roof without fall protection and became paralyzed from the waist down. The general contractor had a primary liability policy and an excess policy. The general contractor’s primary liability insurer investigated the accident and assessed the claim. The subcontractor’s liability insurer, which was the primary insurance policy (the general contractor was an additional insured for work the subcontractor performed for the general contractor), did little to investigate and assess the claim and then refused to pay any amount to settle the underlying claim or honor its defense and indemnity obligation to the general contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
