Daiwa House to Invest 150 Billion Yen in U.S. Rental Housing
March 07, 2014 —
Kathleen Chu – BloombergDaiwa House Industry Co. (1925), Japan’s biggest homebuilder by market value, plans to invest 150 billion yen ($1.48 billion) in U.S. rental housing, three times more than it had aimed to allocate to overseas investments, to boost revenue.
Daiwa House will acquire and develop leasing properties in Texas and allocate the funds over the next three years, the Osaka-based company said in an e-mailed statement today. The homebuilder targets 50 billion yen of revenue in the U.S. by the year ending March 2019, it said.
Japan’s shrinking population has prompted the country’s homebuilders such as Daiwa House to seek new revenue sources. Texas is the most that Daiwa House is investing overseas for rental housing and compares with the 50 billion yen the company had announced for investments abroad in its mid-term plan in November.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kathleen Chu, BloombergMs. Chu may be contacted at
kchu2@bloomberg.net
Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties
June 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFNate Budde on the Construction Payment Blog, discussed the potential of mechanics liens, and the pitfalls that occur when not all necessary parties are named. Budde analyzed the case Johnson Controls Inc. v. Norair Eng’g Corp. that involved a “claimant’s failure to name all the necessary parties in his claim against a bond,” resulting “in the claimant losing his claim against the bond, and with it, an opportunity to get paid.”
Budde concluded, “Unfortunately, as was the case here, when the bond claim is not handled correctly procedurally, a party can be left with no recourse for payment. It’s important to understand which of the parties involved should be named in both mechanics lien claims and bond claims.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity
December 20, 2012 —
TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAIIIn
Pioneer Tower Owners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 NY3d 302 (2009), the New York Court of Appeals found an "earth movement" exclusion was ambiguous when applied to an excavation. The court now considered whether a similar exclusion, expressly made applicable to "man made" movement of earth, eliminated the ambiguity when loss was created by excavation.
Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012).
Plaintiff's building suffered cracks due to an excavation being conducted on the lot next door. A claim was submitted to Travelers, plaintiff's insurer. Travelers rejected the claim, relying on the earth movement exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy
July 25, 2022 —
Celestine Montague & Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLPOn June 9, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held, on summary judgment, that an insured was not entitled to coverage under a Professional Errors and Omissions (E&O) policy for loss allegedly resulting from a hacking incident. See Construction Fin. Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 19-0020, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103042 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022). Applying North Carolina and Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned that: (1) coverage was barred by the policy’s unauthorized computer access, or “breach,” exclusions; and (2) the insured violated a condition in the policy that required the insurer’s consent to settlements and the violation prejudiced the insurer.
The insured, Construction Financial Administration Services, Inc. (CFAS), was a third-party fund administrator for construction contractors. In April 2018, the CFAS received email requests from what it believed to be one of its clients, SWF Constructors (SWF), to disburse $1.3 million from an SWF account to a foreign company. CFAS authorized the payments, despite not having received a copy of any executed agreement between SWF and the foreign company. After the funds were disbursed, SWF advised that it had not authorized or requested the payments to the foreign company. In response, CFAS placed approximately $1.2 million of recovered and borrowed funds into the SWF disbursement account. SWF then sent a letter advising CFAS that the requests from the foreign company did not include documentation required under the contract between SWF and CFAS. It was later determined that the emails had been initiated by a fraudster who had gained unauthorized access to the sender’s email account.
Reprinted courtesy of
Celestine Montague, White and Williams LLP and
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Montague may be contacted at montaguec@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
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
Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York
May 29, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneNew York recently enacted legislation known as Carlos’ Law, which increases penalties for corporate liability for the death of, or serious injury to, an employee. The bill, S.621B / A.4947B, was named after Carlos Moncayo, a construction worker killed in a trench collapse on a New York City construction project. Moncayo’s employer repeatedly flouted safety rules and ignored warnings of dangerous conditions on its construction site before failing to properly support the trench that collapsed and killed Moncayo. Moncayo’s employer was convicted for his death, but the penalty was light. The company was sentenced to pay only $10,000, the maximum penalty at the time for any company convicted of a felony in New York State. The legislature responded with Carlos’ Law, which increases accountability for “employers,” and expands the scope of “employees” covered.
The corporate criminal law, NY Penal § 20.20(2)(c)(iv), imposes liability on an employer when “the conduct constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment and on behalf of the corporation, and the offense is . . . in relation to a crime involving the death or serious physical injury of an employee where the corporation acted negligently, recklessly, intentionally, or knowingly.” An “agent” of an employer is any “director, officer or employee of a corporation, or any other person who is authorized to act on behalf of the corporation.” § 20.20(a). An “employee” now includes any person providing labor or services for remuneration for a private entity or business within New York State without regard to an individual’s immigration status, and includes part-time workers, independent contractors, apprentices, day laborers and other workers. § 10.00 (22). The penalties for criminal corporate liability for the death or serious injury of an employee now include maximums of $500,000 when centered on a felony, and $300,000 when centered on a misdemeanor. § 80.10(1)(a) and (b).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole
July 30, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistArkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]
In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
When “Substantially Similar” Means “Fundamentally Identical”: Delaware Court Enforces Related Claim Provision to Deny D&O Coverage for Securities Class Action
August 10, 2021 —
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Lawrence J. Bracken II & Lorelie S. Masters - Hunton Andrews KurthA company faces two class action lawsuits—filed by different plaintiffs, complaining of different allegedly wrongful conduct, asserting different causes of action subject to different burdens of proof, and seeking different relief based on different time periods for the alleged harm. Those facts suggest the suits are not “fundamentally identical,” but that is what a Delaware Superior Court recently concluded in barring coverage for a policyholder seeking to recover for a suit the court deemed “related” to an earlier lawsuit first made outside the policy’s coverage period. First Solar Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. N20C-10-156 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. June 23, 2021). The decision, which is not on all fours with some of the authority upon which it relies, underscores the inherent unpredictability of “related” claim disputes and need for careful analysis of the policy language against the factual and legal bases of the underlying claims.
Underlying Shareholder Class Actions and D&O Claims
Shareholders of solar panel manufacturer First Solar sued the company and its directors and officers in a class action lawsuit (the “Smilovits Action”) for the class period April 2008 to February 2012. The Smilovits Action asserted federal securities violations arising from First Solar’s alleged misrepresentations about the company’s business strategies, product design, financial strength, and ability to offer solar electricity at comparable rates to conventional energy producers (i.e., achieving “grid parity”), artificially inflated stock price, insider trading, manipulation of solar power metrics, and violations of GAAP accounting standards. First Solar submitted a claim to its D&O insurer, National Union, which provided coverage for the Smilovits Action and exhausted the policy.
Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
