Rooftop Owners Sue Cubs Consultant for Alleged False Statements
January 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA disagreement over signage potentially blocking rooftop owner’s views has stalled Wrigley Field’s proposed $300 million renovation, reported the Chicago Tribune. However, a recently lawsuit filed between the two entities regarded allegedly false statements made by Marc Ganic, a Chicago sports business consultant, published in the Chicago Sun-Times: “In the story, Ganis is quoted as saying the rooftop clubs were ‘stealing’ the Cubs product for their own profit,” according to the Chicago Tribune.
The rooftop owners claimed in the suit that “they have a contractual arrangement with the team that allows them to sell tickets to people who want bird’s-eye views of the game.” The Chicago Tribune attempted to contact Ganis for comment, but he “did not return several messages.”
The rooftop owners and the Cubs entered into a “20-year agreement in 2004 in which the rooftop owners pay the Cubs 17 percent of the team's yearly profits in exchange for unobstructed views into the ballpark,” according to ESPN. “The Cubs dispute that notion, however, contending the unobstructed views were guaranteed through the landmarking of the bleachers not with the agreement they have with the rooftop owners.”
Business president Crane Kenney explained to ESPN that the city council amended the landmarking rule for the field: “[The council has] now recognized the outfield is not a historic feature. And above a 10-foot level we can have signage. That was the big win last summer, among many. That's what the rooftops would contest.”
According to ESPN the Cubs will not start the renovation project until they have an agreement with the rooftop owners “that includes a guarantee not to sue the Cubs for breach of contract, which would delay construction.”
Read the full story at the Chicago Tribune...
Read the full story at ESPN... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”
Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”
The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”
Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”
In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”
The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”
The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”
The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Green Energy Can Complicate Real Estate Foreclosures
November 30, 2016 —
Bob L. Olson – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogA quick drive through almost any newer residential community in the Southwest will show that a lot of residents are embracing “Green Energy” or renewable energy by placing solar panels on their properties. While most people would agree that increasing the use of alternative energy is socially responsible, there are a number of real estate investors that may view it as an opportunity to make additional profits by purchasing distressed properties with solar panels and then reselling those properties for more than they would be worth without solar panels. The theory is relatively straight forward as many believe that foreclosure of a deed of trust that was recorded before the solar panels were installed would extinguish any liens in favor of the vendor that sold or financed the sale of the solar panels. After all, it is generally held that “a valid foreclosure of a mortgage terminates all interest in the foreclosed real estate that are junior to the mortgage being foreclosed.” See SFR Investments Pool 1, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 75, 334 P.3d 408, 412 (2014) (quoting Restatement (Third) of Property, Mortgages §7.1 (1997)).
NOT SO FAST! While the general rule is that foreclosure of a senior lien terminates junior liens, most purveyors of solar panels do not encumber the property with mortgages or deeds of trust to secure payment of amounts they are owed. Rather, they typically either lease the solar panels to the property owner or secure repayment of the purchase price of the solar panels with a fixture filing under the Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bob L. Olson, Snell & WilmerMr. Olson may be contacted at
bolson@swlaw.com
As California Faces Mandatory Water Use Reductions How Will the Construction Industry be Impacted?
May 07, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogEarlier this month, Governor Jerry Brown issued Executive Order B-29-15, which imposes mandatory water use reductions for the first time in the history of California.
The Executive Order, issued as the state enters its fourth year of severe to exceptional drought, directs the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) to impose a 25% reduction on the state’s 400 local water supply agencies which serve 90% of California residents, over the coming year.
The State Water Board has already issued proposed regulations based on informal comments received from the public, and in a “Fact Sheet” issued this weekend, has indicated that it is seeking additional informal comments no later than April 22, 2015, with final proposed emergency regulations to be released on April 28, 2015, which will then be considered by the State Water Board at its meetings on May 5 and 6, 2015.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Tender the Defense of a Lawsuit to your Liability Carrier
January 19, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesSometimes you come across a head scratcher. This would be a decision that does not seem to make a whole lot of sense. For instance, if you are sued and you maintain liability insurance that would potentially provide you a defense and indemnification, not notifying your insurance carrier is a head scratcher. You pay substantial dollars towards the premium of that policy. So, not then notifying your carrier about a lawsuit is a head scratcher, and I mean a head scratcher!! If you are sued, not only should the carrier be notified, but the defense of that lawsuit should be tendered to your liability carrier.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Blockbuster Breakwater: Alternative Construction Method Put to the Test in Tampa Bay
August 14, 2023 —
Scott Judy - Engineering News-RecordOn June 7, 2023, Tampa Bay news reporters trekked to the Sunshine Skyway bridge for a Florida Dept. of Transportation press conference that would explain the mystery behind the hundreds of curiously shaped concrete structures lining nearly the entire length of the span’s mile-plus-long south fishing pier access road.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Resulting Loss Provision Does Not Salvage Coverage
April 06, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court confirmed that there was no coverage for damage to the policyholder's building caused by a large volume of water. Praetorian Ins. Co. v. Arabia Shrine Ctr. Houston, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20186 (S.D. Texas Feb. 19, 2016).
The damage occurred when water began seeping through the baseboards of the Shrine. Employees saw a large amount of water entering the building. Eventually, the city shut off a water main valve. It was later determined that an 8 inch diameter fire suppression metal pipe failed at the elbow, causing over one million gallons of water to be released into the building. Damages were estimated at nearly $1.7 million. Clean up and repair costs amounted to $237,156.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Washington, DC’s COVID-19 Eviction Moratorium Expires
August 23, 2021 —
Zachary Kessler, Amanda G. Halter & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThroughout the COVID-19 pandemic, federal and local governments have adopted varying moratoria on evictions, enacted as emergency legislative protections for tenants facing eviction. The federal moratorium on eviction, promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is set to expire on July 31. While the Supreme Court recently left the moratorium in place, the Court signaled that it would likely be held unconstitutional if extended and challenged again. With the sole federal moratorium expiring, state and local protections may remain in effect; however, many of these local orders are also beginning to expire. Washington, DC’s eviction moratorium, one of the most tenant-friendly pieces of emergency legislation in the country, is one such example, beginning a phaseout process that allows the pace of evictions to slowly begin throughout 2021 before a final legislative sunset in February 2022.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council of the District of Columbia and Mayor Muriel Bowser enacted a series of public health emergency legislation. Under the Coronavirus Omnibus Emergency Amendment Act of 2020, the Council put a pause on evictions for nonpayment of rent or violations of lease provisions, prohibiting landlords from filing a complaint to evict a tenant who detained “possession of real property without right” or whose “right to possession has ceased.” Under the moratorium, the Council effectively banned residential evictions, unless a court found that a tenant had performed an “illegal act” within the rental unit, that the tenant was causing undue hardship on the health, welfare, and safety of other tenants or neighbors, or that the tenant had abandoned the premises. The moratorium and other tenant-protections were initially set to remain in place indefinitely, expiring 60 days after the end of Mayor Bowser’s declared COVID-19 emergency period.
Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and
Adam Weaver, Pillsbury
Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
