First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed
April 20, 2020 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn Monday, Oceana Grill, a restaurant in New Orleans, Louisiana, became the first to file a lawsuit over coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. The lawsuit, styled Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al. (La. Dist. Court, Orleans Parish), seeks a declaratory judgment that an “all risks” property insurance policy issued by Lloyd’s of London must cover losses resulting from the closure of the restaurant following an order by the Governor of Louisiana restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans’ order closing restaurants.
The Lloyds’ policy, like most first-party property insurance policies, affords coverage for business- interruption losses and contains an “extension of coverage in the event of the businesses closure by order of Civil Authority.” Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a declaration that “the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from Coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises.” Furthermore, according to the complaint, “[t]he policy does not provide any exclusion due to losses, business or property, from a virus or global pandemic.”
As the complaint implies, an important issue will be whether the novel coronavirus constitutes the requisite “direct physical loss or damage” under the policy. Understanding COVID-19, its manner of transmission and its ability to live beyond a host organism helps support a conclusion that COVID-19 does indeed amount to the required direct physical loss or damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses
June 01, 2020 —
Joseph M. Leone - ConsensusDocsAs everyone knows, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the construction industry due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schedules, productivity, safety processes, and seemingly everything else are being affected. In these difficult times, most contractors are making every effort to work together to solve the problems caused by COVID-19. But what happens when differences arise between project owners, contractors, and subcontractors as to the effect of COVID-19 on a project? One party may want to continue pushing the schedule, others may want to slow down, or, more likely, not be able to keep up with the original schedule because of some reason related to COVID-19. As between a prime contractor and a subcontractor, a mutual responsibility clause can provide some clarity or, unfortunately, depending on how the subcontract is written, confusion.
Almost all subcontracts have a clause which flows down the prime contractor’s obligations on a project to the subcontractor as applicable to the subcontractor’s work. Known as “flow-down” clauses, this clause works in one direction; obligations of the prime contractor “flow-down” to the Subcontractor. A mutual responsibility clause, in essence, works in both directions. The subcontractor is required to perform its obligations consistent with the prime contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor is granted the same rights against the prime contractor which the prime contractor has against the owner. Obligations flow down and rights flow up. The rights and obligations flowing through the prime contractor include, the obligation to perform the work in accordance with the plans and specifications, the obligation to meet the schedule constraints in the prime agreement, and the right to extensions of time and change orders to the extent the prime contractor obtains the same.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph M. Leone, Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLP Mr. Leone may be contacted at
jleone@dsvlaw.com
Price Escalation Impacts
August 22, 2022 —
Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogThis Bulletin provides guidance to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others to ensure compliance with contractual change order requirements in the event work on a construction project is impacted by price escalation.
Construction projects are being impacted by increased costs for most construction materials. The Producer Price Index shows a 69% increase in the cost of construction materials from March 2020 to March 2022. Many construction contracts do not address escalation or specifically exclude change orders for material escalation, leaving the risk of escalation of construction materials with the contractor, subcontractor, or suppliers.
Bid Protection Tips:
- Keep bids open for less than 30 days with a designated sunset date:
- Keeping your bids open for less than 30 days can help protect you from sudden changes in pricing and help maintain your bids’ competitive status.
- If asked to extend time a bid is open, reconfirm prices before agreeing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMs. Motta may be contacted at
dmotta@grsm.com
Enforceability of Contract Provisions Extending Liquidated Damages Beyond Substantial Completion
April 15, 2024 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverThis post takes a look at the enforceability of contract provisions providing for liquidated delay damages after substantial completion. Typically, the assessment of liquidated delay damages ends at substantial completion of a project. However, various standard form contracts, including some of the ConsensusDocs and EJCDC contracts, contain elections allowing for the parties to agree on the use of liquidated damages for failing to achieve substantial completion, final completion, or project milestones. The standard language in the AIA A201 leaves it up to the parties to define the circumstances under which liquidated damages will be awarded.
Courts are split on the enforceability of provisions that seek to assess liquidated damages beyond substantial completions. Courts in some jurisdictions will not impose liquidated damages after the date of substantial completion on the ground that liquidated damages would otherwise become a penalty if assessed after the owner has put the project to its intended use. Perini Corp. v. Greate Bay Hotel & Casino, Inc., 129 N.J. 479, 610 A.2d 364 (1992). When the terms are clear, other jurisdictions will enforce contract terms providing for liquidated damages until final completion, even if the owner has taken beneficial use of the facility. Carrothers Const. Co. v. City of S. Hutchinson, 288 Kan. 743, 207 P.3d 231 (2009).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute
February 07, 2018 —
Afua Akoto – SDV Case Alert In September 2017, a Texas Federal district judge ruled that that Personal and Advertising Injury coverage in a CGL policy did not require physical occupancy in a landlord-tenant dispute.
In the underlying lawsuit, restaurant owner Ziggy Gruber alleged that John Dunn, the landlord of a Houston shopping center, wrongfully interfered with his right of occupancy at the shopping center by failing to complete the negotiation of a lease and preventing his occupancy of the space. Gruber further alleged that he had acquired a direct interest in the premises and became a rightful tenant but as a result of Dunn’s interference, he was never able to open his restaurant.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Afua Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Ms. Akoto may be contacted at
asa@sdvlaw.com
Court Rules Planned Development of Banning Ranch May Proceed
June 10, 2015 —
Kristian B. Moriarty and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (filed 5/20/2015, No. G049691), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, held the Environmental Impact Report prepared by the City of Newport Beach for the partial development of Banning Ranch complied with California environmental protection statutes and local ordinances.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), a city desiring to approve or carry out a project that may have significant effect on the environment must prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) designed to provide the public with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project will have on the environment. The California Coastal Act of 1976 provides for heightened protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas (“ESHA”) defined as any “area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.”
In 2006, the City of Newport Beach adopted a General Plan for the physical development of the city. The plan specifically identifies Banning Ranch as having significant value as a wildlife habitat and open space resource for citizens. The general plan includes a primary goal of complete preservation of Banning Ranch as open space. To the extent the primary goal cannot be achieved, the plan identifies a secondary goal allowing limited development of Banning Ranch “to fund preservation of the majority of the property as open space.” The plan also requires the City to coordinate any development with the state and federal agencies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to Wilke Fleury’s 2023 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars!!
July 10, 2023 —
Wilke Fleury LLPWilke Fleury is extremely proud that 18 of its incredible attorneys have been selected as 2023 Northern California Super Lawyers or Rising Stars! Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process and publishes a yearly magazine issue that produces award-winning features on selected attorneys. Congratulations to this talented group:
Super Lawyers of 2023
David A. Frenznick
Steven J. Williamson
Matthew W. Powell
Daniel L. Egan
George A. Guthrie
Michael G. Polis
Daniel J. Foster
Stephen K. Marmaduke
Neal C. Lutterman
Trevor L. Stapleton
Ronald R. Lamb
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury LLP
Expansion of Statutes of Limitations and Repose in K-12 and Municipal Construction Contracts
March 27, 2019 —
Henry Bangert - Colorado Construction LitigationThe purpose of this whitepaper is to bring attention to a trend in K-12 and municipal construction contracts, which expands the time periods for law suits against construction professionals.
Introduction and Background
Under Colorado statute, the period of time within which a legal action for construction defects may be brought against a construction professional in Colorado is two years from when the claimant (or its predecessor in interest) discovers or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered the physical manifestations of a defect (the “Statute of Limitations”), but in no case may an action be brought more than six years after substantial completion of the improvement, unless the claim arises in the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion, in which event the action may be brought within two years of such date, i.e., up to eight years after substantial completion (the “Statute of Repose”). See C.R.S. § 13-80-104. While the triggering events differ for the Statute of Limitations and Statue of Repose, the periods are intended to run concurrently to limit the period of time an action may be brought against construction professionals for construction defects to, at most, eight years after substantial completion. Importantly, these limitations periods may be expanded by agreement.
Prior to 1986, Colorado law provided for a 10-year Statute of Repose. However, in 1986, Colorado’s legislature shortened the Statute of Repose time limit to the current six (or up to eight) year period. In 1986, Colorado also redefined the date the claim arises from the date the defect was discovered or should have been discovered to the date the physical manifestation of a defect was discovered or should have been discovered. Therefore, after 1986, the two-year limitations period could begin to run when a claimant should have discovered the manifestation of a defect, even if the claimant did not recognize that a defect existed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
