Fast-Moving Isaias Dishes Out Disruption in the Mid-Atlantic, Northeast
August 24, 2020 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordFar from the most powerful storm to strike the Eastern Seaboard, Hurricane Isaias nevertheless proved disruptive enough to rival some infrastructure impacts from Superstorm Sandy in 2012 while also raising concerns about the potential of additional doses of destruction arriving in the coming months.
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Electrical Subcontractor Sues over Termination
November 13, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFMillennium Plus, Inc. has sued the contractor for the Efrain A. Duran Water Treatment Plant Facility and Rio Grande City for failing to pay money due to them and terminating the contract. According to the lawsuit, Millennium is claiming that they are owed $161,781 for their work on the water treatment facility.
According to the city, the project’s contractor was “very unsatisfied with Millennium’s work.” Although the city disclaims any involvement, Millennium claims it was a “joint enterprise.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Attorneys' Fees Awarded as Part of "Damages Because of Property Damage"
October 07, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court for the district of Hawaii found that an arbitrator's award of attorneys' fees was part of the "damages because of property damage" and covered under a CGL policy. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of the Moorings v. Dongbu Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110283 (Aug. 18, 2016 D. Haw).
The Moorings AOAO was the named insured under the policy issued by Dongbu. Jo-Anne and Brent Braden, owners of a residential unit at the Moorings, filed a demand for arbitration against the AOAO. The Bradens alleged that the AOAO had failed to repair and maintain their lanai roof, which caused water damage to their unit. The arbitrator awarded the Bradens $6,103.49 in special damages, which was the amount they paid to repair their roof and interior damage. The arbitrator also awarded $85,644.30 in attorneys' fees and $8,515.91 in costs to the Bradens.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses
October 21, 2024 —
Edward M. Koch & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLPSeeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies.
While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and
Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor
December 20, 2012 —
HEATHER ANDERSON , HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELLJudge Paul King of the Douglas County District Court recently confirmed that subcontractors in residential construction owe an independent duty, separate and apart from any contractual duties, to act without negligence in the construction of a home in Colorado. See Order, dated September 7, 2010,
Sunoo v. Hickory Homes, Inc. et al., Case No. 2007CV1866; see also
Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041 (Colo. 1983);
A.C. Excavating v. Yacht Club II Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 114 P.3d 862 (Colo. 2005). He also verified that the holding in the
B.R.W. Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66 (Colo. 2004)[1] case does not prohibit general contractors, such as Hickory Homes, from enforcing a subcontractor’s independent duty to act without negligence in the construction of a home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.Ms. Anderson can be contacted at
anderson@hhmrlaw.com
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kahana & Feld P.C. Enhances Client Offerings, Expands Litigation Firm Leadership
March 22, 2017 —
Kahana & Feld, P.C.SANTA ANA, Calif., March 9, 2017 – Celebrating 10 successful years of practice, Managing Partner
Amir M. Kahana, Esq. , of Kahana & Feld P.C. (formally Kahana Law), is pleased to announce he has added as name partner
Jason Daniel Feld, Esq., expanding client offerings to include insurance defense and bolstering its construction defect and real estate law practice.
Feld joins the AV Preeminent firm that for the past decade has become known for its prowess in general business litigation matters, including cases involving employment, construction, real estate and intellectual property law. The firm is home to a group of proven trial attorneys who are among Southern California’s top rated counsel.
Feld brings 18 years of experience, with his practice focusing on defending homebuilders, contractors and developers in Arizona, Texas and California. He primarily chooses to represent smaller, family-owned and operated clients, providing the unique opportunity to also assist with overall best practices and risk prevention. In addition, Feld serves on several prominent insurance carrier panels, allowing him to cultivate valuable relationships with the builder and contactor community. A resident of Tustin Ranch, Feld received his juris doctor cum laude from Whittier Law School and a bachelor’s degree from University of Houston.
“Jason’s breadth of experience, leadership and work ethic are qualities I have admired throughout the many years of our friendship. He embodies the integrity and admirable character that are at the core of our firm’s fabric,” said Kahana, a resident of Irvine. “I am thrilled to have Jason join forces with our firm as we enter our second decade and are poised for significant growth. Our clients will benefit from our expanded areas of practice, allowing us to provide counsel and litigation support in a variety of areas.”
Under Kahana’s leadership, the firm has become known for holding its client relationships in the highest regard while providing premier quality legal services and sound risk assessment at a reasonable cost. With integrity always coming first, the firm’s record of success extends well beyond the office as each associate is proudly involved in his or her community, donating time and resources to a variety of worthy community organizations.
“I feel honored to join Amir and this talented and energetic firm,” said Feld. “I feel fortunate to have found a new home with partners and associates who share the same values and commitment to serving the community. I look forward to helping grow the firm in the years ahead.”
About Kahana & Feld, P.C.
Kahana & Feld, P. C. focuses on general business litigation and insurance defense, with particular emphasis on employment, real estate, construction defect and intellectual property litigation. The AV Preeminent firm is led by attorneys who have been named among Southern California’s Top Rated. The firm was founded with the goal of providing high-quality legal services at fair and reasonable rates. The firm believes that what defines attorneys is not their billing rates, but their record of success, and Kahana & Feld’s track record speaks for itself. For more information, please visit: http://www.kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage
March 09, 2020 —
Sally Kim & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019).
In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract.
However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and
Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com
Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
