Hollywood Legend Betty Grable’s Former Home for Sale
June 30, 2014 —
Catherine Sherman – BloombergWhen it comes to Old Hollywood stars, Betty Grable was “the girl with the million-dollar legs.” She also lived in a million-dollar home just four blocks from the Hotel Bel-Air.
Located at 1280 Stone Canyon Rd, the house is currently on the market for $13.295 million.
“It’s a classic, Hollywood estate,” said listing agent Bjorn Farrugia of Hilton & Hyland. “It’s very picturesque — set back on one of the best streets in Bel-Air.”
Grable moved in after the home was built in 1937, the same year she married actor Jackie Coogan (aka “Uncle Fester” in the 1960s sitcom The Addams Family). Soon after, in 1939, the couple appeared in “Million Dollar Legs,” a movie giving rise to the actress’ nickname.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Catherine Sherman – Bloomberg
Endorsement Excludes Replacement of Undamaged Property with Matching Materials
August 20, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court approved the insurer's endorsement which stated the insured would not pay for undamaged property in order to match damaged property. Noonan v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15545 (May 24, 2019).
After hail and wind damaged part of the roof in the insureds' home, American Family inspected the roof and determined that it had suffered $12,000 in damage. The insureds disputed this amount and demanded an appraisal to provide a binding estimate of the amount of loss. American Family asked the appraisers to divide their estimate into two categories - one for replacing damaged shingles and another for replacing undamaged shingles that would not match those needed to replace the damaged ones. The appraisers did not do so. They instead found that replacing the entire roof would cost $141,000 and noted there was a matching issue because alternative products did not match the current shingles on the roof.
Of the $141,000 needed to replace the entire roof, American Family estimated that $87,232.98 was due to the costs of matching. The insureds sued. The district court remanded the case to the appraisers to clarify the award by differentiating the costs attributable to the actual roof damage from those attributable to shingle matching. The appraisers clarified the award and reported that actual damages were $66,619, meaning that $74,381 was attributable to matching. American Family then paid the actual damages, less the deductible, but refused to pay the rest.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent
January 28, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed when a liability policy was triggered for ongoing property damage. The Court also declined to apply the multiple trigger theory. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. John, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3313 (Pa. Dec. 15, 2014).
In 2002, Appellants, co-owners of a dairy farm, expanded the size of their dairy herd and milking facility. Appellants hired LPH Plumbing to install a new plumbing system, which would include a wastewater drainage system and a separate freshwater drinking system. LPH Plumbing subcontracted with Stoltzfus Welding to weld metal pipes leading to a holding tank for the new freshwater drinking system. Construction was completed in July 2003.
Unknown to Appellants, the plumbing system was defective when dairy operations began. PVC piping for the wastewater was cracked, allowing "gray water" to escape. Further Stoltzfus failed to properly weld an intake pipe leading to a holding tank that formed a part of the freshwater drinking system for the dairy herd. Consequently, Appellants' herd was exposed to contaminated drinking water shortly after dairy operations began in July 2003.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?
November 19, 2021 —
Michael T. Kennedy Jr. - BERDING|WEILOne of the most common features in construction defect cases is the Case Management Order (“CMO”) or Pre-Trial Order (“PTO”) to govern pre-trial and mediation procedures. CMOs and PTOs arose in the days when the HOA would sue the developer, the developer would cross-complaint against the subcontractors, and each defendant and cross-defendant might have 2 or 3 insurance carriers defending, each of whom may retain their own panel counsel. In a large case there may have been 20 parties and 30 defense attorneys. In order to avoid the cost and chaos of all of those parties propounding their own discovery, and in order to prepare these cases for mediation well before trial and the associated costs, it became standard practice in California to include provisions in the CMO to stay all discovery until just before trial.
Plaintiff would provide a Defect List or Statement of Claims and the parties experts would meet and exchange information as part of the mediation process. All of the information exchanged would be subject to mediation privileges and inadmissible at trial. The benefit of this practice was that the parties (and carriers) would avoid the cost of formal discovery and allow the experts to discuss compromised scopes of repair to help settle the case while being able to take a more aggressive position at trial. The disadvantages are that each party uses its privileged initial expert reports to stake out negotiating positions more extreme than what they would put on at trial, with each side losing credibility with the other in assessing the value of the case, and for those cases that did not settle, the parties would be faced with having to do all of the depositions and discovery in the last 60 days, or delaying trial, or both.
Over the last 10 or 15 years with the advent of wrap-up insurance policies, these cases now usually involve 2 sides instead of 20; only the HOA and the developer remain in the case. However, old habits die hard, and the standard CMO/PTO hasn’t evolved with other aspects of these cases. The practice of staying all discovery and exchanging information only under mediation privileges remains, and as a result insurance carriers don’t receive the admissible evidence that they need to determine coverage and evaluate the real settlement value of the case until just before trial. On the plaintiff’s side, if most of the experts’ work is done under the guise of mediation privilege, those costs may not be recoverable. Outside the context of mediation, costs incurred in investigation of the defects and preparation of a scope and cost of repair are recoverable.
This reflexive claim of mediation privilege over all information exchanged during the case has outlived its usefulness. The CMO can and should remain to regulate formal discovery and to help the parties prepare for mediation, but regulated discovery should be opened early in the case. In California, the SB800 process already provides for the exchange of admissible information during the prelitigation right to repair process. Continuing that exchange during the early litigation allows the parties to continue to prepare for mediation, but waiving privileges had advantages for both sides.
A senior claims manager once commented that Plaintiff’s mediation-protected Statement of Claims “might as well be a stack of blank paper” for all of its usefulness to the carrier in assessing the value of the case. If the Plaintiff and it expects are free to inflate their claims early in the case without having to worry about every supporting those claims in front of a jury, they have little or no credibility. And if those claims are inflated or not “real,” not only can the carrier not properly assess the verdict range and settlement value of the case, but it may also be hampered in making a coverage determination. Simply put, if the exchange of real information through formal discovery is put off until just before trial, the defense cannot be ready to settle until then. Worse, the cost of defense goes through the roof in the last 60 days before trial as the lawyers’ scramble to take all of the depositions and to all of the other work that had been stayed for the previous year or two.
The Plaintiff is faced with the same question of credibility of defense experts where they are free to take a “low ball” negotiating position without having to support that position through cross-examination in front of the jury. Just as the carrier behind the defense attorney needs the Plaintiff’s “real” evidence to assess the claim, so does the HIOA Board of Directors behind the Plaintiff’s counsel. Additionally, in California as in most states, the cost of experts’ preparation for mediation may not be recoverable as costs or damages, but investigation of the defects and preparation of the scope and cost of repair is recoverable.
The biggest challenge is resolving construction defect claims for both sides is how to resolve these cases quickly while keeping costs under control. Practices that worked 20 years ago are no longer applicable with changes in insurance, and in light of some of the bad habits that arise when all of the information exchanged was confidential.
The CMO/PTO process can still be useful to regulate the discovery and mediation schedule given the volume of documents and other information to be exchanged but exchanging “real” information in a form that may come into evidence at trial should foster earlier resolution, resulting in cost savings for the parties. The CMO can provide for the parties to respond to controlled discovery, and the exchange of expert reports and potentially depositions can and should be done earlier in the case, well before the eve of trial. The parties can then assess the true value of each case and prepare for more substantive mediation without waiting until they are on the figurative courthouse steps.
Construction defect cases have a pattern, and it is tempting for busy lawyers to just put each case through the same algorithms that they have used for years. However, these cases have evolved and those of us handling these cases need to reevaluate our approach to these cases. Taking aggressive negotiating positions that no longer have any credibility with the other side has become counterproductive, and the exchange of real evidence earlier in the case would better serve our clients and carriers.
BERDING|WEIL is the largest and most experienced construction defect and common interest development law firm in California. For more information, please visit https://www.berding-weil.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael T. Kennedy Jr., BERDING|WEILMr. Kennedy may be contacted at
mkennedy@berdingweil.com
NY State Appellate Court Holds That Pollution Exclusions Bar Duty to Defend Under Liability Policies for Claims Alleging Exposure to PFAS
February 01, 2022 —
Robert F. Walsh & Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLPOn January 6, 2022, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, held that the “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion (SAPE) and “absolute” pollution exclusion (APE) in liability policies relieved two insurers of a duty to defend the insured-manufacturer in connection with claims alleging damages as a result of exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). See Tonoga, Incorporated v. New Hampshire Insurance Company, No. 532546, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105 (App. Div. 3rd Dep’t Jan. 6, 2022).
In Tonoga, starting in 1961, the insured and its predecessors owned and operated a manufacturing facility in Petersburg, New York that produced materials coated with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). Until 2013, the manufacturing process involved the use of PFOA and/or PFOS. In early 2016, excessive PFOA and/or PFOS concentrations were detected in Petersburg’s municipal water supply. Later that year, the New York Department of Environmental Conversation designated the insured’s facility a Superfund site, and the insured entered into a consent agreement that required it to assist in remedial measures. 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 105, at *1-2.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution
August 29, 2022 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWhile I have not performed exhaustive research into the origin of anti-concurrent causation (“ACC”) endorsements on insurance policies, or how or when they migrated from first-party property policies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, they have done so. The result for Colorado’s construction professionals may rear its ugly head as an unwelcome and surprise outright declination of coverage for construction defect claims.
ACC endorsements state that if there are two causes of damage: one of which is covered by a policy and one of which is not, the carrier can invoke the ACC endorsement to disclaim coverage for all of the damage. An exemplar ACC endorsement is ISO Form CG 21 67, entitled “Fungi or Bacteria Exclusion.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
State Supreme Court Cases Highlight Importance of Wording in Earth Movement Exclusions
June 21, 2017 —
Hannah E. Austin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company v. Chaber, the West Virginia Supreme Court recently
held that an insurance policy’s earth movement exclusion was unambiguous and applied to both manmade
and natural earth movement. The Court also found that a narrow “ensuing loss” exception to the exclusion
that provided coverage for glass breakage resulting from earth movement could not be extended to cover the
entire loss.
The Erie Insurance Property and Casualty Company (Erie) insured five commercial buildings owned by
Dmitri and Mary Chaber. One of the properties was damaged by a landslide, and the Chabers filed a claim
with Erie. Erie asserted that the loss was excluded from coverage because the policy excluded coverage for
losses caused by earth movement, which was defined to include earthquakes, landslides, subsidence of
manmade mines, and earth sinking (aside from sinkhole collapse), rising or shifting. The exclusion stated
that it applied “regardless of whether any of the above . . . is caused by an act of nature or is otherwise
caused,” and also contained an anti-concurrent causation clause. However, there was an exception for glass
breakage caused by earth movement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hannah E. Austin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Austin may be contacted at
hea@sdvlaw.com
Update Your California Release Provisions to Include Amended Section 1542 Language
April 02, 2019 —
Amy L. Pierce & William S. Hale, P.E. - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate BlogMost companies have been involved in a situation where they want to end their relationship with another company, or with an employee, and to permanently terminate their mutual obligations (e.g., a settlement agreement resolving end-of-project litigation). In 1992, a California Court of Appeals, in Winet v. Price, confirmed that upholding general releases is “in harmony… with a beneficial principle of contract law: that general releases can be so constructed as to be completely enforceable.”
In California, agreements with a release of claims (or s general release) include what is often referred to as a California Civil Code § 1542 waiver for the purpose of ensuring that the releasing party is consciously releasing both known and unknown claims that may be later discovered. Such a waiver provision generally confirms that the Releasing Party acknowledges that it understands and waives the provisions of Section 1542, followed by the quoted text of Section 1542 (typically in all capital letters).
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury and
William S. Hale, Pillsbury
Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Hale may be contacted at william.hale@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
