Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Depreciation Claims
September 23, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's motion to dismiss claims for improper claims handling when considering implementation of depreciation was denied. Morrison v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co, et al., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115664 (S. D. W. Va. July 1, 2024).
Plaintiff's home suffered flood damage. The house was insured by Indian Harbor a surplus lines carrier that offered specialized and high risk property policies in West Virginia. Surplus lines policies were procured in West Virginia through a "surplus lines licensee." Here, Neptune Flood Inc. was the surplus lines licensee broker for Indian Harbor. Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc. was an administrator and loss adjuster involved in the claim.
After the flood, Plaintiff notified defendants of the damage and immediately cleaned and repaired the house. Plaintiff asserted that Neptune was given notice of the loss and one of its agents made recommendations regarding the coverage available and conveyed the information to Peninsula and Indian Harbour. Plaintiff claimed that defendants misrepresented his policy coverage and made incorrect adjustments for depreciation based on Neptune's statements and recommendations.
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
California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive
March 19, 2014 —
David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLPThe California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair.
Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case.
But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy.
The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes.
Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com.
Published courtesy of
David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How To Lock Disputes Out Of Your Project In Construction
July 22, 2019 —
Anastasios Koutsogiannis – LetsBuildDisputes are seen as one of the main threats for the successful completion of a project in construction. There is a plethora of factors which could lead to a construction dispute (e.g. contracts, behavior, environment) but, strangely enough, the industry seems to invest more attention on the resolution of a conflict instead of its prevention.
Thanks to the progress that digital technologies have witnessed during the last few years, there is a good chance that things in construction will change for the better soon. The ability to exchange crucial updates in real time, while keeping a detailed record of everything that happens on the field adds an extra level of protection to your project and ensures that all agents are on the same page.
In an effort to shed some light on the issue of construction disputes, we present below four tips that could help your team to lock conflicts out of your project:
1. Standardize your processes
Before you kickstart your project, it is of paramount importance that you standardize all your systems and processes. In that way, you will be able to add extra clarity to your workflow and eliminate misunderstandings.
Once you have achieved that, you can replicate the same process to your future projects. The more you manage to repeat the same project structure the better your team will become in completing their tasks without ending up in any kind of conflict.
In that sense, standardization could be a long-term investment for your organization.
2. Go digital
As soon as your processes are defined, it is time for the digital journey to begin. Finding the right tool for your project will result in a streamlined construction process where all the members of the team are on the same page without any room for costly mistakes or disagreements.
Furthermore, with the help of digital solutions it becomes easier for project managers to measure the performance on site and monitor the completion of the set benchmarks. Like that, all payments will be on time and the program of the project will reflect reality.
3. Be extra careful with the contracts
A poorly-written contract can have a big impact on the effort to lock disputes out of your construction project. While putting together a new contract, you should always make sure that you have taken into account all the different scenarios for your project.
Either that is a delay due to weather conditions or an accident on site everything should be described in detail in the contracts and be well understood by those in charge.
In any other case, things can get a bit risky and a costly dispute might wait to happen.
4. Hold regular meetings with all stakeholders
Last but certainly not least, meet regularly with all project stakeholders. The frequent contact with the different members of your team will allow you to discuss and resolve any problematic situations before they grow out of proportion.
What is more, regular meetings will help both your field teams and the people in the office to remain aligned and will eliminate the possibility of having people working on outdated versions of the program.
Of course, these meetings don’t need to be time-consuming or even in person. With the help of technology, you can keep these meetings short and to the point. In that manner, everybody involved will be able to get the most out of them.
Final word
All in all, it becomes clear that locking disputes out of your project in construction requires continuous work and a carefully-elaborated plan. Thankfully, the emergence and progress of digital solutions have made this process much easier contributing significantly to the development of the industry far from disputes and project misunderstandings.
About the author: Anastasios Koutsogiannis is Content Marketing Manager at LetsBuild.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anastasios Koutsogiannis, LetsBuild
Texas Supreme Court Finds Payment of Appraisal Award Does Not Absolve Insurer of Statutory Liability
April 19, 2021 —
Allison Griswold & Sarah Smith - Lewis BrisboisThe Texas Supreme Court recently published its long-awaited decision in the Hinojos v. State Farm Lloyds. In it, the court affirmed its holding in Barbara Technologies, finding that payment of an appraisal award does not absolve an insurer of statutory liability when the insurer accepts a claim but pays only part of the amount it owes within the statutory deadline, and a policy holder can proceed with an action under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act.
In 2013, Louis Hinojos made a claim for storm damage to his home. State Farm’s initial inspection resulted in an estimate below the deductible, but Hinojos disagreed and requested a second inspection. At the second inspection, the adjuster identified additional damage resulting in a payment to Hinojos of $1,995.11. Hinojos then sued State Farm – and State Farm invoked appraisal approximately 15 months after suit was filed. The appraisal resulted in State Farm tendering an additional payment of $22,974.75. State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that timely payment of an appraisal award precluded prompt payment (or Chapter 542) damages. The trial court granted summary judgment and Hinojos appealed (notably Barbara Technologies had not yet been decided). The Court of Appeals affirmed State Farm’s victory on the basis that “State Farm made a reasonable payment on Hinojos’s claim within the sixty-day statutory limit….” Hinojos petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review.
Reprinted courtesy of
Allison Griswold, Lewis Brisbois and
Sarah Smith, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Griswold may be contacted at Allison.Griswold@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Smith may be contacted at Sarah.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument
February 08, 2021 —
Krsto Mijanovic, Peter A. Dubrawski, Arezoo Jamshidi & Catherine M. Asuncion - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn January 20, 2021, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six (Ventura), in Plascencia v. Deese (B299142), vacated a $30 million non-economic damages award in a highway fatality case because: (1) the award did not properly apportion non-economic damages among everyone at fault in violation of Proposition 51; and (2) the amount of the award appeared to have been influenced by plaintiffs’ counsel’s misconduct and prejudicial remarks during closing argument.
In Plascencia, the plaintiffs sued several defendants for the wrongful death of their daughter arising from a highway fatality accident. All the defendants settled or were dismissed before trial except the trucking defendants. The highway fatality was caused when one defendant driver made an illegal U-turn on a highway as she left another defendant’s fruit stand. The plaintiffs’ daughter swerved to avoid the U-turn driver, lost control of her car, and crashed into the back of the trucking defendants’ diesel tractor-trailer. The truck driver had parked the truck on the side of the highway near the fruit stand, which the trucking defendants’ expert conceded fell below the standard of care.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Peter A. Dubrawski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at casuncion@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida’s Citizens Property Insurance May Be Immune From Bad Faith, But Is Not Immune From Consequential Damages
July 15, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine, Andrea DeField & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA coverage dispute arising as a result of property damage from Hurricane Frances, which occurred in 2004, will continue following a Florida appellate court decision in an action brought against Citizens Property Insurance Corp.
The insureds, Manor House, LLC, Ocean View, LLC, and Merrit, LLC, presented a claim to Citizens for damage sustained at nine apartment buildings as a result of Hurricane Florence. After payments for a portion of the property damage were sustained, Citizens continued to dispute the full amount due. Meanwhile, the insureds suffered lost rental income because of the delay. Ultimately, the insureds filed suit against Citizens alleging, among other things, breach of contract and fraud, and sought to recover extra-contractual damages for loss of rental income due to the delay in adjusting and repairing the damaged property.
The trial court granted Citizens’ motion for partial summary judgment on several issues, including Citizens’ motion for partial summary judgment regarding appraiser and umpire fees; motion for partial summary judgment to prevent the insureds from pursuing a claim for extra-contractual, consequential damages; and motion for judgment on the pleadings on the insured’s claim for fraud.
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys
Michael S. Levine,
Andrea DeField and
Daniel Hentschel
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry
July 01, 2014 —
Chris Dolmetsch, Freeman Klopott and Jim Efstathiou Jr. – BloombergNew York’s cities and towns can block hydraulic fracturing within their borders, the state’s highest court ruled, dealing a blow to an industry awaiting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision on whether to lift a six-year-old statewide moratorium.
The case, closely watched by the energy industry, may invigorate local challenges to fracking in other states and convince the industry to stay out of New York even if Cuomo allows drilling. Pennsylvania’s highest court issued a similar ruling last year, striking down portions of a state law limiting localities’ ability to regulate drillers.
“This sends a really strong and clear message to the gas companies who have tried to buy their way into the state that these community concerns have to be addressed,” Katherine Nadeau, policy director for Environmental Advocates of New York, an anti-fracking group, said in a phone interview. “This will empower more communities nationwide.”
Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net; Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net; and Mr. Efstathiou Jr. may be contacted at jefstathiou@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch, Freeman Klopott and Jim Efstathiou Jr., Bloomberg
Re-Thinking the One-Sided Contract: Considerations for a More Balanced Approach to Contracting
November 21, 2022 —
William Underwood - ConsensusDocsConstruction projects can be inherently risky – often there are multiple parties (owners, architects, engineers, contractors, subcontractors, consultants, vendors, government officials, sureties, insurers, and many others), unforeseen site conditions, tangled supply chains, acts of God, inadequate funding, site safety matters, and a whole host of other issues that can make even a relatively straight-forward job complex. Parties necessarily want to minimize their individual risk to the greatest extent possible on construction projects. And to do so, they may seek to push as much risk as possible onto the other side through one-sided terms in their construction contract.
But is an entirely one-sided contract the best way to mitigate risk? In many instances, the answer is no. Every contract is different – and many considerations should be taken into account when drafting and negotiating contracts – but entirely one-sided can often have unintended consequences and create risks that otherwise might not exist in a contract that allocates and balances risk more equally across the parties.
This article reviews several considerations (although it is not an exhaustive list) for avoiding one-sided contracts, including some of the benefits created through the use of equitable contract clauses. And for context, some examples of one-sided contract clauses include no relief for other contractor/owner-caused delays; no relief for force majeure events; no relief for unforeseen site conditions; and broad form indemnification clauses (i.e. one party assumes the obligation to pay for another party’s liability even if the other party is solely at fault). Again, this is a non-exhaustive list, and many other standard contract provisions can be altered to become one-sided. But the general premise of a “one-sided contract clause” is that it shifts all risk, obligation, and liability to one party. And this article examines why that might not be the best idea.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Underwood, Jones Walker LLPMr. Underwood may be contacted at
wunderwood@joneswalker.com
