President Trump’s Infrastructure Plan Requires a Viable Statutory Framework (PPP Statutes)[i]
April 13, 2017 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCAlthough we live in a politically-divided nation, there is one issue on which there seems widespread agreement: our country requires a massive upgrade to its infrastructure. Rundown airports, crumbling highways, obsolete ports, and dangerous bridges are now endemic across the United States. By contrast, Asian airports and elegant European bridges and rails show that our country needs an upgrade, the cost of which will be enormous.
President Trump promised to revitalize America’s aging roads, bridges, railways, and airports. He chose Wilbur Ross for Commerce Secretary and professor of Conservative Economics and Public Policy, Peter Navarro, to formulate an infrastructure plan. Navarro and Ross recommended that the government allocate $137 billion in tax credits for private investors who underwrite infrastructure projects. They estimate that over the next ten years, the credits could spur $1 trillion in investments. That is how much President Trump promised to spend on infrastructure, a key part of his job-creation plan.
His plan involves building the infrastructure with private-money financing. Public Private Partnerships (“PPP”) are not a new concept and have been successful in Canada, Europe, and various U.S. states who have pioneered this method of procurement. Federal tax credits have been used to spur private investment in housing, resulting in tens of thousands of low-income housing developments over the years. The credits are sold to private entities such as banks and equity firms that invest anywhere from $.70 to $1.10 in housing developments for every dollar they receive in credits, a ratio that fluctuates with economic conditions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
Colorado Court of Appeals to Rule on Arbitrability of an HOA's Construction Defect Claims
November 20, 2013 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn October 24, 2013 the Colorado Court of Appeals granted a rare interlocutory appeal in a multi-family residential construction defect case. The Court of Appeals accepted the case ofTriple Crown at Observatory Village Association, Inc. v. Village Homes of Colorado, Inc.(2013 WL 5761028) as an interlocutory appeal after the parties briefed and obtained rulings from the trial court that compelled the case to binding arbitration in lieu of a jury trial on all issues. The appellate decision of October 24, 2013 did not decide the merits of the case, but discussed the issues to be decided in the eventual merits decision. The significance of the issues presented and the interlocutory nature of this appeal both make this case worth watching for further appellate proceedings.
The core issue in this appeal was the applicability of Colorado’s Uniform Arbitration Act (C.R.S. § 13-22-201, et seq.), based on recorded Declarations filed by the developer. The Declarations mandated that the HOA arbitrate any design/construction disputes with the developer. Immediately prior to suit, the Association sought to amend the Declarations in order to avoid the arbitration process for these claims. The interlocutory appellate issues resulted from the trial court’s order compelling the arbitration over the objections of the Association.
The trial court’s decision was based on a reading of the Colorado Revised Non-Profit Corporation Act (“CRNPC,” at C.R.S. § 7-127-107), which was found applicable to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
Jury Awards 20 Million Verdict Against Bishop Abbey Homes
April 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA Rockwall County, Texas “jury has awarded a $20.8 million verdict against a Dallas homebuilder for performing substandard work on a local family's home and refusing to accept responsibility,” according to a press release published in The Wall Street Journal.
The lawsuit alleged that “the defendants were aware that the site of the Hales' future Highpoint Lake Estates home had significant foundation defects before construction began. The Hales said Mr. Halsey later promised that his company would take responsibility by fixing the structural defects that arose after construction, but he reneged and refused to repair the problems.”
The award included “damages for the cost of repairs, lost value and additional penalties based on Mr. Halsey's actions and the defendants' ‘grossly negligent’ conduct, including violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The jury award includes attorneys' fees for the Hales' legal team.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Before and After the Storm: Know Your Insurance Rights, Coverages and Obligations
October 04, 2021 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThis year, like last, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts an extremely active hurricane season. As we write this alert, the Gulf Coast, Mid-Atlantic, New York, and New England regions are just now realizing the devastation Ida has left in her path.
Now is the time to ensure your insurance program is hurricane-ready. In this client alert, our insurance coverage team provides critical steps that you should take now to ensure that you protect your assets and maximize recovery in the unfortunate event of a hurricane claim.
Know Your Coverage: What Does Your Policy Say and Where Can It Be Found?
Obtain copies of your relevant property insurance forms and read them now. Knowing your coverage, even on a general level, will help you anticipate the immediate steps to take following a loss, including how to notify your insurer of losses to your covered property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth
Leveraging the 50-State Initiative, Connecticut and Maine Team Secure Full Dismissal of Coverage Claim for Catastrophic Property Loss
March 23, 2020 —
Regen O'Malley - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogOn behalf of Gordon & Rees’ surplus lines insurer client, Hartford insurance coverage attorneys Dennis Brown, Joseph Blyskal, and Regen O’Malley, with the assistance of associates Kelcie Reid, Alexandria McFarlane, and Justyn Stokely, and Maine counsel Lauren Thomas, secured a full dismissal of a $15 million commercial property loss claim before the Maine Business and Consumer Court on January 23, 2020. The insured, a wood pellet manufacturer, sustained catastrophic fire loss to its plant in 2018 – just one day after its surplus lines policy expired.
Following the insurer’s declination of coverage for the loss, the wood pellet manufacturer brought suit against both its agent, claiming it had failed to timely secure property coverage, as well as the insurer, alleging that it had had failed to comply with Maine’s statutory notice requirements. The surplus lines insurer agreed to extend the prior policy several times by endorsement, but declined to do so again. Notably, the insured alleged that the agent received written notice of the non-renewal prior to the policy’s expiration 13 days before the policy’s expiration. However, the insured (as well as the agent by way of a cross-claim) asserted that the policy remained effective at the time of the loss as the insured did not receive direct notice of the decision not to renew coverage and notice to the agent was not timely. Although Maine’s Attorney General and Superintendent intervened in support of the insured’s and agent’s argument that the statute’s notice provision applied such that coverage would still be owed under the expired policy, Gordon & Rees convinced the Court otherwise.
At issue, specifically, was whether the alleged violation of the 14-day notice provision in Section 2009-A of the Surplus Lines Law (24-A M.R.S. § 2009-A), which governs the “cancellation and nonrenewal” of surplus lines policies, required coverage notwithstanding the expiration of the policy. The insured, the agent, and the State of Maine intervenors argued that “cancellation or nonrenewal” was sufficient to trigger the statute’s notice requirement, and thus Section 2009-A required the insurer to notify the insured directly of nonrenewal. In its motion to dismiss, Gordon & Rees argued on behalf of its client that Section 2009-A requires both “cancellation and nonrenewal” in order for the statute to apply. Since there was no cancellation in this case – only nonrenewal – Gordon & Rees argued that Section 2009-A is inapt and that the insurer is not obligated to provide the manufacturer with notice of nonrenewal. Alternatively, it argued that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and unenforceable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Regen O'Malley, Gordon & ReesMs. O'Malley may be contacted at
romalley@grsm.com
No Coverage For Wind And Flood Damage Suffered From Superstorm Sandy
July 27, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the policy's anti-sequential clause barred coverage for damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. Estate of Doerfler v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2020 N.J. Sup. Unpub. LEXIS 920 (May 14, 2020).
The insureds held identical homeowners policies from Chubb and Federal Insurance Company. Damage resulting from flood was not covered. The policies' "surface water exclusion" stated,
[W]e do not cover any loss caused by: flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of water from a body of water . . . or spray from any of these even if driven by wind.
The insureds also had separate flood insurance policies, insuring the structure of each home for $250,000.
Superstorm Sandy created wind gusts as high as eighty miles per hour. A severe storm surge caused tides to rise between nine and eleven feet. The storm surge caused surface water to flood onto plaintiffs' properties and their homes ultimately collapsed.
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
Finding Insurer's Declaratory Relief Action Raises Unsettled Questions of State Law, Case is Dismissed
November 05, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court for the District of Hawaii dismissed the insurer's action for declaratory relief because it raised issues that were unsettled by Hawaii courts. Association of Apartment Owners of Lahaina Residential Condominium, et al., No. 1-24-cv-00075-JAO-BMK, Order Granting AOAO's Motion to Dismiss (D. Haw. Aug. 29, 2024).
The case addressed whether a property damage exclusion barred coverage over an owner's claim that a condominium association and its property manager failed to obtain adequate insurance before the condominium's property was damaged by the Maui wildfire in August 2023. Great American filed suit seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the Association and the property manage, Quam Properties Hawaiiana, Inc., in connection with a demand for mediation submitted to the Association and Quam on behalf of one of the owners.
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
Limitations on the Ability to Withdraw and De-Annex Property from a Common Interest Community
October 10, 2013 —
Derek Lindenschmidt — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.On February 28, 2013, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion with regard to the ability of an owner (and in this case, a real estate investment owner) to withdraw and de-annex lots from a common interest community. Specifically, in Vista Ridge Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Arcadia Holdings at Vista Ridge, LLC, 300 P.3d 1004 (Colo. App. 2013), the Court denied Arcadia’s appeal of a lower Colorado District Court ruling which invalidated Arcadia’s attempt to withdraw and de-annex 70 single-family lots which it owned from the 94-lot Vista Ridge Filing No. 9.
The applicable Declaration reserved the right to withdraw or de-annex any portion of the community in accordance with the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA), and further limited such right to the extent that “no portion of the Property may be withdrawn or de-annexed after a Lot or Unit in that portion of the Property has been conveyed to an Owner other than a Declarant or a Builder.”
The decision ultimately turned on the meaning of a “portion” of the property, as intended by CCIOA, and as applied to the specific language in the Vista Ridge Declaration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Derek LindenschmidtDerek Lindenschmidt can be contacted at
lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com
