Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium
August 04, 2021 —
Zachary Kessler, Amanda G. Halter & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn a closely watched 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided against the challengers to the eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), keeping a stay in place that leaves the eviction ban in effect through July 31. The CDC has indicated it will not renew the eviction moratorium when it expires at the end of the month.
The CDC’s eviction moratorium was first adopted at the expiration of the CARES Act’s limited eviction protection for federally funded rental properties. The more broadly applicable order, extended under both the Trump and Biden administrations, prohibited landlords from evicting tenants unable to pay due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the tenant confirmed in writing that they had done their best to make any partial payment, were at risk of becoming homeless or having to move into unsafe group housing, and earn below a set income limit. The CDC extended the order most recently on June 24. In announcing that one-month extension, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky indicated that it would be the order’s final extension.
Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and
Adam Weaver, Pillsbury
Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chambers USA 2020 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm
June 15, 2020 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is once again recognized by Chambers USA as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the area of insurance law. In addition, four lawyers received individual honors – two for their work in insurance, one for his work in banking and finance and another for his work in commercial litigation.
White and Williams is acknowledged for its renowned practice offering expert representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for its notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters, complemented by its adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolution proceedings and is described as "reasoned and respectful." Chambers also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities, including handling data privacy, professional liability and toxic tort coverage claims as well as its experience in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. White and Williams' cross-disciplinary team is also highlighted, characterized for "work[ing] well together and provid[ing] exceptional representation."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not
April 15, 2024 —
Mason Fletcher - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe University of Washington (UW), a public university, aimed to secure a real estate developer for a new building on its campus. The proposal involved an 80-year ground lease (the “Lease”), and developers submitted bids. The selected developer would demolish an existing building, construct a new one, own it during the Lease at its own cost, and UW would lease back a portion, with ownership reverting to UW at the Lease’s end. Alexandria Real Equities, Inc. (ARE) was a finalist but ultimately was not selected, and the Lease was awarded to Wexford Science and Technology, LLC (Wexford). As a result, ARE filed suit against UW asserting three claims: 1) UW lacked authority to execute the Lease, 2) UW didn’t follow required competitive bidding procedures, and 3) UW’s developer selection process was arbitrary and capricious. None of these claims were successful and ARE appealed.
Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. v. Univ. of Wash., __ Wn. App. __, 539 P.3d 54 (2023), a published decision. The Court concluded, based on the facts in that case, that because construction was not publicly funded, UW did not have to follow competitive bidding requirements that were laid out in a statute relevant to state universities. Still, the Court applied the “bright-line cutoff point” that prohibits disappointed bidders from challenging an award once a contract has been executed. See Dick Enterprises, Inc. v. Metro. King County, 83 Wn. App. 566, 572, 922 P.2d 184 (1996).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Fletcher may be contacted at
mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com
Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake
January 21, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Mechling v. Asbestos Defendants (No. A150132, filed 12/11/18), a California appeals court affirmed the trial court’s grant of an insurer’s motion to set aside default judgments entered against its defunct insured pursuant to the trial court’s inherent, equitable power to set aside defaults on the ground of extrinsic mistake, thereby allowing the insurer to intervene and defend its own interests in the case.
In Mechling, Fireman’s Fund insured Associated Insulation of California, which was named as a defendant in asbestos litigation filed in 2009. Associated had ceased operating in 1974, but was somehow successfully served with the complaint and defaulted, leading to default judgments of several million dollars. Notice of the judgments was served on Associated but not Fireman’s Fund.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court Eliminates Judicial 'Chevron' Deference to Federal Agency Statutory Interpretations
July 31, 2024 —
Jane C. Luxton - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (July 1, 2024) – In a much-anticipated decision, on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a sweeping opinion “overrul[ing]” a 40-year old precedent that required judges to defer to federal agency interpretations of their governing statutes when those laws were ambiguous or silent. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, et al. No. 22-451 (2024), overruling Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
The decision means that courts will no longer give special weight to an agency’s view of the scope of its regulatory powers but must apply independent judgment in deciding “whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.” Loper Bright, slip op. at 35. Taking pains to explain that the new ruling would not allow for reversals of cases previously decided under the Chevron doctrine, the Court left no doubt that, in the words of Justice Neil Gorsuch, “[t]oday, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss.” Id., Gorsuch Concurring Opinion at 1.
Writing for a 6-2 majority, Chief Justice Roberts forcefully condemned the Chevron-based principle that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of the scope of its legal authority, rejecting the concept that agencies have any special expertise in statutory interpretation, a field reserved to the courts, not the executive branch, under Article III of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jane C. Luxton, Lewis BrisboisMs. Luxton may be contacted at
Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Of Pavement and Pandemic: Liability and Regulatory Hurdles for Taking It Outside
September 21, 2020 —
Jeff Clare - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs the COVID-19 pandemic continues to ravage the U.S. economy, restaurateurs and bar owners are feeling the brunt of business closures and adaptations necessary to combat the disease. Where cozy and intimate dining was once de rigueur for the restaurant industry, these businesses must now shift to outdoor dining with adequate space and airflow between parties. In response to these concerns, many cities across the country who once fought against the loss of any parking have turned to a post-automobile tactic: outdoor dining in thoroughfares and parking lots. While at first glance it might seem a simple enough prospect—throw some chairs and a table out front, and voilà—property owners and restaurateurs must remain cognizant of various liability and regulatory hurdles for operating outside.
With Great Space Comes Great … Potential Liability.
One of the largest concerns for landowners in operating in a new space for business is liability. Who is on the hook if someone gets hurt dining in an impromptu dining space in a parking lot? Prior to beginning new outdoor dining operations, landowners and restaurateurs should contact their insurance providers to ensure that the new space is included in their insurance coverage. This is a particular concern for larger commercial landowners who may have various businesses vying to use their parking lot for business. Many leases have carefully crafted clauses limiting where a business may operate and where their liability ceases. Landowners and business owners should review their leases for any such clauses and negotiate with one another to ensure that liability in these new spaces is clearly defined.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Clare, PillsburyMr. Clare may be contacted at
jeff.clare@pillsburylaw.com
Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify
December 26, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA liability insurer has two duties that are the crux of a liability policy: the duty to defend the insured in legal actions and the duty to indemnify the insured from losses covered under the policy. Many times, policyholders (insureds) do not fully understand or appreciate these two important duties. They need to and this is why having private counsel assist with coverage-related considerations is an absolute must.
An insurers’ duty to defend is separate from its duty to indemnify. A recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida in Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transport Corp., 2022 WL 16963815 (M.D.Fla. 2022) clarifies the distinction between these duties with a focus on an insurer’s initial duty — the duty to defend. Please read below so you can have more of an appreciation of these duties. The court does a good job discussing Florida law with the emphasis on when an insurer’s initial duty to defend kicks-in:
Duty to Defend
Under Florida law, “an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against a legal action arises when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.” The duty to defend is a broad one, broader than the duty to indemnify, and “[t]he merits of the underlying suit are irrelevant.” We determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured based only on “the eight corners of the complaint and the policy,” and only as the complaint’s alleged facts are “fairly read[.]” The “facts” we consider in evaluating the duty to defend come solely from the complaint, regardless of the actual facts of the case and regardless of any later developed and contradictory factual record. “Any doubts regarding
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Courthouse Reporter Series: Louisiana Supreme Court Holds Architect Has No Duty to Safeguard Third Parties Against Injury, Regardless of Knowledge of Dangerous Conditions on the Project
July 31, 2024 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverIn Bonilla v. Verges Rome Architects, 2023-00928 (La. 3/22/24); 382 So.3d 62, the Louisiana Supreme Court held because the terms of the agreement between the architect and the public owner did not give the architect responsibility for the means and methods of construction or for safety on the project, the architect did not have a duty to safeguard third parties against injury, regardless of whether the architect may have had knowledge of dangerous conditions on the project.
In Bonilla, the City of New Orleans entered into a contract for the renovation of a building owned by the city. The city also entered into an agreement with Verges Rome Architects (“VRA”) to serve as the project architect. The general contractor on the project subcontracted the demolition work to Meza Services, Inc. (“Meza”).
An employee of Meza was injured while attempting to demolish a “vault” on the project. The vault was a ten-foot by ten-foot cinderblock room with a nine-foot-high concrete slab ceiling located on the second floor of the building. The walls of the vault had been partially demolished when one of the employees of Meza was directed by his supervisor to stand on the ceiling of the vault with a jackhammer to continue the demolition. Shortly after beginning the task, the vault structure collapsed and caused the employee to suffer significant injury.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
