Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case
May 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Superior Court of New Jersey reversed the decision in Frumer v. National Home Insurance Company (NHIC) and the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation (HBW), stating that the mandatory arbitration provision within the Frumer’s home warranty policy was binding.
The Frumers alleged that the construction defects were discovered immediately after moving into their million dollar home. After failing to achieve any results from dealing with the builder, they turned to their home warranty. There was some dispute over claims, and a settlement offer was rejected by the Frumers. The Frumers elected to commence litigation rather than utilize the binding arbitration.
The NHIC and the HBW filed a motion to compel arbitration, however, the motion judge denied the motion: “…the Warranty leaves open the option for [plaintiffs] to commence litigation, which [plaintiffs have] done in this case. The clause also states that ‘the filing of a claim against this limited Warranty shall constitute the election of remedy and shall bar the Homeowner from all other remedies.’ However, the provision does not state that the filing of a claim elects arbitration as the exclusive remedy, and any ambiguity in the language must be inferred against the drafter.”
The NHIC and the HBW appealed the decision. The Superior Court reversed the decision: “Where, such as here, the homeowner files a claim against the warranty for workmanship/systems defects, the warranty clearly and unequivocally establishes binding arbitration as the exclusive remedy. There is, however, no election of remedies for a dispute involving a major structural defect claim. The warranty clearly and unequivocally establishes binding arbitration as the exclusive remedy.”
Charles Curley of Halberstadt Curley in Conshohocken, Pa., the local counsel for National Home and Home Buyers, told the New Jersey Law Journal that “the ruling reaffirms New Jersey’s commitment to enforcing arbitration agreements and requiring people to go to mandatory arbitration when the contracts call for it.”
“At this point, their hope is that the warranty company will do what it's supposed to do — repair covered defects,” Eric McCullough, the Frumer’s lawyer said to the New Jersey Law Journal.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Insureds are Contesting One Carrier's Universal Denial to Covid-19 Losses
May 11, 2020 —
Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn response to the large number of COVID-19-related losses that businesses are experiencing, insurers have begun issuing statements informing their insureds of whether their policies will respond to the losses, and if so, what coverage will be afforded. Insurers cannot take a “one-size-fits-all” approach to the COVID-19 losses because, besides factual differences, the losses are occurring within all fifty states which means 50 different state law interpretations will apply.
Recently, on March 27, 2020, a number of restaurants and movie theaters located in and around Chicago (the “Insureds”) filed a declaratory judgement action, titled Big Onion Tavern Group, LLC et al. v. Society Insurance, Inc., against their property insurance carrier, Society Insurance, Inc. (“Society”), seeking coverage for business interruption resulting from the shutdown order issued by the governor of Illinois. The suit alleges that Society improperly denied their business interruption claims by using a boiler plate denial. The denial issued by Society is allegedly used for all COVID-19 losses regardless of the applicable jurisdiction’s interpretation of the policy language and the specific coverage purchased by the insured. Further, in its denial, Society takes the position that any loss related to a government-issued closure order is uncovered, even though the Insureds specifically purchased business interruption coverage and their policies did not contain an exclusion for losses caused by viruses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Perry may be contacted at
amp@sdvlaw.com
A Court-Side Seat: “Inholdings” Upheld, a Pecos Bill Come Due and Agency Actions Abound
January 25, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelHere are some significant environmental and regulatory rulings and administrative actions from December 2020.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Texas v. New Mexico
On December 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided a water rights controversy involving sharing the water of the Pecos River. The 1949 Pecos River Compact provides for the equitable apportionment of the use of the Pecos River’s water by New Mexico and Texas, and a “River Master’s Manual,” approved by the Court in 1988, implements the Compact. These are very dry areas, and access to this water is very important. In 2014, a rare tropical storm drenched the Pecos River Basin, and Texas asked New Mexico to temporarily store the water that would otherwise flow into Texas. A few months later, New Mexico released the water to Texas, but the quantity was reduced because some of the water held by New Mexico had evaporated. The River Master awarded a delivery credit to New Mexico, and after Texas objected, Texas “in response” filed the Original Jurisdiction of the Court, suing New Mexico and seeking a review of the River Master’s determination. The Court held for New Mexico, deciding that this dispute was subject to and resolved by the Manual. This case is important because it highlights the high value the states place on the equitable apportionment of water that flows through different states.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
General Contractors Have Expansive Common Law and Statutory Duties To Provide a Safe Workplace
February 18, 2020 —
Paul R. Cressman Jr. - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCOn November 21, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court handed down its decision in Vargas v. Inland Washington, LLC.[1]
At the time of the incident in May 2013, Mr. Vargas, the plaintiff, was helping pour the concrete walls for what would become a parking garage for an apartment building. He was employed by Hilltop Concrete Construction. Inland Washington was the general contractor, and subcontracted with Hilltop to pour concrete. Hilltop, in turn, entered into agreements with Ralph’s Concrete Pumping and Miles Sand & Gravel to provide a pump truck, certified pump operator, and supply concrete.
A rubber hose carrying concrete whipped Mr. Vargas in the head. It knocked him unconscious and caused a traumatic brain injury.
Vargas, through his guardian ad litem, along with his wife and children, sued Inland Washington, Ralph’s, and Miles.
The trial court initially dismissed on summary judgment Vargas’ claims that Inland Washington was vicariously liable for the acts of Hilltop, Ralph’s, and Miles. Later, the trial court also granted Inland Washington’s motion for summary judgment that it was not directly liable as a matter of law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul R. Cressman Jr., Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Cressman may be contacted at
paul.cressman@acslawyers.com
Two More Lawsuits Filed Over COVID-19 Business Interruption Losses
April 13, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews KurthTwo more lawsuits were filed yesterday concerning business interruption losses resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs, the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations, filed their lawsuits, copies of which can be found
here and
here, in Oklahoma state court against a litany of property insurers, led by AIG. The lawsuits seek an order that any financial losses suffered by the nations’ casinos, restaurants and other businesses as a result of the coronavirus pandemic are covered by the nations’ insurance policies.
According to the complaints:
On or about March of 2020, the United States of America became infected by COVID 19 resulting in a pandemic. As a result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property sustained direct physical loss or damage and will continue to sustain direct physical loss or damage covered by the policies, including but not limited to business interruption, extra expense, interruption by civil authority, limitations on ingress and egress, and expenses to reduce loss. As a direct result of this pandemic and infection, the Nation’s Property has been damaged, as described above, and cannot be used for its intended purpose.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews KurthMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Newmeyer & Dillion Appoints Partner Carol Zaist as General Counsel
June 22, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – June 21st, 2016 – Prominent business and real estate law firm
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that partner
Carol Zaist has been named the firm’s General Counsel. Zaist will report to the Managing Partner, Executive Committee and other senior level management as it relates to the firm’s governance and policy matters. Zaist’s appointment is effectively immediately.
“We are excited to have appointed Carol as the firm’s General Counsel,” said Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner. “As we continue to expand across markets, this is another proactive measure to ensure our strategic growth and success.”
Zaist is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, concentrating her practice on business litigation, real estate litigation, and probate litigation. She has significant experience advising clients in contract disputes, business and property torts, and trademark and trade secret disputes in both federal and state jurisdictions. Zaist also serves as strategic counsel, advising clients on the impact of multiple litigation matters in different jurisdictions, and integrating strategy and tasks efficiently and cohesively. She will lend this variety of experience to her new role as General Counsel for the firm.
“I am honored and thrilled to work with our managing partner and Executive Committee to assist the firm in its strategic growth and development,” said Zaist.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives First Tier Ranking
January 28, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogWe try to limit our narcissism here at Wendel Rosen but every once in a while we toot our own horn. Lawyers are, after all, a rather sad, competitive, yet insecure bunch (i.e., we eat this stuff up).
We’re proud to announce that Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group has received a first tier ranking in U.S. News & World Reports’ Best Law Firms for 2015. This is the second year the Construction Practice Group has received a first tier ranking. Yay us!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
California Court Broadly Interprets Insurance Policy’s “Liability Arising Out of” Language
December 20, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn McMillin Mgmt. Servs. v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D069814 (filed 11/14/17), the California Court of Appeal held that the term “liability arising out of,” as used in an ongoing operations endorsement, does not require that the named insured’s liability arise while it is performing work on a construction project.
In the McMillin case, the general contractor and developer (McMillin) contracted with various subcontractors, including a concrete subcontractor and stucco subcontractor insured by Lexington Insurance Company. Both subcontractors performed their work at the project prior to the sale of the units.
The Lexington policies contained substantively identical additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to McMillin “for liability arising out of your [the named insured subcontractor’s] ongoing operations performed for [McMillin].” Several homeowners filed suit against McMillin, alleging that they had discovered various defective conditions arising out of the construction of their homes, including defects arising out of the work performed by Lexington’s insureds. Lexington argued that there was no potential for coverage in McMillin’s favor under the endorsements because there were no homeowners during the time that the subcontractors’ operations were performing work at the project (the homes closed escrow after the subcontractors had completed their work); thus, McMillin did not have any liability for property damage that took place while the subcontractors’ operations were ongoing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rose Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
