The Cheapest Place to Buy a House in the Hamptons
August 20, 2018 —
James Tarmy - BloombergFiguring out how much a home is worth in a vacation destination is often an uphill battle.
Whereas normal property markets have prices that are tied closely to square footage, size of a lot, quality of a building, and its proximity to basic services, many of those calculations go out the window when it comes to a market comprised of second homes. “Nobody needs anything out here,” says Chris Foglia, a broker at the Hamptons-based Daniel Gale Sotheby’s International Realty. “They all want.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Tarmy, Bloomberg
Can Your Small Business Afford to Risk the Imminent Threat of a Cyber Incident?
November 28, 2018 —
Jeffrey M. Dennis & Heather H. Whitehead – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPCybersecurity incidents are occurring on a daily basis and at an increasingly growing rate. Yet, many small businesses still have not obtained adequate (or any) cyber insurance to address these risks and the costly impacts to the business that will result. In a recent study completed by the Insurance Information Institute1, only about a third of all small businesses polled responded that they have cyber insurance in place, with 70% of respondents replying that they have no plans to purchase a cyber insurance policy in the next 12 months. Most of the businesses indicated that they do not believe they have any need for cyber insurance, yet almost half of those same companies stated they are unprepared to handle cyber threats. A main reason for not purchasing cyber insurance was a lack of understanding about this type of insurance and coverages available.
The Risks for Small Businesses
These statistics are alarming considering that the average cost of a cyber-related loss for a small business has increased 250% in the past two years, and now totals $188,400. In determining whether insurance coverage should be purchased, companies typically assess the perceived risks to the company, the likelihood of such risks occurring, as well as any costs or expenses that may result. For example, most companies regularly obtain a property policy to cover a fire or other casualty that may damage its business location even though such an event is unlikely or unexpected. Yet, cyber incidents are just as likely, if not more likely to occur, and the impacts to a company in the event of an incident are far worse. Many incidents result in a complete suspension of the daily operations of the company for several days or longer.
In addition to financial loss, companies may face the following as a result of a cyber incident:
- Theft, breach or loss of information and data;
- Damage to the company's reputation, brand or image; and
- Regulatory, governance and legal issues.
- How Cyber Insurance can Help
Cyber insurance policies can be obtained to address the losses related to a data breach and may include costs for investigating a breach, notifying people affected by a breach of personally identifiable information, managing the potential damage to reputation and other crisis-management expenses, recovering lost or corrupted data, and related legal expenses. More importantly, well-drafted policies can afford coverage for business interruption losses; i.e. those expenses and lost revenue resulting from a breached system and a company's inability to continue its usual operations. Coverage may also be obtained for "cyber extortion", which covers costs resulting from an extortion event such as ransomware or fraudulent wire transfers.
It is important to keep in mind that cyber insurance is only one component to consider when developing and implementing an overall risk management strategy to prevent cyber incidents. However, taking into account the exposure to a company if and when a cyber incident occurs, it is highly advisable to have this coverage in place.
1Insurance Information Institute, "Small business, big risk: Lack of cyber insurance is a serious threat," October 2018.
Jeff Dennis is the head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
Heather Whitehead is a Partner in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Heather also practices insurance coverage matters for commercial, retail, industrial, mixed-use, multi-family and residential projects. For more information on how Heather can help, contact her at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims
November 15, 2017 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Digital Journal reports that the California fire lawyers are comprised of four law firms, Baron & Budd, Singleton Law Firm, Dixon Diab & Chambers LLP, and Thornes Bartolotta McGuire. These firms filed suit against PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) on October 27th alleging that the brutal wildfires that swept through Northern California started when electrical infrastructure encountered vegetation.
According to Digital Journal, more than 50 plaintiffs are being represented in this case who endured damages including “wrongful death, personal injuries, damage to or destruction of property, loss of cherished possessions, medical bills, evacuation expenses and lost wages.”
John Fiske, an attorney at Baron & Budd stated, “through our team’s investigation to date, we believe that PG&E may have played a role in causing these fires.” Holding PG&E accountable for the 40 people killed, 8,400 structures destroyed, and 210,000 acres burned is their goal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims
September 28, 2017 —
John Anooshian & Sean Mahoney - White & Williams LLPEarlier today, in a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the Terletsky two-part test for proving a statutory “bad faith” claim under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, which requires that a plaintiff present “clear and convincing evidence (1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis.” Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company, No. 28 WAP 2016 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2017). The court further ruled that proof of an insurer’s “subjective motive of self-interest or ill-will,” while potentially probative of the second prong of the test, is not a requirement to prevail under § 8371. Evidence of an insurer’s “knowledge or reckless disregard for its lack of a reasonable basis” for denying a claim alone, according to the court, is sufficient even in cases seeking punitive damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Anooshian, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Sean Mahoney, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at majoneys@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work
December 20, 2017 —
Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the homeowners did not own their homes when the subcontractors completed their work, the general contractor was still covered as an additional insured for the homeowners' suits based on the ongoing operations endorsement in the subcontractors' policies. McMillin Mgmt. Servs. v. Fin. Pac. Ins. Co., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017).
McMillin was the developer and general contractor for the project. Among the subcontractors were Martinez Construction Concrete Contractor, Inc. and Rozema Corporation. Martinez performed concrete flatwork between 2003 and November 2005. Rozema performed lath and stucco work between March 2003 and October 2005.
Lexington issued CGL policies to Martinez and Rozema. McMillin was an additional insured under both policies, "but only with respect to liability arising out of your [i.e., Martinez's or Rozema's] ongoing operations performed for [McMillin]." An exclusion provided that the insurance did not apply to property damage occurring after the insured subcontractor had completed operations on behalf of the additional insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The California Legislature Passes SB 496 Limiting Design Professional Defense and Indemnity Obligations
November 21, 2017 —
Mark Himmelstein & Jenny Guzman – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOriginally published by CDJ on June 15, 2017
Since 2008 when the California legislature limited subcontractor indemnity obligations, the design professional community has been shouting “what about us?” Well, the legislature finally responded and a new law that limits design professional’s defense and indemnity obligations to their percentage of fault goes into effect on January 1, 2018.
THE NEW LAW – SB 496
SB 496 amends California Civil Code section 2782.8 and states that indemnity agreements must be limited to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the indemnitee (i.e. no more Type I indemnity with design professionals). The amendment also provides that “in no event shall the cost to defend charged to the design professional exceed the design professional’s proportionate percentage of fault”, with a limited opportunity for reallocation in the event another defendant is judgment proof.
However, the duty to defend still remains and still arises at the time of the tender of the defense (both issues that were unsuccessfully targeted by the design professional lobbyists).
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Himmelstein, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP and
Jenny Guzman, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Mr. Price may be contacted at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com
Ms. Zucker may be contacted at jenny.guzman@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums
April 27, 2020 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistCourts often struggle with the question of when the statute of repose starts to run for construction projects that involve multiple buildings or phases. In Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls Ass’n v. Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC, 937 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 2020) (Village Lofts), the Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed how Minnesota’s 10-year statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051, applies to claims arising from the construction of a condominium complex. The court held that the statute of repose begins to run at different times for: a) statutory residential warranty claims brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 327A.01 to 327A.08, et. seq.; and b) common law claims arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of the condominium buildings.
As stated in Village Lofts, Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC (Housing Partners) developed the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls, a condominium complex consisting of Building A and Building B. Housing Partners retained Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (Kraus-Anderson) as the general contractor for Building A. Kraus-Anderson retained Elness Sweeney Graham Architects, Inc. (ESG), Doody Mechanical, Inc. (Doody) and Kenneth S. Kendle, P.E. (Kendle) to work on Building A. In September 2002, the City of Minneapolis (City) issued a partial certificate of occupancy (CO) for Building A, including the building’s public spaces. On October 4, 2002, Housing Partners filed the declaration creating the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls condominium, to be operated by Village Lofts at St. Anthony Association (Village Lofts Association). On October 10, 2002, Housing Partners sold the first unit in Building A and in November of 2003, the City issued a CO for the entire building, excluding two units.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Understanding Insurance Disputes in Construction Defect Litigation: A Review of Acuity v. Kinsale
December 17, 2024 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation BlogConstruction projects are inherently complex, and insurance coverage plays a crucial role in managing risks, especially when unforeseen issues arise. The case of Acuity v. Kinsale demonstrates the tangled web of insurance obligations, especially when multiple insurers provide coverage for a single event. This case, involving Monarch Stucco, Inc., Acuity, and Kinsale Insurance Company, sheds light on the challenges that contractors, subcontractors, and insurers may face when disputes over liability and coverage occur.
The Background of the Case
At the heart of this dispute lies a construction defect at a retirement community project in Lakewood, Colorado. Monarch Stucco, Inc. (“Monarch”), a subcontractor hired by GH Phipps Construction Company (“Phipps”), was responsible for stucco work on the project. Unfortunately, defects in the building’s envelope system, particularly Monarch’s stucco work, led to significant damage and costly repairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
