When Does a Claim Against an Insurance Carrier for Failing to Defend Accrue?
November 07, 2012 —
David McLain, Colorado Construction LitigationThe following is an update on our December 20, 2010 article regarding United States Fire Insurance Company v. Pinkard Construction Company, Civil Action No. 09-CV-01854-MSK-MJW, and its underlying dispute, Legacy Apartments v. Pinkard Construction Company, Case No. 2003 CV 703, Boulder County Dist. Ct. That article can be found here.
The present action, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., et al. v. The North River Insurance Co., et al., Civil Action No. 10-CV-02936-MSK-CBS, encompasses the coverage battle that ensued between Pinkard’s insurers, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) and United States Fire Insurance Company (“USFI”), following the settlement of Legacy’s construction defect claims against Pinkard. A short history of the underlying facts is as follows:
In 1995, Pinkard constructed the Legacy Apartments housing complex in Longmont, Colorado. Following construction, Legacy notified Pinkard of water leaks associated with various elements of construction. Legacy ultimately filed suit against Pinkard in 2003, and would go on to clarify and amend its defect claims in 2004, 2006, and again in 2008. Following Pinkard’s notification of Legacy’s claims, USFI provided a defense to Pinkard, but Travelers refused to do so, on the purported basis that Legacy’s allegations did not implicate property damage under the terms of Travelers’ policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain can be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Keeping Detailed Records: The Best Defense to Constructive Eviction
October 24, 2023 —
Ben T. Welch & Ken Brown - Snell & WilmerInevitably, commercial property owners and managers will be faced with a claim by a tenant of constructive eviction. This article is intended to describe what constructive eviction is and to suggest what owners and managers can do to prepare for, and ward off, such claims.
Constructive eviction occurs where a tenant’s “right of possession and enjoyment” of the leasehold is disrupted by the landlord in a manner that renders the premises “unsuitable for the purposes intended.”i Put another way, it is interference that is so “substantial nature and so injurious as to deprive the tenant of the beneficial enjoyment of a part or the whole of the demised premises.”ii Although easy to describe in theory, constructive eviction can be devilishly difficult to determine in the real world. In litigation, determining when interference crosses over the line to constructive eviction is intensely fact-sensitive and resists sweeping generalizations.iii
For instance, Utah courts have held that tenants have been constructively evicted when they have been subjected to continual harassment or insults by the landlord or the landlord’s agent,iv prevented or impaired in their access to the leased premises during operating hours,v or when a landlord fails to provide an operable elevator (or other essential commercial amenities) necessary for a tenant’s business operations.vi By contrast, claims of “discomfort” or “inconvenience” have been rejected as a basis for constructive eviction.vii The same goes for claims that a landlord wrongfully served a three-day notice to pay or quit.viii
Generally, constructive eviction is an affirmative defense made in response to a landlord’s lawsuit for nonpayment of rent.ix It is not, as is commonly supposed, a basis for a tenant’s premature abandonment of the premises. In other words, the defense is raised after the tenant has vacated as a result of being effectively “evicted.”x Further, the defense requires the tenant to actually abandon the premises and do so within a “reasonable time” after the alleged interference.xi A tenant cannot stay in possession and simply refuse to pay rent on the basis of constructive eviction.xii
The key consideration in preparing for, and responding to, a claim of constructive eviction is keeping good records. A tenant claiming constructive evicting likely must prove that the issue was raised in a timely manner and, despite multiple entreaties, was never resolved.xiii As such, it is critical that landlords acknowledge tenant complaints as well as document in writing their efforts to ameliorate those complaints. While a landlord does not carry the burden of proof for constructive eviction, detailed documentation can thwart a tenant’s claim that a landlord has been inattentive or unwilling to address the tenant’s concerns.
Detailed records are also useful in disputes where a tenant claims substantial interference. “The whole point of constructive eviction is that the landlord basically drove the tenant out through the landlord’s action or inaction.”xiv As such, a landlord that is unable to document the steps taken in response to complaints will be grossly disadvantaged whereas the tenant, which had control and knowledge of the premises, will have a much easier time describing how the alleged interference deprived them of enjoying the premises.
Even with meticulous records, however, owners and managers may still face claims of construction eviction. In such instances, counsel should be retained to properly advise on compiling, preserving, and employing the evidence necessary to refute the tenant’s claims.
i Gray v. Oxford Worldwide Grp., Inc., 139 P.3d 267, 269 (Utah Ct. App. 2006).
ii Gray, 139 P.3d at 270 (citing Neslen, 254 P.2d at 850) (internal formatting omitted).
iii See Gray, 139 P.3d at 269–70 (citing Thirteenth & Washington Sts. Corp. v. Neslen, 254 P.2d 847, 850 (Utah 1953)); Brugger v. Fonoti, 645 P.2d 647, 648 (Utah 1982).
iv See Gray, 139 P.3d at 270–71.
v Thirteenth & Washington Sts. Corp. v. Neslen, 254 P.2d 847 (Utah 1953).
vi See Richard Barton Enterprises, Inc. v. Tsern, 928 P.2d 368, 375, 378 (Utah 1996) (citing Union City Union Suit Co. v. Miller, 162 A.D.2d 101, 556 N.Y.S.2d 864 (1990)).
vii See Myrah v. Campbell, 163 P.3d 679, 682–84 (Utah Ct. App. 2007).
viii Barton v. MTB Enterprises, 889 P.2d 476, 477 (Utah Ct. App. 1995); see also Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648 (stating that the tenant’s complaints revolved around standard problems commonly associated with building maintenance and did not rise to the level of substantial interference); viv Reid v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 776 P.2d 896, 898–900 (Utah 1989) (upholding trial court’s findings of fact concerning insufficiency of disruption so as to justify claim for constructive eviction).
ix See Kenyon v. Regan, 826 P.2d 140, 142 (Utah Ct. App. 1992).
x See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142.
xi See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142; see also Barton v. MTB Enterprises, Inc., 889 P.2d 476, 477 (Utah Ct. App. 1995); Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648.
xii See Kenyon, 826 P.2d at 142 (citing Fernandez v. Purdue, 518 P.2d 684, 686 (Utah 1974)).
xiii See Brugger, 645 P.2d at 648 (noting that while the tenant had raised legitimate issues concerning state of the premises, the landorld had taken steps to remedy the problems within a reasonable time) (citing 49 Am.Jur.2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 617).
xiv Barton, 889 P.2d at 477.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ben T. Welch, Snell & Wilmer and
Ken Brown, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Welch may be contacted at bwelch@swlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ninth Circuit Finds Policy’s Definition of “Policy Period” Fatal to Insurer’s “Related Claims” Argument
April 10, 2019 —
Jason M. Taylor - TLSS Insurance Law BlogProfessional liability policies often include some form of a “related claims” or “related acts” provision stating that if more than one claim results from a single wrongful act, or a series of related wrongful acts, such claims will be treated as a single claim and deemed first made during the policy period in which the earliest claim was made. These provisions can have significant implications on the applicable policy and policy limits, retroactive date issues, and whether such claims were first made and reported during a particular policy period. Recently, the Ninth Circuit issued a stern reminder of how the particular policy language can effect, and in this case thwart, the intended scope of the carrier’s “related claims” provision.
In Attorneys Ins. Mut. Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 2019 WL 643442 (9th Cir. Feb. 15, 2019), the Ninth Circuit construed a “related claims” provision included in two consecutive lawyers professional liability policies. During both the 2009–2010 and 2010–2011 insurance policy periods, attorney J. Wayne Allen (“Allen”) was insured through his employer by Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation’s (“Liberty”) professional liability insurance. Third parties filed suit against Allen during the 2009–2010 policy period in a probate case, and a second, related civil suit during the 2010–2011 policy period.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason M. Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Dispute Resolution Provision in Subcontract that Says Owner, Architect or Engineer’s Decision Is Final
March 29, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn subcontracts, it is not uncommon to see a provision that says something to the effect:
Should any dispute arise between the parties respecting the true construction or interpretation of the Plans, Specifications and/or the Contract Requirements, the decision of the Owner or the Owner’s designated representative as set forth in the General Contract shall be final.
This is a provision in a subcontract dealing with dispute resolution, typically when there is a dispute as to whether the subcontractor is performing extra-contractual or base contract work regarding an “interpretation of the Plans, Specifications, and/or the Contract Requirements.” It is not uncommon for there to be a dispute as to whether certain work is within the subcontractor’s scope of work or outside the subcontractor’s scope of work and subject to a change order.
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
Traub Lieberman Senior Trial Counsel Timothy McNamara Wins Affirmation of Summary Judgment Denial
August 28, 2023 —
Timothy G. McNamara - Traub LiebermanIn this appeal brought before the State of New York Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, the court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s client, a housing complex owner, affirming the denial of co-defendant landscaping company’s summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the cross-claims asserted by the complex owner against the co-defendant.
In the underlying case, the plaintiff was allegedly injured when she slipped and fell on ice on the exterior stairs of the housing complex where she lived. The complex owner had contracted with the co-defendant to provide snow removal services for the complex. The plaintiff commenced action against both the complex owner and the landscaping company to recover damages for personal injuries. The complex owner asserted cross-claims against the landscaping company for contribution, common-law indemnification, and contractual indemnification. The landscaping company sought summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it, but the branch of the motion seeking dismissal of the cross-claims was denied. In the appeal brought before the Appellate Division, the court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s client, the complex owner, affirming the denial of summary judgment for the cross-claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy G. McNamara, Traub LiebermanMr. McNamara may be contacted at
tmcnamara@tlsslaw.com
In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable
March 12, 2015 —
Elizabeth P. Trent and Leah B. Mason – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation, 2015 DJDAR 2864 (“Bean”), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held in the published portion of its opinion that courts may not award prejudgment interest on costs in personal injury actions.
In Bean, an employee of defendant Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation (Pacific Coast) drove his vehicle into plaintiff Daniel William Bean’s truck while Bean was stopped at a red light. Bean suffered serious injuries and sued Pacific Coast. A jury found Pacific Coast negligent and awarded Bean $1,271,594.74 in damages. This amount exceeded Bean’s $999,999.00 statutory offer to compromise issued to Pacific Coast prior to trial, which Pacific Coast rejected.
Reprinted courtesy of
Elizabeth P. Trent, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Trent may be contacted at etrent@hbblaw.com
Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Developer’s Alleged Court Judgment Woes
May 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to The Real Deal, the New York Developer Jeshayahu “Shaya” Boymelgreen claims to owe $50 million in court judgments. Currently, Boymelgreen faces “a $1.2 million judgment in a lawsuit connected to his River Lofts condominium in Tribeca.” Furthermore, Boymelgreen is a co-defendant (along with Africa Israel) “in a separate suit at 15 Broad Street, where New York state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is investigating the developers over the failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy at the condominium, which is marketed under the name Downtown By Starck.”
Boymelgreen had been “held in contempt after failing to respond to a 2013 subpoena…requesting all financial and legal records.” The Real Deal reported that Boymelgreen declared that all documents were lost when his company’s offices “were taken by eminent domain about five years ago.”
The Real Deal could not reach Boymelgreen or his lawyer for comment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Non-Profit Sues over Defective Roof
November 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFCoordinated Youth and Human Services (CYHS), a family services organization hired Honey-Do Home Repair to design and install a new roof for its building in Granite City, Illinois. Honey-Do removed portions of the roof for testing. A few day later during a rainstorm, a tarp failed, leading to water intrusion and damage to the building.
The CYHS is suing the contractor for $400,000. It is claiming that repairing the damage cost the organization $200,000, and it seeks additional damage and court costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
