Definitions Matter in Illinois: Tenant Held Liable Only for Damage to Apartment Unit
September 09, 2024 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Phila. Indem. Ins. Co. v. Gonzalez, No. 1-23-0833, 2024 Ill. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1372, the Appellate Court of Illinois considered whether the terms of a lease agreement limited a tenant’s liability for fire damages, a fire caused by her negligence, to her apartment unit only. The plaintiff insured the subject apartment building, which incurred damage to several units as result of a fire in the tenant’s unit. The lease defined “Premises” as the specific apartment unit occupied by the tenant and held the tenant responsible for damage caused to the Premises. While the court found that the lease permitted the plaintiff to subrogate against the tenant, it held that the lease terms limited the damages to the tenant’s apartment unit only.
In Gonzalez, the plaintiff’s insured owned a multi-unit apartment building in Chicago. In September 2019, the building owner entered into a lease agreement with the defendant for apartment Unit 601. The lease stated that Unit 601 was the “Leased Address (Premises).” Another provision stated that building owner “hereby leases to Tenant(s) and Tenant(s) hereby leases from Landlord(s) for use as a private dwelling only, the Premises, together with the fixtures and appliances (if any) in the premises…” The lease also stated that “Tenant shall be liable for any damage done to the premises as a result of Tenant’s or Tenant’s invitees, guests or others authorized to reside in the Premises [sic] direct action, negligence, or failure to inform Landlord of repairs necessary to prevent damage to the Premises.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
#4 CDJ Topic: Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the above mentioned case, a Texas architectural firm (HKS Architects, Inc.) hired a California design firm (Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc.) as a sub-consultant, according to
Garret Murai of
Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP in a post on his
California Construction Law Blog. After Vita filed a complaint in California against HKS, HKS filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the landscape design contract included a “Texas forum selection clause.” The court found in favor of Vita, stating that “section 410.42 precludes enforcement of the forum selection clause requiring Vita to litigate its dispute against HKS in Texas.”
Read the full story...
In their article, “Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of ‘Contractor’ for Forum Selection Clauses,”
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Abigail E. Lighthart and
David A. Harris also analyzed the Vita case: “The Vita ruling expands the protections by Section 410.42 beyond traditional ‘builders’ to design professionals and architects who do not actually ‘build’ a project. What remains to be seen is whether other courts will take the expansion to cover other groups that are in any way involved in a construction project.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Building Materials Price Increase Clause for Contractors and Subcontractors – Three Options
June 21, 2021 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupWith the arrival of inflation come concerns regarding increases in the price of building materials within the construction industry. Contractors, subcontractors and others who contract to perform construction work can suffer significant losses when the prices they must pay for materials rises significantly between the time they sign the contract and actually purchase the materials. The general rule is that, unless there exists a contract clause allowing contractors or subcontractors to pass significant price increases for materials on to others, contractors and subcontractors are stuck with the price stated in the contract or subcontract. When prices rise, the contractor or subcontractor eats the difference. Rising prices can thus turn a profitable project into a catastrophic failure. How are contractors and subcontractors to protect themselves?
Once a contract is executed, there is usually little that can be done to change the document to address rising prices. Effort must therefore turn to future protection. The best technique for dealing with increasing future prices for building materials is by adding a price escalation clause to contracts and subcontracts. While this will not help for past contracts or subcontracts, it can certainly offer significant protection going forward.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Alaska Supreme Court Finds Insurer Owes No Independent Duty to Injured Party
December 14, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter the victim incurred injury inflicted by an insured party, the Alaska Supreme Court determined that the insurer owed no duty to the injured party. Martinez v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 2020 Alaska LEXIS 111 (Alaska Sept. 4, 2020).
Joshua Martinez lost control of his truck and crashed into Charles Burnett's cabin. The cabin's heating fuel tank was damaged, and fuel drained onto the property and under the cabin. Burnett further alleged he suffered bodily injuries.
Martinez was insured by GEICO under an auto policy. Two days after the accident, the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) advised GEICO to hire a qualified environmental consultant and crew to clean up the fuel spill. Burnett told GEICO he wanted to do the cleanup himself and offered to do so for $25,000, the approximate amount of the consultant retained by GEICO. DEC did not consider Burnett qualified to handle the cleanup.
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
Florida Supreme Court Adopts Federal Summary Judgment Standard, Substantially Conforming Florida’s Rule 1.510 to Federal Rule 56
June 07, 2021 —
Lewis BrisboisEffective May 1, 2021, the Florida courts will transition to a new summary judgment standard meant to “align Florida’s summary judgment standard with that of the federal courts and of the supermajority of states that have already adopted the federal summary judgment standard.” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 192 (Fla. 2020). Consistent with this amendment, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510 has been amended to adopt the federal summary judgment rule, with exceptions for timing-related issues. The Florida Supreme Court’s most recent opinion on rule 1.510 and the text of new rule 1.510 can be found here.
As background, on December 31, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the federal summary judgment standard by amending Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.510(c) to include the following sentence: “The summary judgment standard provided for in this rule shall be construed and applied in accordance with the federal summary judgment standard articulated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1976); and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) [(the ‘Celotex trilogy’)].” In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Pro. 1.510, 309 So. 3d at 196. The court’s amendment was slated to take effect on May 1, 2021, subject to a public comment period. The court also sought guidance from the Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee. After careful consideration of numerous responses, the court ultimately chose to adopt the substance of the text from federal rule 56. Along with its amendments, the court provides substantial guidance as to how the Florida courts and practitioners should interpret the new rule. A summary of the court’s thorough discussion follows.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”
June 05, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA general contractor seeking to litigate with its subcontractor concerning a construction project in Indiana found itself fighting in court against assertions by the sub that arbitration of the dispute was required.
The GC was already in litigation in federal court with the project owner. The GC filed a third-party demand against the sub, which was met with a motion to stay and to compel arbitration.
At the crux of the sub’s argument was this clause in its subcontract: “Subcontractor agrees that the dispute resolution provisions of the Prime Contract between [GC] and Owner, if any, are incorporated by reference as part of this Subcontract so as to be binding as to disputes between Subcontractor and [GC] that involve, in whole or in part, questions of fact and/or law that are common to any dispute between [GC] and Owner or others similarly bound to such dispute resolution procedures... ."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys
April 28, 2014 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”).
In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado
September 08, 2016 —
Jesse Witt – The Witt LawfirmFor the last four years, the homebuilders’ lobby has been aggressively pushing the idea that consumer protection laws are stifling condominium construction in Colorado. The lobbyists claim that the fear of liability for construction defects has forced many local developers to build apartments instead of condominiums. They have dismissed the notions that the shift to apartments merely reflects supply and demand, or that modern families might actually prefer to rent rather than buy. To support this theory, they have touted high condominium sales in other states. A new story from NPR’s Here & Now refutes this claim, however.
Contrary to what the lobbyists have been saying, data now confirm that large numbers of Americans prefer to rent, not buy, their homes. NPR reported today that home ownership in the U.S. fell to its lowest rate since 1965, while the share of U.S. households who rent is nearing a 50-year high. This trend appears nationwide and can hardly be blamed on consumer protection laws in Colorado.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.witt.law
