Business Interruption Claim Granted in Part, Denied in Part
February 16, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted portions of the business interruption claim, while denying other portions. Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Infogroup, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162810 (S. D. Iowa Nov. 30, 2015).
Phoenix insured Infogroup's business buildings and personal business property, including data and data processing equipment. In late May 2011, warnings were issued of possible flooding from the Missouri River. On June 1, 2011, Infogroup moved and relocated its business operations and data centers away from the river and did not intend to return to the facilities. On July 19, 2011, Phoenix advanced $500,000 to Infogroup for anticipated claims under the policy. On August 22, 2011, heavy rain left surface water in the parking lot at Infogroup's facilities. Infogroup claimed that it suffered minor property damage during July and August, 2011, including damage to an uninterruptable power source and damage to a server.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
A Termination for Convenience Is Not a Termination for Default
April 22, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA termination for convenience is NOT a termination for default. They are NOT the same. They should NOT be treated as the same. I am a huge proponent of termination for convenience provisions because sometimes a party needs to be able to exercise a termination for convenience, but the termination is not one that rises to a basis for default. However, exercising a termination for convenience does not mean you get to go back in time and convert the termination for convenience into a termination for default. It does not work like that. Nor should it.
An opinion out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals – Williams Building Company, Inc. v. Department of State, CBCA 7147, 2024 WL 1099788 (CBCA 2024 – demonstrates a fundamental distinction between a termination for convenience and a termination for default, i.e., that you don’t get to conjure up defaults when you exercise a termination for convenience:
Because a termination for convenience essentially turns a fixed-price construction contract into a cost-reimbursement contract, allowing the contractor to recover its incurred performance costs, the resolution of this appeal will involve identifying the total costs that [Contractor] incurred in performing this contract before [Government] terminated it for convenience. Since [Government] terminated the contract for convenience rather than for default, it no longer matters whether, in the past,[Contractor] acted intentionally in overstating the amount of its incurred costs or committed a contract breach. Ultimately, as permitted in response to a termination for convenience, [Contractor] will recover those allowable costs that [Contractor]establishes it incurred in performing the contract.
Williams Building Company, supra.
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
In Review: SCOTUS Environmental and Administrative Decisions in the 2020 Term
August 10, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelSeveral decisions of interest were issued in the 2020 term, which stretched from October 2020 until early July 2021. This review will concentrate on environmental and administrative law cases.
Texas v. New Mexico
On December 14, 2020, the Court issued its ruling in an Original Action. Water is precious in the Pecos River Valley, and the distribution of water is governed by the Pecos River Compact. Here, Texas complained that New Mexico illegally was seeking delivery credits for evaporated water credits but the Court agreed that New Mexico was entitled to these credits under the provisions of the River Master’s Manual.
Florida v. Georgia
On April 1, 2021, in another waters right ruling on an Original Action filed in the Supreme Court, the Court rejected Florida’s claims that Georgia’s use of interstate waters harmed Florida’s businesses. Florida had to satisfy a heavy burden of proof, which it failed to do.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Toll Brothers Honored at the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey Awards
May 13, 2024 —
Toll BrothersFREEHOLD, N.J., May 07, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --
Toll Brothers, Inc. (NYSE:TOL), the nation's leading builder of luxury homes, today announced that the Company's New Jersey Division was honored with six awards at the 2024 Fabulous Achievements in Marketing Excellence (FAME) Awards held at South Gate Manor in Freehold, New Jersey.
Presented by the Shore Builders Association of Central New Jersey, the FAME Awards honor home builders of the New Jersey Builders Associations who have made major contributions to the home building industry. The awards span categories from product and design to advertising, marketing, and professional achievements. Toll Brothers was selected as the winner in the following categories:
For more information on Toll Brothers communities in New Jersey, visit
TollBrothers.com/NewJersey.
About Toll Brothers
Toll Brothers, Inc., a Fortune 500 Company, is¬ the nation's leading builder of luxury homes. The Company was founded 57 years ago in 1967 and became a public company in 1986. Its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TOL." The Company serves first-time, move-up, empty-nester, active-adult, and second-home buyers, as well as urban and suburban renters. Toll Brothers builds in over 60 markets in 24 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, as well as in the District of Columbia. The Company operates its own architectural, engineering, mortgage, title, land development, smart home technology, and landscape subsidiaries. The Company also develops master-planned and golf course communities as well as operates its own lumber distribution, house component assembly, and manufacturing operations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is the Obsession With Recordable Injury Rates a Deadly Safety Distraction?
May 16, 2022 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordOn the first morning of 2021, laborer Mason Mack Harris, 25, reported for work that would have qualified for extra holiday pay. On that New Year’s Day, the onsite manager for his employer, Midwest Demolition Co., assigned Harris and a workmate to complete demolition of a 9-ft-high concrete balcony slab at a children’s home renovation project in Lincoln, Neb. According to U.S. Labor Dept. records, they used a concrete saw since neighbors had complained about jackhammer noise from earlier work.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Court of Appeals Addresses What It Means to “Reside” in Property for Purposes of Coverage
July 16, 2023 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Dardar v. Farmers Auto. Ins. Ass'n, 2023 IL App ( 5th ) 220357-U, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals addressed an insured’s suit against her property insurer after the carrier denied coverage for a fire loss. The property in question was inherited by the Plaintiff from her brother and was in the process of being renovated at the time of the fire loss. After the fire, the Plaintiff’s homeowners carrier denied the claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not occupying the property at the time of the fire and was therefore not covered under the terms of the policy. It was undisputed that the Plaintiffs never lived in or physically occupied the home. Correspondingly, the carrier denied the claim on the basis that the policy only covered the Plaintiff’s "residence premises," which was defined as: (1) the one-family dwelling where you reside; (2) the two, three, or four-family dwelling where you reside in at least one of the units; or (3) that part of any other building in which you reside. The carrier determined that the Plaintiff did not “reside” at the property and therefore were not covered under the policy terms.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
ALERT: COVID-19 / Coronavirus-Related Ransomware and Phishing Attacks
April 13, 2020 —
Christopher E. Ballod & Sean B. Hoar - Digital Insights Lewis Brisbois' Data Privacy & Cybersecurity BlogAs with other events that attract societal attention – whether it be an international sporting event like the Olympics or a natural disaster like the Australian bush fires - criminals often utilize the events to exploit consumers’ fears and, in turn, compromise the cybersecurity of businesses nationwide. With the advent of the Coronavirus, criminals have begun to take advantage of what consumers expect to receive via email to conduct phishing attacks. Criminals are also expected to take advantage of millions of vulnerable remote connections from employee home networks to their corporate networks.
According to Proofpoint Inc., a cybersecurity firm, the use of sophisticated Coronavirus-related “phishing” strategies has been on the rise since January, with new malicious email campaigns surfacing each day. These emails, which appear to come from legitimate organizations, contain content such as advice on combatting the Coronavirus, phony invoices for purchases of face masks and medical supplies, advertisements for products that allegedly treat the illness, and phony alerts from the World Health Organization (WHO) or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). When the email recipients open these messages, they unknowingly release malware, which allows the attacker to gain access to their personal information and to compromise the security of their employers’ networks.
The recent emergence of Coronavirus-related “phishing” schemes demonstrates that businesses must remain vigilant. Employees and their employers are particularly vulnerable now, in light of the novel nature of the Coronavirus, the paucity of information concerning the illness, and the rapid and significant manner in which it is spreading. Individuals are thirsty for information and advice, and are eager to take any action necessary to protect themselves and their families.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher E. Ballod, Lewis Brisbois and
Sean B. Hoar, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Ballod may be contacted at Christopher.Ballod@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Hoar may be contacted at Sean.Hoar@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Vallagio v. Metropolitan Homes: Colorado Supreme Court Upholds Declarant Consent Provision to Amend Arbitration Out of Declarations
June 15, 2017 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn June 5, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court announced the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Con. Ass’n v. Metro. Homes, Inc., No. 15SC508, 2017 CO 69 (Colo. June 5, 2017) decision. In short, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the validity of declarant “consent-to-amend” provisions and expressly held that claims under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act are arbitrable.
By way of background, the Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominiums were developed by Metro Inverness, LLC, (“Declarant”) which also served as the declarant for its homeowners association. Metropolitan Homes was Metro Inverness’ manager and the general contractor on the project. Greg Krause and Peter Kudla served as declarant-appointed members of the Association’s board during the period of declarant control.
When it set up the Association, the Declarant included within the Association’s declaration a mandatory arbitration provision specifically for construction defect claims. This provision stated that it “shall not ever be amended without the written consent of Declarant and without regard to whether Declarant owns any portion of the Real Estate at the time of the amendment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
