Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects
February 26, 2015 —
Nadja Brandt – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- David Lichtenstein, whose real estate company owned Extended Stay Hotels when the chain went bankrupt, is committing $2 billion to developing and investing in lodging properties.
Lightstone Group is choosing “top-branded” select-service properties, those with limited amenities, in proven U.S. markets for its projects, Lichtenstein said in an interview. As part of the strategy, Lightstone has teamed up with Marriott International Inc. to build five Moxy hotels in New York -- four in Manhattan and one in Brooklyn. The “micro” lodgings, with high-tech features and smaller-than-average rooms, are geared toward younger travelers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadja Brandt, BloombergMs. Brandt may be contacted at
nbrandt@bloomberg.net
California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value
April 15, 2015 —
Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Assn. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones ( No. B248622, filed 4/8/15), a California appeals court held that California’s Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones lacked the authority to promulgate California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2695.183, which set out specific requirements for estimating replacement cost as part of any application or renewal for homeowners insurance.
The regulation was promulgated in 2010 in response to complaints from homeowners who lost their homes in the wildfires in Southern California in 2003, 2007, and 2008, and who discovered that they did not have enough insurance to cover the full cost of repairing or rebuilding their homes because the insurers’ estimates of replacement value were too low when they purchased the insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence
March 20, 2023 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn University of Massachusetts Building Authority v. Adams Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2023 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 28, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1107, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts (Appeals Court) considered whether the lower court properly held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were time-barred by the statute of repose because they sounded in tort. The Appeals Court held that while the six-year statute of repose only applies to tort claims, they can also bar claims for breach of contract and indemnification if they sound in tort. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were just negligence claims disguised as non-tort claims.
In 2013 and 2014, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) retained various contractors to renovate the dining hall for one of its campus buildings, which included the installation of new ductwork for the kitchen’s exhaust system. The dining hall opened for service in September 2014. In the Spring of 2018, it was discovered that the ductwork for the kitchen had collapsed. Further investigation revealed other deficiencies with the exhaust system. On December 1, 2020, UMass filed a lawsuit against various contractors, asserting negligence, breach of contract, and indemnification. The breach of contract claims alleged breach of express warranties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Update Regarding New York’s New Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects
February 06, 2023 —
Christopher B. Kinzel, K. Greer Kuras, Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Some significant changes are being made by chapter amendments (S.838 and A.984) to Section 220-i of New York’s Labor Law. Contractors and subcontractors bidding on public contracts and performing work on covered private projects will have two years (by December 30, 2024) to register with the Department of Labor, Bureau of Public Works, rather than one year. The amendments also remove the requirement that a contractor submit registration certificates for all its subcontractors at the time its bid is submitted; amend language with respect to notice and hearing requirements; require re-registration to occur not less than 90 days before expiration; and add language to require a monitor to oversee ongoing work if a contractor or subcontractor is found unfit.
The stated purpose of the law is to help enforce New York’s prevailing wage and other worker protection laws. The DOL will create an online system through which contractors and subcontractors will have to answer questions and submit documents about:
- the business entity and its owners and officers
- unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance
- any outstanding wage assessments
- debarment under New York or federal law, or any other state’s laws
- final determinations of a violation of any labor laws, employment tax laws, or workplace safety standards (including OSHA)
- association or signatory to an apprenticeship program
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher B. Kinzel, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
K. Greer Kuras, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Kinzel may be contacted at ckinzel@pecklaw.com
Ms. Kuras may be contacted at gkuras@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Obligated to Cover Preventative Remediation of Construction Defects
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA recent Texas construction defect case gets covered on a blog post on the web site of Manatt, Phelphs & Phillps, LLC. In the case, the home builder built homes using EIFS which later had problems with mold, mildew, and structural damage. The home builder remediated all of the homes in the project, not just those that had experienced problems with the EIFS.The home builder’s insurers refused to cooperate. Various insurers settled with the home builder, leaving only Markel America Insurance Company.
Markel refused coverage on the grounds that proactively replacing the EIFS to preclude damage meant that there was no damage for their policy to cover. The policy also read that “no insured, except at their own cost, [may] voluntary make any payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense,” unless Markel agreed to it. But the Texas Supreme Court ruled that “Markel failed to prove that it was prejudiced in any way by the home builder’s settlements,” which was a necessary condition for the cited clause. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Markel was obligated to indemnify the home builder.
The court also concluded that the damage occurred during the coverage period and that “all 465 houses at issue suffered property damage during the policy period.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”
The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”
D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:
“(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”
The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.
The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.
Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.
The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Washington Supreme Court Finds Agent’s Representations in Certificate of Insurance Bind Insurance Company to Additional Insured Coverage
February 03, 2020 —
Jason Taylor - Traub LiebermanIn T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 450 P.3d 150 (Wash. 2019) the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether an insurance company is bound by its agent’s written representation—made in a certificate of insurance—that a particular corporation is an additional insured under a given policy. The question arose in a case where: (1) the Ninth Circuit had already ruled that the agent acted with apparent authority, but (2) the agent’s representation turned out to be inconsistent with the policy and (3) the certificate of insurance included additional text broadly disclaiming the certificate’s ability to “amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by” the policy. According to the Court, under Washington law the answer is yes: an insurance company is bound by the representation of its agent in those circumstances. Otherwise, the Court reasoned, an insurance company’s representations would be meaningless and it could mislead without consequence.
At the heart of this case were two T-Mobiles entities: T-Mobile USA and T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”), which were distinct legal entities. T-Mobile NE engaged a contractor to construct a cell phone tower on a rooftop in New York City. The contract between T-Mobile NE and the contractor required the contractor to obtain a general liability insurance policy, to annually provide T-Mobile NE “with certificates of insurance evidencing [that policy’s] coverage,” and to name T-Mobile NE as an additional insured under the policy. T-Mobile USA was not a party to the contract, but was nonetheless aware of it and approved the contract as to form.
The contractor obtained the required insurance policy from Selective. The policy provided that a third party would automatically become an “additional insured” under the policy if the contractor and the third party entered into their own contract that required the contractor to add the third party to its insurance policy as an additional insured. Because T-Mobile USA did not have a contract with the contractor, it did not automatically become an additional insured under the policy. Nevertheless, over the course of several years, Selective’s agent issued a series of certificates of insurance to “T-Mobile USA Inc., its Subsidiaries and Affiliates” that stated that those entities were “included as an additional insured [under the policy] with respect to” certain areas of coverage. The agent signed those certificates as Selective’s “Authorized Representative.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Performance Bond Primer: Need to Knows and Need to Dos
February 01, 2022 —
Rafael Boza - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIf you are a construction contractor, you deal with performance bonds as part of your business and daily work. They are necessary for almost every project you are participating or will participate in, and, along with other sister bonds, constitute a basic tool to be able to work in construction. However, how much do you really know about this tool? Who in your organization knows how to use it? Are you relying on your insurance broker to procure the bonds? Can your broker competently review the terms of the bond? Are you, as a contractor, relying on the surety to explain and determine what you need for the project—a fox guarding the hen house?
To understand how a performance bond works and how to effectively tailor it to your needs, we need to understand the basics. What is a performance bond? Who are the parties to a performance bond? What does performance bond not do? What should be covered under a performance bond? How does a performance bond fit in a company’s overall risk management processes? A clear understanding of these and other basic topics will facilitate operations and reduce the risk of claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rafael Boza, PillsburyMr. Boza may be contacted at
rafael.boza@pillsburylaw.com
