Quick Note: Mitigation of Damages in Contract Cases
October 02, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an earlier article, I discussed an owner’s measure of damages when a contractor breaches the construction contract. This article discussed a case where the contractor elected to walk off a residential renovation job due to a payment dispute when he demanded more money and the owners did not bite. This case also discussed the commonly asserted defense known as mitigation of damages, i.e., the other party failed to properly mitigate their own damages.
In the breach of contract setting, mitigation of damages refers to those damages the other side could have reasonably avoided had he undertaken certain (reasonable) measures. This is known as the doctrine of avoidable consequences.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
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
Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess
January 09, 2015 —
Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico – White and Williams LLPIn lawsuits challenging the validity of business transactions and combinations, the most significant issue is often which standard of review the court applies: the defense-friendly “Business Judgment Rule” or the more stringent “Entire Fairness Standard.” The standard utilized by the court – or more often times the standard which the parties think the court will apply – can drive decisions on motion practice, settlement discussions, and resolution strategy. Under the Business Judgment Rule, directors are presumed to have acted in good faith and their decisions will only be questioned when they are shown to have engaged in self-dealing or fraud. However, if a “Controlling Shareholder” stands on both sides of the transaction, the court will often scrutinize the transaction under the more plaintiff-friendly “Entire Fairness Standard.”
So, what constitutes a “Controlling Shareholder?” If the party in question owns more than 50% of a company’s equity, the answer is clear-cut. However, for cases involving stockholders who own less than 50% of a company’s equity and stand on both sides of the disputed transaction, the answer is not so simple. This uncertainty was highlighted in back-to-back decisions by the Delaware Chancery Court in November 2014. On November 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty in In Re Sanchez Energy Derivative Litigation (“Sanchez”). Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to raise an inference that two directors with a collective 21.5% equity interest in the company were Controlling Shareholders. The very next day, in In Re Zhongpin Inc. Stockholders Litigation (“Zhongpin”), the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against an alleged “Controlling Shareholder” and members of the company’s board. In Zhongpin, Vice Chancellor Noble held that sufficient facts were plead to raise an inference that a CEO with a 17.5% equity was a “Controlling Shareholder.”
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Maurice Pesso,
Greg M. Steinberg and
Christopher J. Orrico
Mr. Pesso may be contacted at pessom@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Orrico may be contacted at orricoc@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Why 8 Out of 9 Californians Don't Buy Earthquake Insurance
August 27, 2014 —
Alyssa Abkowitz – BloombergEarly estimates suggest the economic losses from Sunday’s 6.0-magnitude earthquake in Northern California, the largest quake to hit the Golden State in 25 years, could hit $1 billion. When it comes to rebuilding, much of the cost will come out of people’s own pockets.
The percentage of homeowners with earthquake insurance in California and across the U.S. has declined, despite rising estimates of the risk of an earthquake. A survey by the Insurance Information Institute, a nonprofit that’s funded by the insurance industry, found that 7 percent of U.S. homeowners have earthquake insurance, down from 13 percent just two years ago. In the West, ground zero for U.S. quakes, 10 percent of homeowners have coverage, down from 22 percent a year ago; in California, about 12 percent do, according to the California Earthquake Authority.
But as fewer people opt for earthquake insurance, the government is upping its assessment of the risk of a sizable shake. Last month, the U.S. Geological Survey updated its seismic hazard maps for the first time since 2008. The update showed an increased earthquake risk for almost half the country. Parts of Washington, Oregon, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, among others, moved into the top two hazard zones. The San Francisco Bay area, for example, shows a 63 percent chance of one or more major earthquakes before 2036, according to the agency.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alyssa Abkowitz, Bloomberg
Construction Defect Claims are on the Rise Due to Pandemic-Related Issues
April 25, 2022 —
Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ StaffAccording to a recent
New York Times article, pandemic-related issues such as “stop-and-start construction, global supply chain issues, pressure from lenders and yo-yoing housing prices” has caused an increase in construction defect suits for new apartment developments: “Complaints and legal claims are already emerging, signaling that a confluence of all factors amid the Covid crisis could continue to be a problem for new construction — from entry-level studios to top-tier penthouses — for years to come, according to lawyers and development consultants.”
A Times analysis of Department of Buildings data by Marketproof demonstrated an increase in complaints beginning March 1st, 2020: “During the first year of the pandemic, new residential buildings recorded an average of five complaints per building, a 46 percent jump from the same period the previous year.”
Steven D. Sladkus, a partner at Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas told the Times that his “'phone’s been ringing off the hook' with complaints from homeowners in new condo buildings” regarding “heating problems, poor sound insulation, fire safety issues and faulty elevators.”
Developers have faced a variety of pandemic-related challenges including a disrupted supply chain, shut downs, shipping delays, labor shortages, and increased material prices. In 2020, the lack of availability of vaccines caused some construction to halt: “Suddenly one guy calls in sick and the whole crew of electricians can’t show up,” Steven Zirinsky, co-chair of the building codes committee at the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects told the Times.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Workers Compensation Insurance: Dangers of the Audit Process
April 12, 2021 —
Jason M. Gropper - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPIf your business obtains workers compensation insurance, it is important you take steps to protect the business and yourself from excessive premiums to the insurance company as a result of misclassification of workers.
After applying for and being accepted by an insurance company for workers compensation insurance, your business will receive a Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance Policy. It is important that you or an advisor reviews this document. Generally, this document will explain what the insurance company can do, steps it can take to determine the premium, and the responsibilities of your business.
The document will also provide the estimated premium. A premium is the amount you will pay for the coverage provided by the insurance company. The premium is determined by many factors, including the classification of each employee. It is important that when your company applies for insurance, the correct classifications are provided. If those are not provided, or provided in error, the insurance company will assign classifications and the associated rates, based on its assumptions and conclusions. The insurance company will assess the payroll and multiply it by an established rate based on the revised classification. The rates are different for the distinct work being done by each employee, with higher-risk jobs receiving a higher rate. For instance, a roofer or framer will have a higher rate than clerical staff. The rate is generally higher for those with riskier jobs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason M. Gropper, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Gropper may be contacted at
Gropper@ahclaw.com
The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees
February 07, 2022 —
Nicholas B. Brummel, Arezoo Jamshidi & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & BonesteelOn January 21, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles), certified for publication a 2-1 decision that serves as an important reminder to California attorneys to post jury fees in a timely manner and to use appropriate channels and consult with appellate counsel in seeking appellate relief from contested rulings.
In TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Nathaniel Fonnegra, (B303300, Jan. 21, 2022), a construction defect dispute, the trial court set a jury trial at defendant’s request. However, on the day trial was set, defendant waived jury trial. Plaintiff objected and made an oral request for jury trial. The trial court denied the request finding that plaintiff waived its right to a jury trial by failing to timely post jury fees. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the court ruled in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed, having failed to seek a writ of mandate, which the appellate court noted “is the proper remedy to secure a jury trial allegedly wrongfully withheld.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel,
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Court of Appeals Holds That Insurer Must Defend Oil Company Against Entire Lawsuit
October 07, 2019 —
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Georgia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of Mountain Express Oil Company on its breach of contract claim against liability insurer, Southern Trust Insurance Company. Empire Petroleum brought claims against Mountain Express for breach of contract, injunctive relief, and libel or slander, among others. Mountain Express sought a defense to that lawsuit under its insurance policy with Southern Trust. Southern Trust contended that the insurance policy did not cover Empire’s non-libel/slander claims, and therefore reimbursed Mountain Express for only a portion of its attorneys’ fees. After the Empire lawsuit settled, Mountain Express sued Southern Trust for breach of contract and bad faith for failing to pay the remaining defense costs, contending that Southern Trust had a duty to defend the entire lawsuit.
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Mountain Express on its breach of contract claim. Citing policy language stating that “[the insurer] will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any ‘suit’ seeking those damages,” the court held that Southern Trust was obligated to defend the entire lawsuit. Specifically, in reaching that conclusion, the court noted that by agreeing to defend any “suit,” not any “claim,” Southern Trust obligated itself to defend the entire lawsuit if any claim could be covered under the policy. Accordingly, Southern Trust breached the policy when it only agreed to defend some of the claims against its insured.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
