When an Insurer Proceeds as Subrogee, Defendants Cannot Assert Contribution Claims Against the Insured
July 15, 2019 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistIn Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. of Mason County v. Stove Builder Int’l, 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 46993 (E.D. Ky.), the United States District Court for the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Kentucky, by adopting a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendations, see Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stove Builder, Int’l, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48103 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 11, 2019), considered whether to allow the defendants to file a third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors. Finding that the defendants could not pursue contribution claims against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors, the court denied the defendant’s motion to file a third-party complaint.
The underlying subrogation action involved allegations of strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty against a pellet heater manufacturer and the retailer who sold the heater. The claims arose from a fire allegedly originating from the heater, which spread to the insureds-subrogors’ home causing property damage, along with consequential damages. Pursuant to the applicable insurance policy, the insureds-subrogors’ insurer issued payments to its insureds-subrogors. Thereafter, the insurer filed suit against the heater manufacturer and retailer.
The defendants filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against the plaintiff’s insureds-subrogors, seeking to assert a contribution claim. The defendants alleged that the insureds-subrogors failed to properly install and maintain the pellet heater. The defendants also sought a jury instruction that would permit the jury to apportion fault to the insureds-subrogors, resulting in a reduction of the plaintiff’s recovery. The court looked to federal procedural law, but Kentucky substantive law to decide the defendants’ motion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and WilliamsMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Client Alert: Stipulated Judgment For Full Amount Of Underlying Claim As Security For Compromise Settlement Void As Unenforceable Penalty
March 26, 2014 —
David W. Evans, Krsto Mijanovic, and Gregory M. Smith-Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Purcell v. Schweitzer (No. D063435 - filed February 24, 2014, certified for publication March 17, 2014), the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld an order setting aside a stipulated default judgment for the full amount of plaintiff’s claim which had been agreed to by the parties to a settlement agreement, finding that it constituted an unenforceable penalty because the amount bore no reasonable relationship to the settling party’s actual damages resulting from a breach of the settlement agreement.
In an agreement settling a breach of contract action seeking $85,000 in damages based on an unpaid debt, the plaintiff agreed to settle the claim and to accept $38,000 in 24 monthly installments, including interest on the unpaid principal at 8.5 percent. The agreement provided that payments were due on the first day of each month and to be considered “timely,” had to be received by the fifth day of each month. If any payment was not made on time, it was to be considered a breach of the entire settlement agreement, making the entire $85,000 original liability due pursuant to a stipulation for entry of judgment for such amount. The stipulation included language to the effect that the $85,000 figure accounted for the “economics” of further proceedings. The agreement also specified that the foregoing provision did not constitute an unlawful “penalty” or “forfeiture” and that defendant waived any right to an appeal and any right to contest or seek to set aside such a judgment.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
David W. Evans,
Krsto Mijanovic, and
Gregory M. Smith
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Smith may be contacted at gsmith@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP Recognized by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers in 2023 “Best Law Firms” Rankings
November 28, 2022 —
Payne & Fears LLPPayne & Fears LLP is pleased to announce that the firm has been recognized by U.S. News & World Report and Best Lawyers 2023 “Best Law Firms” list. Firms included in the 2023 edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” are recognized for professional excellence with consistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. This includes the top 5% of private practicing lawyers in the United States.
Payne & Fears LLP has been ranked in the following practice areas:
- Commercial Litigation
- Employment Law – Management
- Insurance Law
- Labor Law – Management
- Litigation – Labor & Employment
- Litigation – Real Estate
- Litigation – Intellectual Property
Additionally, on August 15, 2022, 11 of our attorneys were selected for inclusion in
The Best Lawyers in America® 2023. Collectively bringing decades of experience and dedication to their practice, Jeffrey K. Brown, Daniel F. Fears, Daniel M. Livingston, Thomas L. Vincent, Benjamin A. Nix, James L. Payne, Scott S. Thomas, and Kelby Van Patten received this respected achievement. Additionally, Leilani E. Jones, Sarah J. Odia, and Matthew C. Lewis were included in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2023.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
Apartment Construction Ominously Nears 25-Year High
August 27, 2014 —
Karen Weise – BloombergIf you live in a major U.S. city and look out over the skyline, chances are good you’ll see construction cranes. Lots of them. Only twice in the past 25 years have new apartment buildings been going up as fast as they are right now. That’s not necessarily a good omen. The first time, in February 2000, was right before the dot-com bubble burst. The second time, January 2006, came right before the housing bubble burst. Now we learn that builders broke ground on 423,000 new multifamily units in July, right before … who knows what?
Monthly building data released earlier this week by the Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development showed that new home construction overall posted strong gains in July, with the highest number of new home starts in eight months. The comeback largely manifested in an uptick in apartment buildings with five or more units, which saw an almost 50 percent increase in new starts in July over a year earlier. By comparison, starts on single-family homes were up only about 10 percent over the same period.
That’s part of the reason that the Northeast, with its large, dense cities, saw the biggest monthly increase, up 44 percent from June. That matches the analysis by Trulia (TRLA) Chief Economist Jed Kolko, who found that among metro areas, Boston and New York are building more than in the past.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Karen Weise, BloombergMs. Weise may be contacted at
kweise@bloomberg.net
Understanding the Details: Suing Architects and Engineers Can Get Technical
November 02, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Stephen M. Tye - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPBefore suing an architect or engineer for professional negligence, a plaintiff must obtain a “certificate of merit” (“Certificate”) under Code of Civil Procedure section 411.35. Boiled down to the basics, the Certificate declares that the attorney consulted with and received an opinion from an expert that a reasonable and meritorious case exists against said design professional. The Certificate must be filed before serving the complaint on any defendant, but can be filed within 60 days under certain circumstances. This rule was recently analyzed against another long-standing rule in California, known as the “relation-back doctrine.” Under the relation-back doctrine, a court will deem a later-filed pleading, such as an amended complaint, to be deemed filed at the time of an earlier complaint.
In Curtis Engineering Corp. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. D072046, (Cal. Ct. App. 10/23/17), the Fourth Appellate Court considered the interplay between section 411.35 and the relation-back doctrine, holding that a Certificate filed more than 60 days after filing the original pleading does not relate back to the filing of the original pleading.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh
December 03, 2024 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverOver 500 construction law attorneys and consultants convened last week at the confluence of three rivers in what became the first-ever meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania of the ABA Forum on Construction Law. The Steel City was a fitting backdrop for a meeting focused on issues of design in construction. Thanks to the hard work of many, most notably the newly minted Forum Chair Keith Bergeron and Meeting Coordinators Kendall Woods and Michael Clark, the meeting's attendees brought home new connections and a host of new lessons learned. Read on for my top 10 take-aways from the 2024 Fall Meeting in Pittsburgh and feel free to share yours in the comments below.
10. An architect's standard of care does not require perfection. A common refrain across many of the meeting's plenary sessions was that any design that is produced by human hands will never be perfect. In recognition of our own fallibility, the legal standard to which design professionals will be held to account does not require that their designs be error-free. A design professional must generally exercise the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professionals performing similar services under similar circumstances. Establishing what that means in each locality will vary and will most likely need to be supported by the expert opinion of another practicing design professional.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
Negligence of Property Appraiser
September 28, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA new appellate decision came out discussing the statute of limitations associated with a negligence claim against a property appraiser. In this case, Llano Financing Group, LLC v. Petit, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2071a (Fla. 1st DCA 2017), the court held that the four year statute of limitations for negligence claims commences when the lender relied on the appraisal to fund the loan. The statute of limitations does not commence years later when the property is ultimately sold at a loss. Oh no. Once the lender receives the appraisal and funds the loan, the statute of limitations for the negligence claim begins. Applying this rationale in other contexts, the statute of limitations to sue a property appraiser in negligence would commence once an appraisal is received and relied on.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
