NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers
February 24, 2020 —
Traub LiebermanIn New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2019 WL 6109144 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 18, 2019), New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) defeated the claim of several of its insurers that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to its Superstorm Sandy damages and recovered the full $400 million limits of its property insurance tower. The decision is a big win for the beleaguered transit agency, and for insurance professionals working with complex insurance towers, the decision highlights critical underwriting issues that can dramatically affect the amount of risk transferred by the policyholder or assumed by the insurer.
In NJ Transit, NJT secured a multi-layered property insurance program providing $400 million in all-risk coverage. The first and second layers provided $50 million each, the third and fourth layers provided $175 million and $125 million, respectively, with several insurers issuing quota shares in each layer. The program contained a $100 million flood sublimit, and “flood” was defined to include a “surge” of water. The program did not contain a sublimit for damage caused by a “named windstorm,” which was defined to include “storm surge” associated with a named storm. After NJT made its Superstorm-Sandy claim, some of the third- and fourth-layer insurers advised NJT that the $100 million flood sublimit applied to bar coverage under their policies. NJT sued these excess insurers and won at the trial and appellate levels.
In holding that the $100 million flood sublimit did not apply, the court applied the rule of construction that the specific definition of “named windstorm,” which included the terms “storm surge” and “wind driven water,” controlled over the policies’ more general definition of “flood.” In ascertaining the parties’ intent, the court noted that the omission of the term “storm surge” in the definition of “flood” evidenced an intention that the flood sublimit would not apply to storm surges. Based on this finding, the court rejected several arguments made by the insurers that other policy provisions evidenced the parties’ intent to apply the flood sublimit to all flood-related losses, regardless of whether the loss was caused by a storm surge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Rich NYC Suburbs Fight Housing Plan They Say Will ‘Destroy’ Them
May 15, 2023 —
Laura Nahmias & Skylar Woodhouse - BloombergOne town calls it a “power grab” that “will force Long Island to become the sixth borough of New York City.”
Another warns it will “destroy” life as they know it. A third calls it “radical, unprecedented and a drastic departure” from how localities have governed themselves for decades.
Across the state, but especially around the wealthy suburbs of New York City and Long Island, politicians and residents are sounding the alarm about Governor Kathy Hochul’s plan to address a housing crisis.
To some policy experts and supporters, it’s the most politically ambitious program of its type in years, a rare act of courage in Albany, where incrementalism is king. Others see it as the policy equivalent of an extinction-level event and a bizarrely self-defeating move from a governor who risks permanently alienating the suburban voters she’ll need to win reelection in three years.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Nahmias, Bloomberg and
Skylar Woodhouse, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings
March 19, 2014 —
David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assoc. v. Superior Court (No. D064567, March 12, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) litigation meetings related to the HOA’s construction defect lawsuit were subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the court concluded the common interest doctrine applied to the subject litigation meetings, thereby barring the defendants in the HOA’s lawsuit from seeking discovery related to the content and disclosures made during those meetings.
The plaintiff HOA initiated a construction defect lawsuit against a residential developer and builder, seeking damages for construction defects related to common areas. The defendants took the depositions of individual homeowners and inquired regarding the communications and disclosures made at informational litigation update meetings. The meetings were conducted by the HOA’s counsel with groups of homeowners, some of whom had filed their own, separate lawsuits against the same defendants. Motions to compel were filed after attorney-client privilege objections were asserted by counsel for the HOA. After the court-appointed discovery referee opined that the common interest doctrine applied and that the communications presented at the meetings were subject to the attorney-client privilege, the trial court rejected this recommendation and overruled the HOA’s privilege objections. The HOA filed a petition for a writ of mandate.
The defendants argued the privilege had been waived based on the presence of persons who were not the clients of the HOA’s attorney, that the subject communications were not “confidential communications” and that the individual homeowners and the HOA did not share common interests at the time. After setting forth a comprehensive discussion of the statutory principles underlying the attorney-client privilege and the bases for waiver, as provided in California Evidence Code §§ 912 and 952, and summarizing applicable decisional law, the court specifically analyzed the question of whether the common interest doctrine applied in the context of the disputed HOA litigation meetings. The common interest doctrine protects confidential communications made by counsel to third parties if the third parties are present to further the interest of the client or are those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans,
Steven M. Cvitanovic, and
Michael C. Parme of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice
November 16, 2020 —
Thomas Regan & Karley Kamaris - Lewis Brisbois NewsroomOn September 1, 2020, New Jersey adopted a brand-new rule of procedure, Rule 4:25-8, which properly defines motions in limine. On its face, the new rule prohibits, broadly, filing motions in limine that may have a dispositive effect on the case. Most notably, the rule expressly eliminates the ability to move, on motion in limine, to bar expert testimony in matters in which such experts are required to sustain a party’s burden of proof. This effectively makes the summary judgment phase of litigation the last chance to bar experts from a jury trial or take any other dispositive action
The new rule comes at a time in which the evidentiary standard for experts is shifting in New Jersey. In October 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court reconciled the framework for analyzing the reliability of expert testimony under N.J.R.E. 702 and 703 in In re: Accutane Litigation. Significantly, New Jersey, a traditional Frye jurisdiction, incorporated certain federal Daubert factors for expert “use by our courts” but, overall, fell short of adopting the Daubert standard as a whole. In applying the relevant Daubert factors, the trial court in Accutane held that the subject experts’ methodologies were unsound due to the failure to apply fundamentals of the scientific method of the medical-evidence hierarchy. The decision resulted in the dismissal of over 3,000 claims.
Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and
Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)
September 05, 2023 —
Anthony B. Cavender & Marcus Manca - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law on January 1, 1970, and it has rarely been amended or revised since then. NEPA is basically a procedural statute which requires Federal permitting authorities, before a major federal project is approved, to carefully consider the significant environmental consequences of the proposed federal action. NEPA has been employed to conduct a probing review of wide variety of federal projects and actions, and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated a comprehensive set of rules and guidance documents that must be followed or consulted. (See 40 CFR Section 1500 et seq.) The first set of NEPA rules was issued in 1978, and very little was done to bring the rules up to date until 2020. The first phase of this review has been completed, and a second and final phase will soon be underway. The NEPA review process includes the use of “categorical exclusions,” environmental assessments and environmental impact statements to measure the environmental impact of a proposed project. Over time, the rules and their implementation and judicial interpretation have become ever more complex, and an enormous body of NEPA case law has resulted.
The recent Congressional debt limit deliberations provided an opportunity to revise some of these procedures, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act, signed into law on June 3, 2023, included at Title III, a section devoted to “Permitting Reform.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury and
Marcus Manca, Pillsbury Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
How Contractors Can Prevent Fraud in Their Workforce
August 13, 2019 —
Sarah Hofmann - Construction ExecutiveThe word fraud might conjure up images of Wall Street executives led out to police cars in cuffs, or sleazy conmen with slicked-back hair. While these ideas might be popular in movies and TV, and often in the news, many small and large businesses fall victim to fraud. Whether it’s a trusted site manager who needed a little extra cash to cover an unexpected bill or the accountant who’s been on board for years and has been slowly siphoning an extra paycheck through a ghost employee each month, fraud might be hitting businesses without them even knowing it.
The construction industry is hardly immune to such schemes. According to the ACFE’s 2018 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse, organizations lose an estimated 5% of their revenue each year to fraud. The median amount lost per instance of fraud was $130,000 across all industries, but fraud cases in the construction industry cost almost twice that much at $227,000 per fraud. They also last longer on average: fraud schemes in the construction industry continue for 24 months before being detected versus the overall median average of 16 months. The more time a scheme continues, the more money is lost for organizations.
What types of fraud schemes are most common in the construction industry?
The construction industry is more susceptible to certain types of fraud than other industries due to the nature of the work. The companies may be smaller in size leading to fewer resources to combat fraud and more trust among employees. Also, construction companies inherently deal with many vendors, subcontractors, bidding organizations and other various third parties, which can all pose fraud risks.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah Hofmann, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest
November 23, 2016 —
Lindsay K. Taft – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Construction Law BlogRotech Healthcare, Inc., a healthcare contractor, recently successfully protested the award of a home oxygen and durable medical equipment contract by the Department of Veterans Affairs to Lincare, Inc. based on an unsupported past performance evaluation and allegations of an unequal discussion. See GAO Protest File Number: File: B-413024 (August 17, 2016). The Request for Proposals (“RFP”) provided that award would be made on a “best value” basis to the offeror whose proposal was most favorable to the government[…]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Construction Law BlogMs. Taft may be contacted at
ltaft@ac-lawyers.com
The G2G Year in Review: 2020
January 18, 2021 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogAs we say goodbye to 2020, we wanted to share our top five most-read articles of 2020 from Gravel2Gavel. The most-read blog posts covered real estate and construction industry trends ranging from proptech trends like blockchain tokenization to COVID-specific rent carveouts and management disclosures to trends and market updates. Our posts provided deep industry insight and summarized hot topics that addressed the legal implications and disruptions that affected the market. Our 2020 roundup:
- Blockchain-Based Tokenization of Commercial Real Estate by Josh Morton and Matt Olhausen. Josh and Matt discuss the increasing interest in technology applications for real estate assets, or “Proptech,” and tokenization’s potential.
- Real Estate Trends: Looking Ahead to 2021 by Adam Weaver. Adam discussed the pandemic’s influence and future trends for the real estate market.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
