Continuing Breach Doctrine
May 28, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHave you ever heard of the “continuing breach” doctrine? Probably not. It is not a doctrine commonly discussed. It’s a doctrine used to try to argue around the statute of limitations.
In an older Southern District Court of Florida case, Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 188 F.R.Ed. 667, 679 (S.D.Fla. 1999), the court explained: “Under this [continuing breach] doctrine, a cause of action for breach of a contract does not begin to accrue upon the initial breach; rather, on contracts providing serial performance by the parties, accrual of a breach of contract cause of action commences upon the occurrence of the last breach or upon termination of the contract.”
Recently, this doctrine came up in an opinion by Florida’s Fifth District Court of Appeal. In Hernando County, Florida v. Hernando County Fair Association, Inc., 49 Fla.L.Weekly D947b (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), a plaintiff appealed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of its breach of contract claim based on the statute of limitations. The plaintiff claimed the defendant breached the contract by its failure to substantially redevelop property. The trial court dismissed based on the statute of limitations. However, the complaint alleged the defendant’s failure to comply “with numerous other intertwined, ongoing, and continuing contractual duties and obligations.” Hernando County, supra. The Fifth District reversed based on the continuing breach doctrine: “Where the nature of the contract is continuous, statutes of limitations do not typically begin to run until termination of the entire contract.” Id. quoting and citing Allapattah Servs., Inc.
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
Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium
August 04, 2021 —
Zachary Kessler, Amanda G. Halter & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn a closely watched 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided against the challengers to the eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), keeping a stay in place that leaves the eviction ban in effect through July 31. The CDC has indicated it will not renew the eviction moratorium when it expires at the end of the month.
The CDC’s eviction moratorium was first adopted at the expiration of the CARES Act’s limited eviction protection for federally funded rental properties. The more broadly applicable order, extended under both the Trump and Biden administrations, prohibited landlords from evicting tenants unable to pay due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the tenant confirmed in writing that they had done their best to make any partial payment, were at risk of becoming homeless or having to move into unsafe group housing, and earn below a set income limit. The CDC extended the order most recently on June 24. In announcing that one-month extension, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky indicated that it would be the order’s final extension.
Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and
Adam Weaver, Pillsbury
Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Law Bars Coverage for Construction Defects in Insured's Work
September 24, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Illinois law, the Seventh Circuit determined there was no coverage for faulty workmanship causing property damage to the insured's project. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Board of Directors of Regal Lofts Condominium Ass'n, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16250 (7th Cir. Aug. 21, 2014).
The developer converted a vacant building into a condominium. The construction was completed in 2000. The Condominium Board took control of the condo association on July 27, 2000. As early as May 2000, one homeowner was aware of water damage problems in the building. Other complaints surfaced. An investigation found that the exterior brick masonry walls were not fully waterproofed, which caused leaks. The investigation further showed that deteriorated conditions had likely developed over many years, even prior to the condominium conversion, but the present water penetration was caused by the inadequate restoration of the walls to a water-tight condition.
The underlying action was filed against the developer for failure to properly construct the exterior walls. The developer's carrier, Nautilus, denied coverage. In an amended complaint, the Board added a count of negligence. Again, Nautilus denied coverage. The Board's second amended complaint alleged that the developer's negligence had caused damage to personal property within the building, in addition to the interior of the building and the building itself. For the third time, Nautilus denied coverage and filed for declaratory relief.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact
June 21, 2017 —
Aaron Lovaas – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPConstruction and design professionals in Nevada’s home building industry breathed a collective sigh of relief on June 5, 2017 when the 79th Session of the Nevada Legislature adjourned without entertaining Senate Bill 250, which sought to reinstate homeowner plaintiffs’ nearly automatic right to recover attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation when bringing suit for alleged constructional defects.
Until 2015, homeowners’ recovery of such damages was the reality of the construction defect landscape in Nevada. While Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes specifically allowed for recovery of “reasonable” attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation, the trend in Nevada was that plaintiffs were all but guaranteed awards of all such sums. Of course, this environment incentivized plaintiffs’ lawyers to bring claims of questionable or little repair value in cases where the attorney’s fees and expert costs often far exceeded the costs of repair.
HOW AB125 CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE
Such was the reality in Nevada until 2015 and the passage of Assembly Bill 125, which eliminated the nearly automatic award of attorneys’ fees and expert costs and overhauled Chapter 40 in many other respects. AB125 made over portions of Chapter 40 by:
- Placing awards of attorneys’ fees into the framework of offers of judgment, utilized extensively in other fields of civil litigation and available equally to homeowner plaintiffs as well as construction industry defendants; and
- Reworking expert costs and costs of investigation to allow for the award of those items only in the case of proven defects and only as to those costs directly related to the investigation and proof of those defects.
INTRODUCING SB250
The 2017 Legislative Session saw efforts to return Chapter 40 to its pre-2015 version through the introduction of SB250. Fortunately for construction and design professionals in the home building industry in Nevada, the State Senate Judiciary Committee did not act upon the bill and the effort died having never made it to a floor vote. Considering that Nevada’s Legislature meets biannually, the current framework of Chapter 40 is intact until at least 2019. The 2017 Legislative Session, however, is an illustration to how quickly those of the construction defect plaintiffs’ bar can move to initiate efforts to turn back the clock to a much riskier time for construction and design professionals.
Those in the industry should remain vigilant and monitor future legislative efforts to reinstate such awards or other clearly anti-builder measures. Such measures simply drive-up the overall cost and expense of home construction and, in turn, home ownership, which it is often said, is one of the cornerstones of the American dream.
Aaron Lovaas is a partner in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion. As a transactional attorney and business litigator, Aaron has the ability to evaluate legal issues from both points of view and help his clients understand their best option. He can be reached at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations
August 20, 2019 —
Jessica Burtnett & Jessica N. Kull - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of their client after oral argument for a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull represented an insurance broker who was sued by one of its customers, a property management company, for failure to procure a correct policy of insurance that would have provided coverage for an underlying class action lawsuit asserting statutory violations.
In their motion, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the Plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable two year statute of limitations outlined in the Illinois Insurance Producers Act 735 ILCS 5/13-214.4. Based on a recent ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop, 2018 IL 122556, ¶ 13, reh’g denied (Nov. 26, 2018), Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the statute of limitations began to accrue at the moment the allegedly non-conforming policy was delivered to the customer Plaintiff. In this case, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the subject policy was purchased and received before it became effective on November 25, 2015. Thus, at the absolute latest, the statute of limitations expired two years later on November 25, 2017. Since the lawsuit was not filed until October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was approximately 10 months too late to assert a valid claim.
In response, the Plaintiff tried to factually distinguish the Krop case by arguing it involved a claim against a captive agent rather than a broker. Plaintiff further argued that a broker maintains a fiduciary duty to its clients and, therefore, the two year statute of limitations applied in Krop did not apply to a broker. Plaintiff also argued the Illinois Insurance Placement Liability Act was unconstitutional.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Burtnett, Traub Lieberman and
Jessica N. Kull, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Burtnett may be contacted at jburtnett@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kull may be contacted at jkull@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Administrative and Environmental Law Cases Decided During the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term
July 28, 2018 —
Anthony B. Cavender & Amy L. Pierce - Gravel2GavelUnlike other Terms, only a handful of cases addressed administrative and environmental law issues in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017-2018 Term. However, the next Term of the Court promises to be more active in these areas.
- On January 22, 2018, the Court issued a unanimous opinion in the Clean Water Act (CWA) case, Nat’l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Defense, holding that the plain language of the CWA requires the appeal of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) redefinition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS Rule) must be heard first in the federal district courts. Whereas all appeals of most EPA CWA effluent limitation rules must be heard in the federal Courts of Appeals, Congress chose not to do this with respect to this definitional rule.
The Court points out that reviews in the Courts of Appeals must take place within 120 days of the rule’s promulgation, but any review of a rule in the federal district court must take place within 6 years of the date the claim accrues.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman and
Amy L. Pierce, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Pierce may be contacted at amy.pierce@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Industry Groups Challenge DOL’s New DBRA Regulations
December 16, 2023 —
Bret Marfut - The Construction SeytLess than a month after taking effect, the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) broad changes to the regulations implementing Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (“DBRA”) are facing legal challenges in two federal courts. These newly-filed lawsuits could change things for those trying to navigate the new regulatory landscape. Contractors on DBRA-covered contracts should keep an eye out for developments.
On October 23, 2023, DOL’s final rule updating the regulations implementing DBRA became effective. The first major overhaul of its kind in forty years, the final rule made sweeping changes to the regulations governing payment of prevailing wages on most federally-funded construction contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bret Marfut, SeyfarthMr. Marfut may be contacted at
bmarfut@seyfarth.com
Appeals Court Affirms Carrier’s Duty to Pay Costs Taxed Against Insured in Construction Defect Suit
November 03, 2016 —
Jesse Howard Witt – The Witt Law FirmOne of the key reasons for builders to maintain liability insurance is to cover the cost of hiring defense counsel and paying litigation costs in the event of a construction defect lawsuit. If a builder loses a lawsuit, it will typically be responsible for paying the plaintiff’s litigation costs. Today, the Colorado Court of Appeals clarified that the “supplementary payments” section of a standard Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy covers such costs, even if the carrier has reserved the right to dispute whether it has a duty to indemnify the actual damages awarded. This may seem counter-intuitive, insofar as a carrier may owe costs even if it does not cover the underlying loss, but the court’s decision is consistent with the plain language of the CGL form that most carriers use.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law Firm
Mr. Witt may be contacted at his website www.witt.law
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
