A Court-Side Seat: Butterflies, Salt Marshes and Methane All Around
November 16, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOur latest summary of some recent developments in the courts and the federal agencies includes a unique case involving salt marshes adjacent to San Francisco Bay.
THE FEDERAL COURTS
A Wolf Among the Butterflies
On October 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of North American Butterfly Association v. Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The National Butterfly Center is a 100-acre wildlife sanctuary located in Texas along the border between the United States and Mexico, and in 2017, the DHS exerted control over a segment of the sanctuary to construct facilities to impede unauthorized entry into the United States. It was alleged that the government failed to provide advance notice to the sanctuary before it entered the sanctuary to build its facilities. The Association filed a lawsuit to halt these actions for several reasons, including constitutional claims and two federal environmental laws (NEPA and the Endangered Species Act), but the lower court dismissed the lawsuit because of the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). That law forecloses the applicability of these laws if the Secretary of DHS issues appropriate declaration. On appeal, the DC Circuit held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed. The plaintiffs had standing to file this lawsuit, but the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the IIRIRA, when invoked, required that the statutory claims be dismissed as well as a constitutional Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim. However, the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim that the government’s actions violated their right to procedural due process must be reviewed. The Center was given no notice of the government’s claims and no opportunity to be heard before these actions were taken. The dissenting judge argued that the court was being asked to review a non-final decision, which it should not do.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Let’s Talk About a Statutory First-Party Bad Faith Claim Against an Insurer
February 19, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesLet’s talk about a statutory first-party bad faith claim against an insurer under Florida law. A recent opinion, discussed below, does a nice job providing a synopsis of a first-party statutory bad faith claim against an insurer:
The Florida Legislature created the first-party bad faith cause of action by enacting section 624.155, Florida Statutes, which imposes a duty on insurers to settle their policyholders’ claims in good faith. The statutory obligation on the insurer is to timely evaluate and pay benefits owed under the insurance policy. The damages recoverable by the insured in a bad faith action are those amounts that are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the insurer’s bad faith in resolving a claim, which include consequential damages.
“[A] statutory bad faith claim under section 624.155 is ripe for litigation when there has been (1) a determination of the insurer’s liability for coverage; (2) a determination of the extent of the insured’s damages; and (3) the required [civil remedy] notice is filed pursuant to section 624.155(3)(a).”
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
First Circuit Limits Insurers’ Right to Recoup Defense Costs or Settlement Payments
April 02, 2024 —
Eric Hermanson, Austin Moody & Victoria Ranieri - White and Williams LLPWeighing in on an issue that has divided courts nationwide, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has ruled that an insurer under Massachusetts law has no right to recoup defense costs, or amounts the insurer pays in settlement – even if the insurer reserves rights prior to payment and obtains a ruling, after the fact, that no defense or indemnity was owed. Berkley Natl. Ins. Co. v. Atlantic-Newport Realty LLC, No. 22-1959, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 4115 (1st Cir. Feb 22, 2024) (“Granite Telecomm"). However, the First Circuit rested its ruling on narrow procedural grounds, which may prolong the controversy rather than resolve it.
The insureds in Granite Telecomm owned a company cafeteria. They were sued by a food service worker who suffered a foot infection after being exposed to bacteria during a sewage backup. They sought coverage from their insurer, Berkley. Berkley argued that coverage was barred by a fungus and bacteria exclusion in the policy. The insureds disagreed. They threatened suit under M.G.L. ch. 93A, and demanded that Berkley defend the case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric Hermanson, White and Williams LLP,
Austin Moody, White and Williams LLP and
Victoria Ranieri, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Ranieri may be contacted atranieriv@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“Rip and Tear” Damage Remains Covered Under CGL Policy as “Accident”—for Now.
September 01, 2016 —
Michael Lindsay & Luke Mecklenburg – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Colorado Supreme Court has approved a settlement between the parties to an appeal of the 2012 Colorado Pool Systems v. Scottsdale Insurance Company Court of Appeals case, leaving that ruling intact. The ruling parses a fine line between uncovered costs of repairing defective work and covered costs of damage caused to nondefective work while repairing defective work. This nuanced opinion, which is now established Colorado law, is worth a second look.
In Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that so-called “rip and tear” damage caused by a construction professional to nondefective work while correcting defective work is covered as an “accident” under standard Commercial General Liability insurance language. 317 P.3d 1262 (Colo. App. 2012). A pool company excavated and built a rebar frame in order to construct a pool, but it hired a subcontractor to pour the concrete. An inspector later noticed that some of the rebar was too close to the surface, and the pool company agreed to demolish and replace the pool after an agent of its insurer represented that this loss would be covered. But the agent was wrong, the insurer denied coverage, and litigation ensued.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Lindsay, Snell & Wilmer and
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Lindsay may be contacted at mlindsay@swlaw.com
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York
June 28, 2021 —
Robert S. Nobel & Craig Rokuson - Traub LiebermanNew York recognizes that coverage under Workers’ Compensation (“WC”) and Employer’s Liability (“EL”) policies is generally unlimited. See Tully Const. Co. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 131 A.D.3d 598 (2d Dept. 2015); Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 263 A.D.2d 825, 694 N.Y.S.2d 221 (3d Dept. 1999). However, there is case holding that EL coverage may be limited in certain instances, such as when the primary EL carrier is listed as scheduled underlying insurance on an excess policy.
In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 43 A.D.3d 666, 841 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1st Dept. 2007), an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation (“General”), a subcontractor on a construction project, sought to recover under New York’s Labor Law against the project’s owner and construction manager. Those defendants, in turn, brought a third-party action for indemnification against General. The employee’s personal injury claim was ultimately settled for $2.5 million. After the settlement, the excess insurer, Liberty, filed suit against the primary employer’s liability insurers, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and American International Group of Companies (collectively, “AIG”), which had refused to participate in the defense or settlement of the underlying personal injury litigation. Although the issue of whether the plaintiff in the underling action had sustained a “grave injury” (necessary to support the common law indemnity claim against General and trigger coverage under the Employer’s Lability policy) had not yet been determined, the court held that “[i]n the event the existence of a grave injury is proven, AIG’s liability will be limited to $1 million.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman and
Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Key Economic & Geopolitical Themes To Monitor In 2024
January 16, 2024 —
Global Insights Center Staff - The HartfordSlowing US Economic Growth and Flattening Interest Rates
Growth in the first half of 2023 averaged approximately 2.0%, driven mainly by private sector investments outside of the residential housing sector, government spending, and strong consumer demand. In 2024, The Hartford’s Global Insights Center is expecting investments and government spending to continue and may support growth in the year. However, consumer health may start to weaken due to elevated leverage, higher interest rates, and sticky inflation.
Since the Federal Reserve began to increase interest rates, consumer activity and household finances have not been tremendously affected. However, as revolving interest rates (credit card loans) continue to reset that may change, especially since household savings rates fell below pre-pandemic levels and may affect consumer demand.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Global Insights Center Staff, The Hartford
The Great London Property Exodus Is in Reverse as Tenants Return
June 06, 2022 —
Lizzy Burden - BloombergTenants flocking to London are driving up rents in the capital, reversing the pandemic “race for space” and adding to the UK’s cost-of-living crisis.
A record 30% of homes let in London this year went to people who previously lived outside the city, according to estate agent Hamptons. The surrounding areas of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent and Surrey –- known as the Home Counties – now account for more than half of tenants moving in.
However, people are tending to move to London for lifestyle reasons rather than because they are being summoned back to the office, Hamptons said. Study and changes in family circumstances are often providing the trigger.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lizzy Burden, Bloomberg
SB 939 Proposes Moratorium On Unlawful Detainer Actions For Commercial Tenants And Allows Tenants Who Can't Renegotiate Their Lease In Good Faith To Terminate Their Lease Without Liability
June 01, 2020 —
Rhonda Kreger – Newmeyer DillionSB 939 is currently working its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation would impose new obligations on landlords, and provide protections for commercial tenants who meet specified criteria. SB 939 would impose a moratorium on eviction of those qualified commercial tenants while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect. Any eviction actions commenced after the date of the emergency COVID-19 order, but before the adoption of SB 939, would be void and unenforceable. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
Who qualifies as a commercial tenant under SB 939?
To qualify under this legislation, a commercial tenant must be a business that operates primarily in California. The commercial tenant must be a small business, nonprofit, an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue. Publicly traded companies or any company owned by, or affiliated with a publicly traded company, do not qualify. The commercial tenant must have experienced a decline of at least 40 percent monthly revenue, either as compared to two months before the emergency COVID-19 order, or other local government shelter-in-place orders took effect, or as compared to the same month in 2019. If the commercial tenant is an eating or drinking establishment, place of entertainment, or performance venue, the commercial tenant must also show a decline of 25 percent or more in capacity due to social or physical distancing orders or safety concerns, and show that it is subject to regulations to prevent the spread of COVID-19 that will financially impair the business when compared to the period before the emergency COVID-19 order or other local shelter-in-place orders took effect.
What eviction actions are prohibited while emergency COVID-19 orders are in effect?
If adopted, SB 939 would add Section 1951.9 to the Civil Code. This section would make it unlawful to terminate a tenancy, serve notice to terminate a tenancy, use lockout or utility shutoff actions to terminate a tenancy or otherwise evict a tenant of commercial real property, including a business or nonprofit, during the pendency of the COVID-19 emergency order proclaimed by Governor Newsome on March 4, 2020. Exceptions apply if a tenant poses a threat to the property, other tenants or a person, business or other entity. Any violations of this eviction prohibition would be against public policy and unenforceable.
Any eviction started after proclamation of the state of emergency but before the effective date is deemed void, against public policy and is unenforceable.
Does SB 939 impose new penalties or remedies?
Any landlord who harasses, mistreats or retaliates against a commercial tenant to force the tenant to abrogate the lease would be subject to a fine of $2,000 for each violation. Further, any such violation would be an unlawful business practice and an act of unfair competition under Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code and would be subject to all available remedies or penalties for those actions under state law.
When is a commercial tenant required to pay unpaid rent due to COVID-19?
If a commercial tenant fails to pay rent during the emergency COVID-19 order, the sum total of the past due rent must be paid within 12 months following the date of the end of the emergency proclamation, unless the commercial tenant has successfully negotiated an agreement with its landlord to pay the outstanding rent at a later date. Nonpayment of rent during the state of emergency cannot be used as grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding lease terms to the contrary, landlords may not impose late charges for rent that became due during the state of emergency.
Are landlords required to provide notice of protections adopted under SB 939?
Landlords would be required to provide notice to commercial tenants of the protections offered under SB 939 within 30 days of the effective date. SB 939 does not preempt local legislation or ordinances restricting the same or similar conduct which impose a more severe penalty for the same conduct. Local legislation or ordinances may impose additional notice requirements.
Does SB 939 impose new protections for commercial tenants when negotiating lease modifications?
If enacted, SB 939 would permit commercial tenants to open negotiations for new lease terms, and provide commercial tenants the ability to terminate the lease if those negotiations fail. A commercial tenant who wishes to modify its commercial lease, may engage in good faith negotiations with its landlord to modify any rent or economic requirement regardless of the term remaining on the lease. The commercial tenant must serve a notice on the landlord certifying that it meets the required criteria, along with the desired modifications.
If the commercial tenant and landlord do not reach a mutually satisfactory agreement within 30 days, then within 10 days, the commercial tenant may terminate the lease without any liability for future rent, fees, or costs that otherwise may have been due under the lease by providing a written termination notice to the landlord. The commercial tenant would be required to pay previously due rent, in an amount no greater than the sum of the following: (1) the actual rent due during the emergency COVID-19 order, or a maximum of three months of the past due rent during that period, and (2) all rent incurred and unpaid during a time unrelated to the emergency COVID-19 order through the date of the termination notice. The payment is due within 12 months from date of the termination notice. The commercial tenant would be required to vacate the premises within 14 days of the landlord's receipt of the termination notice. Upon service of the notice, any lease, and any third party guaranties of the lease would terminate. If the landlord and commercial tenant reach an agreement to modify the lease, the commercial tenant would not have the option to later terminate the lease under this provision.
When is the next Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting for SB 939?
The Senate Judiciary Committee set a hearing for SB 939 on May 22, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. The Senate will livestream the hearing on its website at www.sen.ca.gov. Public comments or testimony may be submitted in writing to the Judiciary Committee by emailing Erica.porter@sen.ca.gov. Alternatively, the public may participate via telephone during the public comment period. Any changes to the Judicial Committee schedule may be found at: https://www.senate.ca.gov/calendar.
Newmeyer Dillion continues to follow COVID-19 and its impact on your business and our communities. Feel free to reach out to us at NDcovid19response@ndlf.com or visit us at www.newmeyerdillion.com/covid-19-multidisciplinary-task-force/.
Rhonda Kreger is Senior Counsel on Newmeyer Dillion's transactional team at our Newport Beach office. Her practice focuses on all aspects of commercial real estate law, with a particular emphasis on the representation of residential developers, merchant builders and institutional investors. You can reach Rhonda at rhonda.kreger@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
