U.S. Stocks Fluctuate Near Record After Housing Data
February 25, 2014 —
Lu Wang and Callie Bost – BloombergU.S. stocks fluctuated near a record high after data showed slower growth in home prices and a drop in consumer confidence, while Macy’s Inc. and Home Depot Inc. reported higher-than-estimated earnings.
Macy’s and Home Depot rose at least 3.1 percent. Tesla Motors Inc. climbed 16 percent as Morgan Stanley more than doubled its projected price for the stock. Office Depot Inc. slumped 11 percent after reporting an unexpected loss. Tenet Healthcare Corp. declined 11 percent as its forecast missed analysts’ estimates.
The S&P 500 (SPX) gained 0.1 percent to 1,848.59 at 1:59 p.m. in New York, poised for the highest close ever. Earlier, the U.S. equity benchmark lost 0.4 percent. The Dow Jones Industrial Average advanced 14.05 points, or 0.1 percent, to 16,221.19. Trading in S&P 500 stocks was 7 percent below the 30-day average during this time of the day.
Ms. Wang may be contacted at lwang8@bloomberg.net; Ms. Bost may be contacted at cbost2@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lu Wang and Callie Bost, Bloomberg
Housing Inflation Begins to Rise
February 25, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Kathleen Madigan writing for The Wall Street Journal, “inflation remains muted at the start of 2014” except in one category: housing. Madigan stated that housing costs were “worth watching.”
The “owners’ equivalent rent index had been rising at a steady pace through most of 2012 and 2013, with 12-month percent changes hovering around 2%” however, “the pace picked up” at the end of last year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Court Invokes Equity to Stretch Anti-Subrogation Rule Principles
June 18, 2019 —
Gus Sara & William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Frances Todd, Inc. 2019 Cal. App. Lexis 299, the Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, addressed whether a commercial condominium association’s carrier could subrogate against the tenants (aka lessees) of one of its member unit owners. After examining the condominium association’s declarations, as well as the lease terms between the owner and the lessees, the court held that the association’s carrier could not subrogate against the lessees because they were implied co-insureds on the policy. To reach its decision, the court explained that an insurer steps into the shoes of its insured, not the party with whom it is in privity. Although the first-party property portion of the association’s insurance policy did not, as required by the association’s declarations, have the owner listed as an additional named insured, the court held that it would be inequitable to treat the association as the sole insured for purposes of determining Western Heritage’s right to bring a subrogation action.
In Western Heritage, William R. de Carion d/b/a Surfwood Properties (de Carion or Lessor), owned a commercial unit within a multi-unit commercial building. The building was managed by the East Shore Commercial Condominiums Owners’ Association (the Association). As a unit owner, de Carion was a member of the Association. The Association’s Declarations of Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) required the Association to procure fire insurance for the commercial units by adding the unit owners as additional named insureds. The CC&Rs also prohibited owners and their “tenants” from procuring their own fire insurance policies for the premises. In 2013, de Carion leased his commercial space to Frances Todd, Inc. d/b/a The Wooden Duck, Eric Todd Gellerman and Amy Frances Feber (Lessees).
Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLP and
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections
July 02, 2018 —
Jason Feld & Alex Chazen - Kahana & Feld LLPCalifornia law mandates that any person who conducts roof inspections for a fee can no longer effectuate the actual repairs to the same property. Effective January 1, 2018, Business & Professions Code Section 7197 (Unfair Business Practices) deems it to be an unfair business practice for a home inspector who charges a homeowner a monetary fee for inspecting the property, to perform or offer to perform additional repairs due to the inherent financial interest and conflict raised by identifying alleged defects necessitating repairs. The new law is a result of California AB 1357, which was signed into law on October 5, 2017. The goal of the new law is to disincentivize a roof inspector from creating a report for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid to perform those documented repairs. The roof contractor can perform repairs identified in their report only after a twelve month “cooling period” which provides the homeowner an opportunity to obtain multiple bids/estimates for repairs based upon the inspector’s report. The new law also discourages home inspectors from providing a list of contractors who provide monetary referral fees back to the home inspector upon receiving repair work from the homeowner based exclusively on the home inspection report.
The California Business & Professions Code Section 7195(a)(1) defines a “home inspection” as a “non-invasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with the transfer…of the real property…or essential components of the residential dwelling.” Home inspection includes “any consultation regarding the property that is represented to be a home inspection or any confusingly similar term.” Business & Professions Code section 7195(a)(2) further defines a “home inspection” as including energy efficiency and solar. A “home inspection report” is a written report prepared for a fee issued after an inspection. Business & Professions Code section 7195(c). It is noted that a home inspector does not have to be a licensed architect, professional engineer, or general contractor with a Class “B” license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but “it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, or architect, or registered as a professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. Business & Professions Code section 7196.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and
Alex Chazen, Kahana & Feld LLP
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanalaw.com
Mr. Chazen may be contacted at achazen@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct
August 19, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams, & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (filed 8/13/15, Case No. S208130), the California Supreme Court held a government entity is not categorically immune from liability where the plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property caused the plaintiff’s injury, but did not cause the third party conduct which precipitated the accident.
The case arises out of a traffic collision by which the negligent driving of a third party motorist caused another car to careen into a tree planted in the center median owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles (“City”). Of the four occupants in the car that collided with the tree, three died and the fourth was badly injured. The parents of two of the occupants sued the City for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code Section 835. The plaintiffs alleged the roadway was in a dangerous condition because the trees in the median were too close to the traveling portion of the road, posing an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who might lose control of their vehicles.
The City successfully moved for summary judgment, which plaintiffs appealed. On review, the Court of Appeal affirmed holding the tree was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law because there was no evidence that the tree had contributed to the criminally negligent driving of the third party motorist.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Laura C. Williams and
Lawrence S. Zucker II
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com
And Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Housing Starts in U.S. Slumped More Than Forecast in March
April 20, 2016 —
Sho Chandra – BloombergNew-home construction in the U.S. slumped more than projected in March, reflecting a broad-based retreat that showed the industry lost momentum heading into the busiest time of year.
Residential starts decreased 8.8 percent to a 1.09 million annualized rate that was the lowest since October and weaker than any forecast of economists surveyed by Bloomberg, Commerce Department data showed Tuesday in Washington. Permits, a proxy for future construction, also dropped.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sho Chandra, Bloomberg
Insurance Coverage for COVID-19? Two N.J. Courts Allow Litigation to Proceed
March 06, 2022 —
Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Courts across the nation have struggled to determine whether insurance policies that provide coverage for “direct physical loss or damage” insure losses stemming from COVID-19. Many courts have been applying an overly stringent pleading standard, inappropriately granting insurers’ motions to dismiss as a result of the insureds’ purported failure to allege that COVID-19 caused damages covered by their policies or because certain exclusions supposedly barred coverage. However, two New Jersey state courts recently decided these issues in favor of the insureds in well-reasoned opinions that give proper deference to procedural pleading standards and substantive insurance coverage law.
A. COVID-19 causes “direct physical loss or damage”
In AC Ocean Walk, LLC v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., the New Jersey Superior Court held that physical alteration to an insured’s property is not a prerequisite to coverage for losses due to COVID-19. The insured, Ocean Casino, sued multiple insurers for COVID-19 losses, alleging that the virus caused Ocean Casino to shut down and suffer a loss of use of its property. Looking at the language of the policies, the court explained that each policy’s insuring agreement substantially read the same:
“This policy insures against direct physical loss of, or damage caused by, a covered cause of loss to covered property, at an insured location [the casino] … subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions stated in this policy.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Barrese may be contacted at
BBarrese@sdvlaw.com
Ninth Circuit: Speculative Injuries Do Not Confer Article III Standing
February 28, 2018 —
Omar Parra and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Publications & InsightsAs Dwight Schrute of hit NBC show “The Office” said, “identity theft is not a joke, Jim! Millions of families suffer every year!” In response, Congress has passed a variety of legislation over the years aimed at curbing identity theft. One such piece of legislation, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), as amended by corollary acts, prohibits the printing of more than the last 5 digits of the credit card number or the credit card number’s expiration date on any sales receipt. Anyone who “willfully fails to comply with [the requirements] is liable to that consumer” for statutory or actual damages, attorney’s fees and costs, and potential punitive damages. But is a statutory violation of the FCRA alone a sufficient injury to confer Article III standing? No, says the Ninth Circuit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Omar Parra, Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II , Haight, Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
