With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption
September 28, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA D.C. Superior Court rejected a business interruption claim due to closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rose's 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exchange, Civil Case No 2020 CA 002424 B (Order dated Aug. 8, 2020). The decision is here.
Plaintiffs owned a number of restaurants in the District of Coiumbia. Plaintiffs had commercial property coverage in a policy issued by Erie. The policy provided coverage for loss of income sustained due to interruption of business resulting directly from "loss or damage" to the insured property.
DC Mayor Bowser issued a series of orders in March 2020 which closed all non-essential businesses, including plaintiffs' restaurants. Plaintiffs filed claims with Erie. When coverage was denied, plaintiffs filed suit. Both sides moved for summary judgment.
The dispute centered on whether the closure of the restaurants due to the mayor's orders constituted a "direct physical loss" under the policy. Plaintiffs argued that the loss of use of the restaurants was "direct" because the closures were the direct result of the mayor's orders without intervening action. The court reasoned, however, that the orders were governmental edicts that commanded individuals and businesses to take certain actions. Standing alone and absent intervening actions by individuals and businesses, the orders did not effect any direct changes to the properties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Were Condos a Bad Idea?
June 13, 2022 —
Tyler P. Berding - Berding & Weil LLPIntroduction
Condominiums are a nice idea, but their execution has been less than perfect. Long before the fatal Berkeley, California balcony failure in 2015 or the 2021 Champlain Towers South collapse that killed 98 people in Surfside, Florida, we suspected that all was not right with the basic condo concept. Years ago, there were already signs this "cooperative" housing model was anything but. Whether due to owner apathy, internal disputes, or failure to fund future repairs, sustaining these projects for the long-term has been difficult, leaving their future in doubt. Can this be fixed, or is the concept inherently flawed?
Every enterprise has an organizational "model" to run the business. For-profit corporations obtain revenue from the sale of products or services. The revenue of non-profit condominium corporations are the assessments paid by the owners of the individual units. While these assessments are “mandatory” in the sense they must be paid, they are also “voluntary” since the amount is left to the board of directors to determine. Condos are cheaper to buy, but the sales price may not reflect the real cost of ownership. They are "cooperative" because costs and space are shared, but internal disputes and funding shortfalls operate to shorten the life of these buildings in ways few owners understand.
Internal Disputes
Why is condominium life frequently not “cooperative?” Disputes. Disputes between condominium owners and their associations; among board members; and between individual owners and their neighbors. There are arguments over the right to put a flag on the balcony. There are arguments over swimming pool hours. The right to paint their front door some color other than everyone else's. The right to be free of noise, smoke, or view-blocking plants. And sometimes, the claimed right not to pay assessments needed to maintain the project—all notwithstanding the governing documents to the contrary. The right to use one's property as the owner sees fit is a concept imported from the single-family home experience but not replicated in condominiums where common ownership requires rules to avoid chaos.
But a condominium association's most important concern should not be the color of someone's front door or when they can swim but sustaining the building and keeping owners safe. Maybe we care someone has painted their front door bright green, but should that concern have priority over finding rot that may cause a balcony to collapse with someone on it? Resolving conflicts and enforcing the governing documents have a reasonable success rate. Still, the effort required to do that often distracts the board from more critical issues—damage that can sink the ship. Directors can waste a lot of time re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when, if they look closely, the iceberg is coming.
Maintenance Lacks Priority
Why can't we enforce the rules and do what’s necessary to sustain the building and keep occupants safe? Unfortunately, juggling both behavioral and sustainability issues has proven difficult for many volunteer boards of directors. Rule disputes are always in their face, crowding their agenda, while the damage that could lead to structural failure often remains unknown. Also, enforcing—or resisting—rules can involve a clash of egos that keep those matters front and center. Or, and I suspect this is a primary culprit, the cost of adequate inspections, maintenance, and repair is so high that boards cannot overcome owner resistance to that expense.
While boards and management must sustain the project and protect people, raising the funds to do that is another matter. Directors must leap hurdles to increase regular assessments. Imposing large, unexpected, special assessments for major repairs can be political suicide. Unfortunately, few owners realize how deadly serious proper maintenance is until there is a Berkeley or a Surfside, and everyone is stunned by the loss of life and property. While those are extreme cases of faulty construction, inadequate maintenance, natural causes, or all the above, they will not be the last. We know that because experts have seen precursors to those same conditions in other projects.
Our concern for sustainability arises from examining newer projects during construction defect litigation when forensic experts open walls to inspect waterproofing and structural components. It also comes from helping our clients with the re-construction of older buildings and dealing with many years or decades of neglect for which little or no reserves have been allocated.
The economic impact of repairing long-term damage is huge. Rot lying hidden within walls slowly damages the structural framing. Moisture seeping into balcony supports weakens them sometimes to the point of collapse. The cost to repair this damage is frequently out of reach of most condominium associations. In newer projects, when experts find problems early, claims are possible. The Berkeley balcony failure occurred in an eight-year-old building[1], and there was recourse available from the builder. But with older projects, it is often difficult to hold anyone responsible other than the owners themselves.
Is The Condo Model Flawed?
Suppose this is true—and our experience representing condominium projects for over forty years tells us it is—then we are not dealing only with the inexperience of some volunteer directors but rather with a flawed organization model. Board members want to succeed but are constrained by an income stream that depends almost entirely on the will of the individual owners—essentially voluntary funding.
Under most state laws, funding for condominium operations and maintenance is not mandatory[2], and relies instead on the willingness of the directors to assess owners for whatever is needed, and on the willingness of owners to accept the board’s decisions. When a board of directors can set assessments at whatever level is politically comfortable, without adequate consideration, or even knowledge, of long-term maintenance needs, systemic underfunding can result[3]. What the members want are the lowest assessments possible, and directors often accede to those demands. When these factors conspire to underfund maintenance, they will drastically shorten the service life of a building. They also make it potentially unsafe.
Commercial buildings incentivize their owners for good maintenance with increased rents and market value. That incentive is not relevant to a condominium owner because the accumulating deficit is rarely understood at the time of sale and not reflected in the unit’s sales price. With a single-family home, deferred maintenance is more easily identified and is reflected in the purchase price. But condo home inspections are usually confined to the interior of a unit, and do not assess the overall condition of the entire building or project or review any deficit in the funding needed to attend to deficiencies. Thus, market value is not affected by reality.
In most states that require that reserves be maintained for future maintenance and repairs, the statutes require nothing other than cursory surface inspections. Damage beneath the skin of a building is not investigated, and no reserves are recommended for what is not known. California recently enacted legislation that will require condominium associations inspect specific elevated structures for safety, including intrusive testing where indicated. But no other state requires this level of inspection, and few even require a reserve study to determine how much money to save for the obvious problems, never mind those no one knows about[4].
This situation leads to unfair consequences for those owners who find themselves unlucky enough to own a unit when the damage and deficits are finally realized. Damage discovered, say, in year 35 didn’t just happen in year 35. That deterioration likely began earlier in the building's life and lay hidden for decades. It is costly to repair when it finally becomes obvious or dangerous. No prior owner, those who owned and sold their units years ago, will pay any part of the cost of the eventual rehabilitation of that building due to past lack of adequate inspections and years of artificially low assessments. Instead, the present owners will be handed the entire tab for the shortfall from several decades of deferred maintenance or hidden damage—the last people standing when the music stops.
Can this trend be reversed? As condominium buildings age and deterioration continues, the funding deficit increases dramatically. But to reverse that trend and reduce the deficit, someone must know it exists and be willing to address it. That requires more robust inspections early in the building's life and potentially higher assessments to stay even with any decay.
Conclusion
It would not be wrong to blame this on the failure of the basic condominium model. Volunteers rarely have sufficient training or expertise to oversee complex infrastructure maintenance, especially without mandatory funding to pay for it. The model also does not insist that board members have a talent for resolving conflicts. While condominium boards can leverage fines or legal action to enforce the rules, that lacks finesse and can create greater antagonism—a distraction from the more critical job of raising funds to inspect and maintain the building.
Unit owner-managed, voluntarily funded, multi-million-dollar condominium projects were probably a bad idea from the beginning. But sadly, it is way too late to reverse course on the millions of such projects built in the past sixty years. Many are already reaching the end of their service lives, with no plan to deal with that. Robust inspection standards on new and existing projects and enforceable minimum funding for maintenance and repairs should be considered by state legislatures. But whatever the approach, the present system is not staying even with the deterioration of many buildings, and that is just not safe anymore.
- The collapse of the balcony in Berkeley occurred on an apartment building. But the construction of that building is similar or identical to the construction of most multi-story wood-frame condominiums.
- Boards of directors are empowered by statute or contract to assess members for operation and maintenance costs. However, there are few statutes that set minimum funding or otherwise require boards to exercise that authority.
- Even in states that require reserve studies, the physical inspections are inadequate to uncover some of the costliest damage. California’s reserve study statute—Civil Code Section 5550—only requires inspection of those components that are visible and accessible, leaving damage within walls and other structural components undiscovered and funding for the eventual repairs, unaddressed.
- In May 2022, in response to the Champlain Towers South collapse, Florida enacted mandatory structural inspections for buildings 30 years and older, repeating every 10 years thereafter. The law also includes mandatory reserve funding for structural components.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tyler P. Berding, Berding & Weil LLPMr. Berding may be contacted at
tberding@berdingweil.com
Read Her Lips: “No New Buildings”
November 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFMartha Johnson, the head of the General Services Administration, has said that her agency will not be building any new buildings in the near future. Among other duties, the GSA is responsible for the building, renovating, and leasing of federal office space. The White House had proposed $840 million in new construction, the Senate only $56 million. The House did not appropriate any money for the agency to use for new construction.
In addition to cutbacks on new buildings, Congress is suggesting only $280 million in repairs of existing government buildings. In order to cut back, the GSA has dropped plans to renovate their own offices in favor of renovations at the Department of Homeland Security and the Food and Drug Administration.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards
October 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHome sales and prices are up in Nashville, Tennessee, but it isn’t the locals who are responsible. “People are moving from Florida, California, Texas, Arizona. People come from New York and New Jersey and can’t believe the home values and low taxes,” said Margaret Dixon, a Tennessee realtor. And they’re moving to areas that the locals haven’t embraced. They “don’t have imaginary boundaries in their heads.”
As a result, home sales are up 22% in the third quarter with a 9% rise in prices, as compared to the same quarter last year in Davidson County, where Nashville is located. In adjacent Williamson County, sales were up even more, with a 31% increase in volume and a 12% increase in price. Smyrna, home of Nissan’s LEAF electric car, saw a 25.5% increase in sales volume.
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
The Real Estate Crisis in North Dakota's Man Camps
October 02, 2015 —
Jennifer Oldham – BloombergChain saws and staple guns echo across a $40 million residential complex under construction in Williston, North Dakota, a few miles from almost-empty camps once filled with oil workers.
After struggling to house thousands of migrant roughnecks during the boom, the state faces a new real-estate crisis: The frenzied drilling that made it No. 1 in personal-income growth and job creation for five consecutive years hasn’t lasted long enough to support the oil-fueled building explosion.
Civic leaders and developers say many new units were already in the pipeline, and they anticipate another influx of workers when oil prices rise again. But for now, hundreds of dwellings approved during the heady days are rising, skeletons of wood and cement surrounded by rolling grasslands, with too few residents who can afford them.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Oldham, Bloomberg
Canadian Developer Faces Charges After Massive Fire on Construction Site
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA fire leveled an apartment construction site in Canada last December, which resulted in almost two dozen charges relating to fire safety precautions and lack of cooperation with the Ministry of Labour’s investigation, according to CKWS TV. The Ministry of Labour has recently “laid 22 charges against three individuals and two companies—Jay Patry Enterprises Inc. and Steimach Property Management Inc.”
CKWS TV reported that “[c]harges include failing to provide adequate space for workers to evacuate during an emergency, failing to protect the health and safety of workers and failing to inspect every fire extinguisher for defects or deterioration.” Jason Patry, Nathan Patry and Troy Stelmach have been charged with “obstructing and providing false information to a ministry of labour inspector, as well as failing to make the inspection process an easy one.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies
November 12, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPOn August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context.
The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
