FBI Makes Arrest Related to Saipan Casino Construction
April 05, 2017 —
Matthew Campbell & Greg Farrell - BloombergThe Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested one person in connection with the death of a construction worker at Imperial Pacific International Holdings Ltd.’s casino on the remote U.S. island of Saipan, according to an agency spokeswoman.
“The FBI conducted a search and made an arrest in response to the recent death of an individual working at the construction site of the Imperial Pacific Resort,” Michele Ernst, a spokeswoman in the FBI’s Honolulu field office, said in an email Friday. “The investigation is related to allegations of a federal violation of the workplace visa system, including reports the company was systematically harboring individuals who are out of status and in violation of federal statutes."
Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew Campbell, Bloomberg and
Greg Farrell, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.S. Home Prices Climbed 0.1% in July as Gains Slowed
September 24, 2014 —
Prashant Gopal – BloombergU.S. home prices rose less than economists estimated in July as investors pull back from the property market.
Prices climbed 0.1 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis from June, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said today in a report from Washington. The average economist estimate was for a 0.5 percent increase, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Investors who helped drive up prices are retreating as fewer foreclosures and other discounted homes become available. All-cash purchases in August fell to about 23 percent of the market from the usual 33 percent, the National Association of Realtors reported yesterday. Investors accounted for 12 percent, the least since late 2009.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal, BloombergMr. Gopal may be contacted at
pgopal2@bloomberg.net
Aurora Joins other Colorado Cities by Adding a Construction Defect Ordinance
September 03, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Aurora Sentinel, the city council of Aurora, Colorado, approved an ordinance targeted at making it more difficult for homeowners to sue builders over construction defect claims.
Similar to other recent Colorado city construction defect measures, “the new rule gives builders the right to repair defects before the litigation is pursued, requires that the majority of home owners in a home owners association – as opposed to just a majority of HOA board members – approve of any lawsuits, and allows builders to offer monetary settlements to homeowners in lieu of repairs.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Meritage Acquires Legendary Communities
July 23, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Big Builder, Meritage entered Atlanta through its acquisition of Legendary Communities for $130 million, “completing a two-year quest.”
“Probably for about two years, we’ve been looking in the market, talking to builders, and studying the geography, and meeting different people to learn who the players are and learn about the area,” Meritage Homes chairman and CEO Steven J. Hilton told Big Builder.
This acquisition makes Meritage Homes “the number one builder in the Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, S.C. market, owning more than 16 percent of the 2013 market share with 266 closings, according to Metrostudy data. It also owns almost seven percent of the market share in nearby Spartanburg, S.C. with 44 closings.”
Legendary fits “in very nicely with what we do at Meritage,” Hilton said to Big Builder. “We’re a strong first and second move up builder, as are they at Legendary. It’s a very complementary fit between the two companies.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFFrom the time a home is built, California starts a ten-year countdown, which Alan I. Schimmel, writing at California Lawyer, notes is not a statute of limitations, but a statute of repose. During that time, homeowners might be able file a claim over construction defects that don’t immediately become evident. After that ten-year limit, “any latent defects they discover would have to be corrected using money from their own pockets.”
The readily observable defects, the patent defects, have a four-year limit. Mr. Schimmel focusses on latent defects, “which generally lurk behind walls or underground.” He also notes that “they may cause catastrophic damage before they are even detected.” If a construction defect is found, the “law requires the owner of a single-family residence to notify the builder in writing of the claimed defects.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances
August 19, 2015 —
David W. Evans & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel.
Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
California Court of Appeal Makes Short Work Trial Court Order Preventing Party From Supplementing Experts
August 06, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogYears ago I recommended to a client that we hire a construction defect expert in a case. The client, a thrifty fellow, responded, “But I thought you were the construction expert. Why do I need to hire another expert? A fair question and one that caught me flat footed.
Whether I’m an “expert” or not can be debated, but I explained to the client that while I was an attorney whose practice focused on construction law, I was not someone who he would want to take the stand and testify about the engineering design and seismic stability of pilings. For that, he needed an expert.
In construction litigation it’s not uncommon for parties and their attorneys to hire “experts.” There are even special rules set forth in the California Code of Civil Procedure for disclosing, supplementing and deposing experts, which basically provide as follows:
1. Demand for Exchange of Expert Information: After the court sets a trial date in a case, any party may demand that each party exchange information concerning the experts they intend to have testify at trial;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
