Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection
September 29, 2021 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Tenants Underwater: Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Privity Requirement for Property Damage Claims Against Contractors
April 25, 2022 —
Melissa Kenney - The Subrogation StrategistIn United States Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Erie Ins. Exch., et al., No. 21A-CT-580, 2022 Ind. App. LEXIS 87 (Automatic Sprinkler), the Court of Appeals of Indiana (Court of Appeals) considered whether there is a privity requirement for property damage claims against contractors. The court imposed a privity requirement. The court also addressed whether a subrogation waiver in a contract with a tenant applied to damage caused by work done outside the contract, at the landlord’s request. The court held that the waiver did not apply.
In this case, United States Automatic Sprinkler (Automatic Sprinkler) contracted with a tenant (Contract Tenant) to inspect and test a sprinkler system at a commercial building in Indiana. The contract included a waiver of subrogation provision. The building landlord subsequently hired Automatic Sprinkler to repair a leak in the sprinkler system. After completing the repairs, the system failed and flooded the building, causing significant property damage to several tenancies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Kenney, White and Williams LLPMs. Kenney may be contacted at
kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com
Cultivating a Company Culture Committed to Safety, Mentorship and Education
March 19, 2024 —
David Frazier - Construction ExecutiveThe construction industry is aging. Valuing the significance of promoting a culture that enhances safety, mentorship and educational opportunities is essential to recruiting and retaining top talent to keep the industry thriving.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, one in five worker deaths in the U.S. occurs in the construction industry. Additionally, construction workers are statistically at a higher risk for mental-health issues than virtually every other profession. According to a study conducted by CIRP, 83% of construction workers have struggled with mental-health disorders.
Today’s leaders must be dedicated to listening to employees' voices to shape the construction industry, as future leaders will be formed by a culture committed to employees' mental and physical health, safety, professional growth and overall workplace culture.
Reprinted courtesy of
David Frazier, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
As the Term Winds Down, Several Important Regulatory Cases Await the U.S. Supreme Court
September 03, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe Supreme Court will be deciding some very important regulatory law cases in the new few weeks as the term winds down.
CERCLA Circled
Last week, the Court granted a petition to review a significant CERCLA case, Atlantic Richfield Company v. Christian, et al., decided by the Supreme Court of Montana on state law grounds. This case involves state litigation which could result in a cleanup whose scope is allegedly inconsistent with an ongoing and expensive federal CERCLA cleanup at the Anaconda Smelter site. CERCLA basically provides that no one may challenge an ongoing Superfund cleanup, yet this state common law proceeding seeking a cleanup of the plaintiff’s homes and properties arguably threatens the EPA-approved cleanup remedy. ARCO filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which the Court has now granted despite the Solicitor General’s brief which argued that the Court should wait to see the results of the Montana trial. (It is unusual for the Court to reject the advice of the Solicitor General.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger
January 07, 2015 —
Jay Shapiro, Lori S. Smith and Brittney Edwards – White and Williams LLPThe common interest privilege is a doctrine that operates to maintain the confidentiality of communications between parties and counsel that have aligned interests. It is designed to encourage the free flow of information between these parties, and has historically been utilized primarily in the context of litigation. However, in Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department recently expanded the common interest privilege by holding that it is applicable in transactional contexts. 2014 WL 6803006, No. 651612/10 (1st Dep’t 2014). The Ambac court defined the common interest doctrine as “a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege” when a third party is present during a communication between an attorney and his or her client. The doctrine shields such communications from disclosure when they are (1) protected by the attorney client privilege and (2) “made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties.”
Until Ambac, New York courts touched on, but never squarely addressed, whether a third requirement must be satisfied before the common interest doctrine can be invoked: “that the communication must affect pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.” The Ambac court addressed and rejected this purported third requirement while reversing the decision of the trial court which found that defendant Bank of America failed “to cite any New York case that applied the common-interest doctrine outside of either joint-representation of two parties by one attorney, or where parties reasonably anticipated litigation.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Jay Shapiro,
Lori S. Smith and
Brittney Edwards
Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at shapiroj@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Edwards may be contacted at edwardsb@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contract’s Definition of “Substantial Completion” Does Not Apply to Third Party for Purposes of SOL, Holds Court of Appeal
June 15, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThose of you in the construction industry know that the two primary statutes of limitation are the 4-year year statute of limitations for patent defects and 10-year statute of limitations for latent defects. Both statutes begin to run on “substantial completion.”
In Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court of San Diego, Case No. D076264 (January 22, 2020), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether the term “substantial completion,” as used in Civil Code section 941, which applies to residential construction, can be defined by the parties’ contract and applied to third-parties.
The Hensel Phelps Case
Hensel Phelps Construction Co. entered into a prime construction contract with the owner and developer of a mixed-use project in San Diego. Hensel Phelps was the general contractor on the project. The project included a residential condominium tower which would eventually be managed and maintained by Smart Corner Owners Association. Smart Corners was not a party to the contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Perez Broke Records … But Should He Have Settled Earlier?
February 19, 2024 —
Sofya Uvaydov & John F. Watkins - Kahana FeldIn 2021, Mark Perez’ Labor Law 240(1) lawsuit made legal news by breaking the record of the highest appellate-sustained pain and suffering award in New York history. While that record was short-lived, it still maintains its place as New York’s highest-ever pain and suffering award for a brain injury. This January 17th, the Appellate Division, First Department revisited the litigation but, this time, in a dispute between Perez and his then-lawyer, Ben Morelli and the Morelli Law Firm. Mr. Perez claims breach of contract over a 10% additional contingency fee charge related to the Perez v. Live Nation appeal and breach of fiduciary duty by his counsel in failing to convey settlement offers during the lifetime of the case. The Morelli firm counters, among other things, that the prior settlement offers – a $30 million offer during the 2019 trial and intermediate sums during the appellate stage – were still lower than the ultimate $55 million settlement. No harm, Mr. Morelli argues, and thus no foul in failing to convey the offers.
But is that so? Did Mark Perez ultimately receive more money in his $55 million settlement than from the $30 million settlement offer mid-trial? Despite the glaring $25 million difference, the surprising calculations show that Perez would have been financially better off taking the $30 million mid-trial settlement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sofya Uvaydov, Kahana Feld and
John F. Watkins, Kahana Feld
Ms. Uvaydov may be contacted at suvaydov@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Watkins may be contacted at jwatkins@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Defends Denial in Property Coverage Dispute Involving Marijuana Growing Operations
March 14, 2018 —
Michael Levine and Geoffrey Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogLast month, we
reported on the ongoing insurance coverage dispute between commercial landlord KVP Properties, Inc. and its property insurer, Westfield Insurance Company. The dispute arises from an October 2015 DEA raid on KVG-owned rental units in Novi, Michigan, which uncovered damage to the units related to the tenants’ marijuana growing operations. The arguments raised by KVG on appeal highlight a number of important marijuana-related coverage issues, which Westfield has now addressed in opposition.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Levine, Hunton & Williams LLP and
Geoffrey Fehling, Hunton & Williams LLP
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@hunton.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@hunton.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
