MDL Panel Grants Consolidation for One Group of COVID-19 Claims
November 02, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiPreviously denying consolidation of all COVID-19 business interruption claims [post here], the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation allowed consolidation of one group of cases against Society Insurance Company while denying consolidation of four other groups of cases. In re Soc'y Ins. Co. COVID-19 Bus. Interruption Protection Ins. Litigation, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183678 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 2, 2020).
Claims against Society encompassed 34 actions filed in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Tennessee. The court found that centralization of the Society actions would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and further the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions shared common factual allegations that Society wrongfully denied policy holders' claims for business interruption coverage. Plaintiffs contended that Society preemptively decided to deny their claims.
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
Big Builder’s Analysis of the Top Ten Richest Counties
June 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBig Builder took Forbes’ 2014 top ten richest U.S. counties list (based on household median income) and researched who the top builders were in those regions, buyer requirements, among other categories. The top three richest counties according to Forbes and Big Builder are Falls Church, Virginia; Loudoun County, Virginia; and Los Alamos County, New Mexico.
Information listed for each county include the median-closing price, price per square foot, living square feet, top builders, and an examination of what makes each region unique.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance
December 27, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIt is a good idea to know what your insurance covers and does not cover. This way, if your course of business has you performing a certain (risky) operation, you know whether that operation is covered or excluded under your policy. If you are not sure, discuss with your insurance broker — this is important. There is little value performing an operation that is NOT covered by your insurance policy, as you are now performing a risk that is not covered by insurance. If you know it is not covered by insurance you may elect to change your operations or see if there is insurance to cover the risk. Below is a case study of this occurrence dealing with a commercial automobile liability policy where an insured’s operations using a crane mounted to a super duty truck was not covered under their automobile liability policy.
In People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D262a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), homeowners hired a company to install a shed. The company hired another company to deliver and install the shed using a crane; the company used a crane mounted to a Ford F-750 super duty truck. This company improperly operated the crane resulting in the shed falling and damaging the homeowner’s roof. The homeowners submitted a claim to their property insurer and their property insurer subrogated to their rights and sued. The company operating the crane’s commercial automobile liability insurer denied coverage, and thus, denied the duty to defend. As a result, a
Coblentz-type agreement was entered into where the company operating the crane consented to a judgment in favor of the property insurer (subrogee) and assigned its rights under its commercial automobile liability policy to the property insurer. The property insurer then sued the automobile liability carrier for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the automobile liability insurer finding there was no coverage and this was affirmed on appeal. Why?
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
California Fears El Nino's Dark Side Will Bring More Trouble
September 17, 2015 —
Brian K. Sullivan – BloombergA group of drought experts gathered in California this week, and it wasn’t long before the conversation turned to El Nino.
They weren’t touting it as the savior that will end the state’s four-year drought. Instead, they were looking at a darker scenario where the weather-changing phenomenon adds another year of dryness in the north while ravaging the south with floods.
“What do you say when the governor asks you what to do? ‘You prepare for flood and drought because there is a possibility you can get both,”’ said Mike Anderson, state climatologist.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian K. Sullivan, Bloomberg
Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony
October 07, 2019 —
Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation StrategistSeven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida.” On May 23, 2019, however, Florida’s high court did an about-face. In In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the Florida Supreme Court overruled its decision in DeLisle and declared that Florida will now apply the Daubert standard to determine whether scientific evidence is admissible.
The Daubert standard comes from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which held that the longstanding Frye test[1] for admitting expert testimony was superseded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert instructed that federal judges should act as “gatekeepers” to ensure expert testimony is rooted in scientifically valid principles and that those principles are properly applied to the facts at issue. In determining whether scientific evidence should be admitted, Daubert sets forth several factors to consider: the testability of the theory or technique; the peer review and publication of the theory or technique; the error rate for the technique; the standards controlling the technique’s operation; and the general acceptance of the theory or technique.[2] The Daubert standard is generally considered a more onerous test than Frye, precluding expert testimony that might otherwise go to the jury under Frye.[3] Whereas Frye is a single factor test that applies only to new or novel science, Daubert is a multifactor test that applies to all expert testimony.
Since Daubert, a growing number of states have moved away from the Frye test in favor of the Daubert standard; it is now followed by a majority of jurisdictions in the country. In 2013, the Florida State legislature attempted to move Florida in this direction by amending the Florida Evidence Code to codify the Daubert standard. But because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with the power to make procedural rules and it was unclear whether the Daubert standard was a procedural or substantive rule, it was uncertain whether the 2013 Daubert amendments were controlling law. Then in 2017, in In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC16-181, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined adopting the Daubert amendments to the extent they were procedural. This decision signaled that, if faced with the Daubert standard on appeal from a litigated case, the Florida Supreme Court would reaffirm that Frye – not Daubert – controlled the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida state courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLPMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case
April 10, 2023 —
Starr M. Forster - Lewis BrisboisHouston, Texas (March 30, 2023) – The Supreme Court of Texas recently upheld a Thirteenth Court of Appeals’ judgment finding that the plaintiffs in a premises defect case brought against the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) had failed to raise a fact issue regarding the creation of a dangerous condition and, consequently, failed to establish waiver of the defendant’s sovereign immunity.
Daniel K. Christ and Nicole D. Salinas v. Tex. DOT, et al., No. 21-0728, 66 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 306, 2023 Tex. LEXIS 128, at *1 (Feb 10, 2023).
Background
Plaintiffs Daniel Christ and his wife, Nicole Salinas (the Christs), were riding their motorcycle through a construction zone when they collided with a vehicle that crossed into their lane. TxDOT’s traffic control plan for the related construction project called for the placement of concrete barriers between opposing travel lanes; however, once construction on the project began, TxDOT’s contractor determined there was not enough space for the concrete barriers and revised the traffic control plan to substitute yellow stripes and buttons for the concrete barriers. TxDOT never approved the revised traffic control plan in writing; however, TxDOT’s contractor contended TxDOT orally approved of the change. The Christs sued the driver of the other vehicle, TxDOT, and TxDOT’s contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Starr M. Forster, Lewis BrisboisMs. Forster may be contacted at
Starr.Forster@lewisbrisbois.com
Landlords, Brace Yourselves: New Law Now Limits Your Rental Increases & Terminations
March 02, 2020 —
Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer DillionCalifornia can be an especially expensive place to live. While this is the common wisdom, residents of the state are also painfully aware that location is an equally important factor. Yet, to curb unscrupulous actions in certain areas and expansive rental increases, Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB-1482, which is a state-wide limitation on yearly rental increases, prompting potential additions to leases, and additional notices that landlords are required to give to tenants. Failure to do so may cost landlords unnecessary costs and unforeseen complications around the termination of a tenancy.
How Does the Rental Cap Work?
The law sets forth three ways that rental increases may be limited: (1) a cap of 5% plus the percent change in the cost of living; (2) a cap of 10%; or (3) where local rent or price control that restricts annual increases in the rental rate to an amount less than the state law. The cap that applies is the one that is the most restrictive on the landlord. For example, if the cost of living has gone up by 6%, and there is a local law that restricts rental increases by 15%, then the state law would cap the landlord to a rental increase of 10%.
Notably, this doesn't count any discounts or incentives that are applied to the rent, if they are (a) listed separately and (b) clearly stated within the residential lease agreement. Thus, even if the effective increase would be beyond the applicable cap, the landlord is not obligated to cap rent using the discounted rental fees.
Finally, this does not prohibit the landlord from freely setting a rent for new tenants. The cap only applies to existing tenants.
Exempt Properties from the Law
Certain properties are also exempt from the rental cap law, allowing landlords to increase rents without limitation for the residential properties below:
- Housing restricted by deed for purposes of affordable housing.
- New housing with a certificate of occupancy that has been granted within the previous 15 years.
- Condominiums or townhouses provided that the owner is not (a) a real estate investment trust; (b) a corporation, or (c) a limited liability trust.
- A duplex in which one of the units is owner-occupied as the owner's primary residence.
'Just Cause' for Terminations Is a Necessity
Notably, AB-1482 is not limited to rent restrictions. AB-1482 also restricts the ability of a landlord to evict tenants after the tenant has been occupying the property for over 12 months without just cause. Just cause includes items typical to an ordinary eviction action, such as a failure to pay rent or a default of a material term of the lease, or nuisance actions. Importantly, the legislature provided "no-fault just cause" such as the intent to occupy the real property by the owner or one of their family members, withdrawal of the property from the rental market, compliance with a government agency or an intent to substantially remodel the property.
In the event that the just cause is "no-fault," then the owner must either (a) assist the tenant in relocating by providing a direct payment of a full month's rent to the tenant within 15 calendar days of the notice; or (b) waive the payment of the last month's rent. Effectively, this puts a cost on the landlord to terminate a tenancy. Importantly, an owner's failure to do either of those actions will render the termination of tenancy void, and cannot be contractually waived.
This does not apply to any of the housing types exempt under the rental cap provision, or (a) transient and tourist hotel occupancy; (b) housing accommodations in a nonprofit hospital, religious facility, extended care facility, licensed residential care facility for the elderly, or in an adult residential facility; (c) housing accommodations in which the tenant shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with the owner; (d) single-family owner-occupied residences where the owner leases no more than two units or bedrooms; or (e) student housing for kindergartens or grades 1 to 12.
Notwithstanding, landlords must also provide additional language within their lease giving notice of the rental cap law and the tenant's rights regarding termination. This language is stated within the law, and must be given in 12 point font.
What Landlords Must Do Right Now
Ultimately, landlords will have to show more care towards termination processes and rental increases moving forward.
At a bare minimum, landlords will have to revise their form leases for new tenants and prepare addendums for any tenancies continuing in 2020. While the bare minimum is the new, state-mandated language to inform tenants of their rights, other language may be required if the landlord wishes to reserve a right to terminate in order to take occupancy for themselves.
Furthermore, for any leases going forward, any landlord that wants to provide a temporary discount or incentive to rent their units will have to include language outlining and specifically stating the presence of the discount or incentive, or chance that a tenant may contest the increase in rent as a violation of the rental cap portion of the law. Similarly, the changes above will have to be implemented as an addendum to any leases being renewed.
A failure to do any of these actions risks that a tenant may contest either the termination for being improper or an increase in rent, as an excessive rent hike.
Kyle Janecek is an associate on the firm's Transactional team, and has experience with drafting leases for landlords and tenants, real estate purchase and sale agreements, and loans secured by real estate. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders
January 07, 2015 —
William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLPIn Scungio Borst Assocs. v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that an individual principal/shareholder of a property owner could not be held personally liable as an “agent of the owner” for unpaid invoices, penalties, and attorneys fees under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, even though the property owner itself had failed to make payments allegedly due under a construction contract.
CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is designed to protect contractors and subcontractors from nonpayment and which, to that end, establishes rules and deadlines for payment under construction contracts between property owners, contractors, and subcontractors. An owner or contractor who does not adhere to the Act’s payment requirements is subject to the imposition of interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees. In this recent case, the property owner, a limited liability company, had retained the plaintiff contractor to perform construction services on a condominium project. Upon completion of the work, the contractor was not paid approximately $1.5 million that it was owed under the contract. The contractor filed suit under CASPA to obtain the payment it was owed plus interest, penalties and fees, and named both the property owner and its individual principal as defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the individual principal on all claims asserted against him, and the contractor appealed, arguing that CASPA allows for claims against both a property owner and its principal when the principal is an “agent of the owner acting with the owner’s authority.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP and
William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
