Trial Court’s Grant of Summary Judgment On Ground Not Asserted By Moving Party Upheld
December 17, 2015 —
Laura C. Williams & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Marlton Recovery Partners, LLC v. County of Los Angeles, et al. (filed 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants County of Los Angeles, the County Treasurer-Tax Collector and Board of Supervisors (collectively the “County”) despite the fact summary judgment was granted on grounds not raised by the County. The Court of Appeal determined that because the plaintiff could not have shown a triable issue of material fact on the ground of law relied upon by the trial court, summary judgment was proper.
In the underlying case, plaintiff sought cancellation of penalties on delinquent property taxes for 26 parcels under Revenue and Taxation Code §4985.2, which allows the tax collector to cancel such penalties under certain circumstances. The County denied the request prompting plaintiff to challenge the denial on a petition for peremptory writ of mandate to the trial court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fungi, Wet Rot, Dry Rot and "Virus": One of These Things is Not Like the Other
November 02, 2020 —
Hugh D. Hughes - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe Hartford’s so-called virus exclusion in its commercial property forms is getting a workout, and policyholders now have an argument that may help their cases move past the pleadings stage. A U.S. District Court in Florida has deemed the exclusion ambiguous and denied an insurer’s motion to dismiss.1 The exclusion applies to “presence, growth, proliferation, spread, or any activity of ’fungi’, wet rot, dry rot, bacteria or virus.”2 The Court held that the parties did not necessarily intend to exclude a pandemic.
In Urogynecology, the plaintiff sought coverage for the loss of the usefulness and functionality of its business location due to the Florida Governor’s shutdown order. The policy contained a 'fungi', wet rot, dry rot, bacteria, or virus” exclusion.3 The carrier moved to dismiss, and the plaintiff argued that the exclusion only applied if COVID-19 was present on-site, which was not the case.
The Court addressed none of the issues regarding direct physical loss and instead decided the motion on the fungi exclusion. The Court held the exclusion ambiguous because the exclusion of virus “does not logically align with the grouping of the virus exclusion with other pollutants such that the Policy necessarily anticipated and intended to deny coverage for these kinds of business losses.”5 In addition, the Court stated that pollution case law was not on point because “none of the cases dealt with the unique circumstances of the effect COVID-19 has had on our society – a distinction this Court considers significant.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hugh D. Hughes, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Hughes may be contacted at
hdh@sdvlaw.com
Lumber Drops to Nine-Month Low, Extending Retreat From Record
August 30, 2021 —
Marcy Nicholson - BloombergLumber futures slid to the lowest in more than nine months after sawmills ramped up production and demand from builders stabilized.
September futures in Chicago fell as much as 4.4% to $482.90 per thousand board feet, the lowest for a most-active contract since Oct. 30. Prices have dropped more than 70% from the record high reached just three months ago.
The tumble marks a stark turnaround for the common building material after strong U.S. construction demand during the pandemic spurred a surge in orders for lumber, causing prices to more than quadruple to their May peak and fueling inflation concerns. Sawmills have since increased output, and a shortage of other building supplies such as siding and windows has slowed the pace of construction, said Brian Leonard, an analyst with RCM Alternatives.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marcy Nicholson, Bloomberg
Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)
April 20, 2017 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaIn my previous post, I made reference to getting a “Reservation of Rights” letter. I noted that the carrier may decide to defend you under a Reservation of Rights (i.e., hire your lawyer) but may not, necessarily, accept the responsibility for paying the claim. Does this mean that the insurance company has denied your claim, or will never pay? No.
Reservation of Rights (ROR) letters are sent for a variety of reasons- most notably, when some portion of the construction lawsuit against you is not covered under your E&O policy. The letter must state the reason(s) that the ROR is being issued.
With the ROR, the insurance company is telling you that it reserves the right to withdraw from your defense and/or deny payment of damages at a later date, depending upon how facts in the case develop. The notice is intended to let you know that there *may* be issues later, and to put you notice that you have the right to hire your own lawyer (at your own expense) to protect yourself from that future potential risk.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
School District Client Advisory: Civility is not an Option, It is a Duty
May 13, 2014 —
Gregory J. Rolen - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP“I could not but wonder at the Queen’s unprecedented civility, until I realized with a flush of shame that it was my own improved behavior that motivated hers. So it is that we in life determine our own treatment.” - Catherine Gilbert Murdock
I. We Must Actively Encourage Board Civility
Over 20 years of experience representing public entities has taught me there is nothing more important than civility. On April 11, 2014, I was a featured presenter on, "How to Keep School Boards Out Of Trouble!" My initial focus was to educate the board members about open meeting laws, public records, and conflict provisions. Instead, I began by addressing board "civility." The discussion became animated. The audience was transfixed, appalled, and even amused at my examples of how uncivilized board behavior led to lawsuits, bad press, wasted resources and low morale. One attendee asked me to define civility. I meekly responded, "The Golden Rule?" "Disagreeing without being disagreeable?" My answers were inadequate. I then had a humbling epiphany. As an education law specialist, and the General Counsel of one of the largest, most diverse school districts in California, I needed to do more to foster civility among the board members I served. I had underestimated the destructive effects of incivility on my district, my colleagues, and my community.
On some level I realized that the coarsening of the discourse was taking its toll. However, I was so involved in performing my duties; I forgot to do my job. I should have taken a step back and implemented training, policies, initiatives and protocols to promote civility. I realize that it is unfortunate that we have to establish standards for adult interactions, especially for people who have promised to place service over self. As I learned, you can never fully anticipate human interactions or the complexities of the human condition. That is why I believe proactive measures to promote civility are so critical. This is not being nice for the sake of being nice. But instead, it is an absolutely vital component of effective governance. Therefore, in this essay I will discuss civility and its importance to school boards and districts. I will address the deleterious effects of board incivility. More importantly, I hope to present no-nonsense methods to cultivate civility. It is my sincere desire that others will learn from my experiences, and this time I want to do better!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory J. Rolen, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Rolen may be contacted at
grolen@hbblaw.com
Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation.
There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it.
After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors.
Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations.
Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.”
In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.”
The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Understanding California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law
November 13, 2023 —
Yaron Shaham - Kahana FeldIn order for a plaintiff to prove a defendant is negligent, the plaintiff must prove the defendant (1) owed a duty to plaintiff, (2) breached that duty, (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury, and (4) the resulting monetary damage. However, for both plaintiffs and defendants it is not an all or nothing game in California. This is because California is a pure Comparative Negligence state.
California’s Comparative Negligence law provides that even if a plaintiff is deemed 99% at fault, the plaintiff can still recover 1% in damages from a defendant. Thus, even if a plaintiff is deemed to be more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault for the incident, the plaintiff could still recover some monetary amount, or the defendant will still have to pay plaintiff, depending on how you see it. In most instances, a jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party.
Just as a plaintiff must prove he/she/its negligence case against a defendant, if the defendant claims plaintiff was partially responsible for the incident, the defendant must prove plaintiff was also negligent and said negligence contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. The total amount of monetary responsibility distributed among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%. As crazy as it may sound, a plaintiff found to be 99.9% at fault, is still entitled to recover 0.01% from a defendant in California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Yaron Shaham, Kahana FeldMr. Shaham may be contacted at
yshaham@kahanafeld.com
Caterpillar Said to Be Focus of Senate Overseas Tax Probe
March 26, 2014 —
Richard Rubin and Jesse Drucker - BloombergA U.S. Senate investigative panel is examining Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) and whether the company improperly avoided U.S. taxes by moving profits outside the country, said three people familiar with the inquiry.
The Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold a hearing in early April, said two of the people. They spoke on condition of anonymity before an official announcement.
Rachel Potts, a spokeswoman for Caterpillar, declined to comment. Two staff members for the subcommittee declined to comment.
In 2009, Daniel Schlicksup, an employee who had worked on tax strategy, alleged in a lawsuit in federal court that Caterpillar used a “Swiss structure” to shift profits to offshore companies and avoid more than $2 billion in U.S. taxes. He also alleged that Caterpillar used a “Bermuda structure” involving shell companies to return profits to the U.S. without paying required taxes.
Mr. Rubin may be contacted at rrubin12@bloomberg.net; Mr. Drucker may be contacted at jdrucker4@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Rubin and Jesse Drucker, Bloomberg
