New York Appellate Division Reverses Denial of Landlord’s Additional Insured Tender
December 07, 2020 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanIn Wesco Insurance Co. v. Travelers Property & Cas. Co. of America, 2020 WL 6572489 (1st Dep’t Nov. 10, 2020), the New York Appellate Division found that a commercial landlord was owed additional insured coverage in connection with an incident in which a plaintiff slipped and fell on the sidewalk while exiting the leased premises.
The tenant, Capital One, was the named insured in a CGL policy issued by Travelers. The policy added the landlord as an additional insured, but “only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to [Capital One] and shown in the Schedule.” The lease defined the demised premises to include the building and “all appurtenances.”
Travelers denied the landlord’s tender on the basis that the sidewalk did not constitute “that part of the premises leased to” Capital One. In the ensuing declaratory judgment action brought by Wesco (the landlord’s insurer), the court granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment on this ground.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?
March 18, 2019 —
Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added).
But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs?
In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
That’s Common Knowledge! Failure to Designate an Expert Witness in a Professional Negligence Case is Not Fatal Where “Common Knowledge” Exception Applies
June 03, 2019 —
Lyndsey Torp - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn reversing summary judgment for defendants, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that homeowners suing their real estate broker for negligence did not need an expert witness to establish the elements of their causes of action. Ryan v. Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal. App. 5th 637. Typically, expert witnesses are required to establish the standard of care in professional negligence cases. But in Ryan, the court of appeal held that the “common knowledge” exception applied despite this general rule, because the conduct required by the particular circumstance of the case was within the common knowledge of a layman. The conduct in question here? The broker’s failure to disclose to his client that the client’s neighbor told him that she planned extensive renovations that would obstruct the client’s property’s ocean views.
Ryan and Patricia Ryan (the Ryans) hired defendant Real Estate of the Pacific, Inc., doing business as Pacific Sotheby’s International Realty (Sotheby’s) and defendant real estate broker to sell their residence in La Jolla, California. During an open house at the residence, a neighbor informed the Ryan’s real estate broker that she planned extensive renovations at her home that would, among other things, permanently obstruct the Ryan’s westerly ocean views and take several years to complete. The real estate broker never informed the Ryans of this, nor the subsequent buyer. The subsequent buyer purchased the property for $3.86 million, and defendants received $96,500 as commission for the sale. The day after escrow closed, the buyers learned of the renovations, and sought to rescind the purchase. Based on advice of defendants, the Ryans refused, and the dispute proceeded to arbitration. The buyer obtained a rescission of the purchase, with the Ryans order to pay damages, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs in excess of $1 million. The Ryans then sued Sotheby’s and the real estate broker to recover these amounts and damages caused by defendants’ alleged negligence.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lyndsey Torp, Snell & WilmerMs. Torp may be contacted at
ltorp@swlaw.com
Amazon Can be Held Strictly Liable as a Product Seller in New Jersey
August 07, 2022 —
Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation StrategistOn June 29, 2022, in N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Grp. a/s/o Angela Sigismondi v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115826 (Sigismondi), the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon) is a “seller” under New Jersey’s product liability statute and can thus face strict liability for damages caused by products sold on its platform. Although the analysis is state-specific, Sigismondi may serve as an important decision for allowing product defect claims to proceed against Amazon when so often the third-party vendor that lists the product is unlocatable, insolvent, or not subject to the jurisdiction of United States courts.
In recent years, Amazon has been fighting product liability claims across the country. Amazon argues it is not a “seller” under states’ product liability laws but is merely an online marketplace that facilitates the sale of products by third-party vendors. What constitutes a “seller” in a particular state must be evaluated state-by-state, but various courts have accepted Amazon’s argument that it is not a “seller.” These decisions are based on Amazon’s level of control in the product sale and often focus on a finding that Amazon did not convey possession of the product or transfer its title.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and WilliamsMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
Indemnity Clauses—What do they mean, and what should you be looking for?
May 07, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorIt seems that every construction contract now-a-days, contains an indemnity clause. Contractors should be reviewing these indemnity clauses very carefully to understand the potential scope of an indemnity obligation and your opportunity to negotiate changes.
What is an indemnity Clause?
An indemnity clause transfers risk from one party to another. When a contractor signs an indemnity agreement, it is agreeing to pay for damages for which another party could be liable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Prevailing Payment Bond Surety Entitled to Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Even if Defended by Principal
January 09, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogFor contractors involved in California public works projects the scenario is not uncommon: The general contractor awarded the public works project is required to obtain a payment bond for the benefit of subcontractors and suppliers and the payment bond surety issuing the payment bond requires the general contractor to defend and indemnify the surety from and against any claims against the payment bond.
In Cell-Crete Corporation v. Federal Insurance Company, 82 Cal.App.5th 1090 (2022), the 4th District Court of Appeal examined whether a payment bond surety, who prevails in a claim against the payment bond, is entitled to statutory attorneys’ fees when the party actually incurring the attorneys’ fees was the general contractor, pursuant to its defense and indemnity obligations, as opposed to the surety itself.
The Cell-Crete Case
General contractor Granite Construction Company was awarded a public works contract issued by the City of Thermal known as the Airport Boulevard at Grapefruit Boulevard and Union Pacific Railroad Grade Separation Project. We’ll just call it the “Project.” Subcontractor Cell-Crete Corporation entered into a subcontract with Granite for lightweight concrete and related work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Policy's Limitation Period for Seeking Replacement Costs Not Enforced Where Unreasonable
March 12, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe New York Court of Appeals determined that a two year period for obtaining replacement costs for damage to property was unenforceable where the property could not be reasonably replaced in two years. Executive Plaza, LLC v. Peerless Ins. Co., 2014 WL 551251 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2014).
Plaintiff's office building was severely damaged in a fire on February 23, 2007. It cost more than a million dollars to restore the building to its previous condition. Plaintiff had $1 million in coverage from Peerless. The policy provided that replacement costs for any loss would be paid after the damaged property was repaired. The insured was required to make the repairs as soon as possible. Further, the policy provided that any legal action against the insurer had to be brought within two years of the loss.
Peerless paid the "actual cash value" of the destroyed building pursuant to the policy in the amount of $757,812.50. Peerless informed the plaintiff that it would have to provide documentation of the completion of repairs to collect the full replacement value, another $242,187.50.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Reaffirming the Importance of Appeal Deadlines Under the Contract Disputes Act
January 26, 2017 —
Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPA recent United States Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) decision emphasizes the importance of deadlines for appealing a contracting officer’s (“CO”) decision under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”). On July 22, 2016, the COFC granted the consolidation of two naval contract dispute appeals totaling nearly $12.4 million in response to Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba’s (“NTS”) motion to resolve two Requests for Equitable Adjustment (“REA”) in the same forum. See Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. United States, No. 15-885C, 2016 WL 4009886, at *5 (Fed. Cl. July 22, 2016). NTS’s motion before the COFC sought to transfer an appeal of a REA before the COFC to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (“ASBCA”), where another appeal of a REA arising under the same contract was presently on appeal. The COFC rejected NTS’s appeal to transfer the REA to the ASBCA because NTS did not appeal the REA within the 90-day limit under the CDA. Instead, the COFC allowed NTS to transfer the REA before the ASBCA to the COFC because timeliness was not an issue.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Reynolds may be contacted at
reynolds@ahclaw.com
