Bad Faith Claim For Independent Contractor's Reduced Loss Assessment Survives Motion to Dismiss
January 28, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's bad faith claim based upon the insurer's alleged use of an independent contractor to assess the amount of loss in order to lower the amount paid survived a motion to dismiss. Williamson v. Chubb Indem. Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178022 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 19, 2013).
The insureds' home was damaged. Chubb, their insurer, retained an independent contractor, Eastern Diversified Services (EDS) to assess the amount of loss. EDS estimated the loss to be $193,270.43, and Chubb paid this amount.
Chubb's standard practice was to conduct damage estimates itself using an estimating program called Symbility. EDS used a different program with a data base creating lower payments for loss. When this was brought to Chubb's attention, Chubb refused to recalculate the plaintiff's estimate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Landlords Challenge U.S. Eviction Ban and Continue to Oust Renters
October 25, 2020 —
Kriston Capps - BloombergIn September, the Trump administration announced a national moratorium on evictions, via an order by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention aimed at reducing the spread of coronavirus. The four-month temporary suspension applies to any tenant who can’t make rent due to economic conditions and who presents a written declaration about their circumstances to their landlord.
But the CDC ban now faces legal challenges on multiple fronts, even as landlords continue to routinely file evictions for nonpayment of rent — the very outcome that the order was designed to prevent.
On Oct. 20, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia heard the first case against the moratorium, Richard Lee Brown, et al. v. Secretary Alex Azar, et al.. That challenge, brought by a nonprofit called the New Civil Liberties Alliance, has been joined by the National Apartment Association, which represents some 85,000 landlords responsible for 10 million rental units. Lawyers and scholars working on behalf of plaintiffs in the cases say that the CDC lacks the constitutional authority to enact a policy affecting rents.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kriston Capps, Bloomberg
Crisis Averted! Pennsylvania Supreme Court Joins Other Courts in Finding that Covid-19 Presents No Physical Loss or Damage for Businesses
October 21, 2024 —
Edward M. Koch & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLPSeeking to find some relief from business losses experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, many businesses turned to their property insurers for coverage for their lost income. A clear national trend emerged among courts deciding the issue, as most businesses could not establish coverage because they had not experienced a “direct physical loss of or damage to their covered property” as required by most policies.
While this legal question may have become an afterthought for many attorneys, the question remained an open one in Pennsylvania while the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered two contradictory holdings issued in the Superior Court on this topic. Compare Macmiles, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 286 A.3d 331 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding there was no coverage for loss of use of a commercial property unaccompanied by any physical alteration or other physical condition that rendered the property unusable or uninhabitable) with Ungarean v. CNA, 286 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2022) (holding that the policy at issue was ambiguous and therefore the policy covered the insured for COVID-related business losses). Last week, the Supreme Court considered the Superior Court’s holdings in Macmiles and Ungarean and held, at long last, that COVID-19 did not cause a direct physical loss of or damage to covered property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and
Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Some Construction Contract Basics- Necessities and Pitfalls
January 03, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRecently, I’ve been on an “advising” kick here at Construction Law Musings. My last two posts have been about communication and trusting your gut when it comes to a smooth construction project. This post will be the third in the trilogy (and who knows maybe I’ll have a 4th and 5th like the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy “trilogy”).
While all construction contractors should use their communication skills and instincts to assure a smooth and hopefully profitable project, all of the gut following and great communication will not help you if your contract is not up to snuff. In the spirit of giving you a few basics things to look at, here’s my list of three basics that you need in your contract and a three things to be on the lookout for in others’ contracts.
First, the good stuff that needs to be there:
- Attorney Fees Clause– without it, a Virginia court (and most other courts) will not award you a judgment for any attorney fees spent to protect your rights.
- Dispute Resolution– whether the specified resolution is through the litigation process, ADR or some combination, such a clause or paragraph will only help define the parameters of what happens with a claim.
- Detailed scope of work– Without the proper detail in the scope of work, the parties cannot properly set expectations and know what happens when things change.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
World Cup May Pull Out of Brazil because of Construction Delays
January 28, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBack in October of last year, CNN reported that a judge suspended construction at one of the stadiums being built for this summer’s World Cup in Brazil. The judge stated that the dangers for construction workers included "being buried, run over, falling from heights and being hit by material, among other serious risks,” according to CNN.
Recently, the Los Angeles Times reported that FIFA is threatening to pull out of Brazil because of construction delays: “We cannot organize a match without a stadium,” Jerome Valcke, FIFA’s secretary general, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times. “This has reached a critical point.”
The deadline for completion of the 12 World Cup stadiums was January 1st, but various delays—including “fatal construction accidents at stadiums in Sao Paulo, Brasilia, and Manaus” as well as worker walk offs over pay—forced FIFA to “relax” the deadline.
Read the full story at CNN...
Read the full story at the Los Angeles Times... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting
February 01, 2022 —
Robert A. James & Shade Oladetimi - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogPublic-private partnerships are often cited as a key pathway to restoring and enhancing the nation’s infrastructure. They can be challenging arrangements to structure. (As a result of the pandemic, they have even suffered the indignity of having their “PPP” acronym coopted by the
Paycheck Protection Program. With apologies to Small Business Administration practitioners, we use “PPP” in this article to refer to the infrastructure tool.)
One gating condition to setting up a PPP is identifying the authority for a public entity to use a contracting method that does not run afoul of the general requirements that (i) works of improvement be let to the lowest responsive bid by a responsible bidder and (ii) design services be awarded through a qualifications-based selection process. Integrated forms of project delivery that vest in a single concessionaire multiple design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and entrepreneurial roles must find an exception to any applicable background rules.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury and
Shade Oladetimi, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Oladetimi may be contacted at shade.oladetimi@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Subcontractor’s Perspective On California’s Recent Changes to Indemnity Provisions
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogGreat news for California subcontractors and suppliers! “Type I” Indemnity provisions in California construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013 are not enforceable. This change in the law prevents owners and general contractors from shifting enormous exposure and costs of litigation downstream to the little guy, namely subcontractors and suppliers. In October 2011, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 474 into law, which represented a major legislative victory for subcontractors and suppliers. The new law also imposed exacting limitations on contractors that attempt to require their subcontractors and suppliers to cover their defense fees and costs in litigation.
New Law Prevents Indemnity or Cost of Defense for Active Negligence
Under a "Type I" indemnity provision, the downstream subcontractor agrees to indemnify the owner or contractor, even against liability caused by the upstream owner/contractor's own "active negligence." A “Type I” indemnity provision in general contractors’ subcontracts often require their subcontractors to defend and indemnify them from liability regardless of whether the general contractor is partially at fault. Subcontractors and suppliers historically have complained that they have little bargaining power when entering into these contracts and these types of provisions can result in ruinous liability for those in the construction industry that are most vulnerable-subcontractors and suppliers. Before this change, the law allowed a general contractor who is 99 percent at fault for an injury or damage to shift the entire risk to a subcontractor who is only one percent at-fault or a subcontractor who is not at fault at all, but tangentially involved in the claim. Subcontractors and suppliers joined forces and lobbied the legislature. The legislature and Governor Brown agreed. Under the new law, such "Type I" indemnity provisions will no longer be enforceable. SB 474 adds Civil Code section 2782.05 that precludes indemnity where the party to be indemnified is "actively negligent" and makes void and unenforceable these types of clauses.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massachusetts Business Court Addresses Defense Cost Allocation and Non-Cumulation Provisions in Long-Tail Context
March 06, 2022 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and WilliamsA business court in Massachusetts has weighed in on two key issues affecting allocation of insurance coverage for long-tail liabilities in Massachusetts. Specifically, in Crosby Valve LLC et al. v. OneBeacon America Insurance Company, et al.,
[1] involving asbestos bodily injury claims, Judge Kenneth Salinger of the Suffolk County Business Litigation Session addressed:
- whether defense costs in long-tail cases were subject to the same pro rata allocation scheme the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) adopted to govern successively triggered insurers' indemnity obligations in Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity Company;[2] and
- whether “non-cumulation” provisions, like those addressed by the New York Court of Appeals in Matter of Viking Pump,[3] were consistent with this pro rata allocation methodology.
As to the first issue — i.e., allocation of defense costs — Judge Salinger declined to follow Boston Gas, and found the SJC’s holding in that case was limited to an insurers’ indemnity obligations. The SJC in Boston Gas had focused on the language of the policy insuring agreement, saying “[t]his policy applies to ... property damage ... which occurs anywhere during the policy period.” The SJC had also pointed to the policy definition of “occurrence” as “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results, during the policy period, in property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured.”
[4]
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams LLP and
Austin D. Moody, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
