What is Bad Faith?
April 04, 2022 —
Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.As a policyholder, you may have heard the term “bad faith” in the context of litigation against your insurer. Bad faith in the insurance context is a catch-all term for a broad category of claims that can be brought against your insurer. Bad faith claims are common in insurance coverage litigation, and they can be a powerful tool in a policyholder’s arsenal. This post will serve as an introduction to some basic concepts surrounding bad faith litigation.
Table of Contents
- Bad Faith Defined:
- Statutory vs. Common Law Bad Faith Claims
- Breach of Contract vs. Tort Bad Faith Claims
- Substantive vs. Procedural Bad Faith Claims
- Best Practices Throughout the Claims Process:
- Involve an Experienced Coverage Attorney
- Conclusion
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at
SManobianca@sdvlaw.com
New Florida Bill Shortens Time for Construction-Defect Lawsuits
September 06, 2023 —
Jessica Zelitt - Construction ExecutiveOn April 13, 2023, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Senate Bill 360 into law. This legislation alters the time period for bringing forward construction-defect lawsuits, as well as modifies the current private right of action against a contractor for violation of the Florida Building Code.
First, SB 360 amends § 95.11(3)(c), Florida Statutes, to reduce the statute of repose from 10 years to seven years for actions founded on latent construction defects. The legislation also changes the manner in which this time period is calculated under both the seven-year statute of repose and the four-year statute of limitations for construction-defect cases.
Under the prior statute, the time to commence an action began with the later of (i) the date of actual possession by the owner, (ii) the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (CO), (iii) the date of abandonment of construction if not completed or (iv) the date of completion or termination of the contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Zelitt, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Zelitt may be contacted at
jessica.zelitt@arlaw.com
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/24/24) – Omni Hotels Hit with Cyberattack, Wisconsin’s Low-Interest Loans for Home Construction, and Luxury Real Estate Sales Increase
May 20, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, alternative lenders take the lead in CRE loans, construction workers worry about artificial intelligence, prospective homeowners express concerns about climate risks, and more!
- Even as overall real estate sales fell 4% nationwide in the first quarter, luxury real estate sales increased more than 2%, posting their best year-over-year gains in three years. (Robert Frank, CNBC)
- As many banks cut back from commercial real estate loans amid rising interest rates and a regional banking crisis that exploded in early 2023, a number of alternative lenders jumped in to lead the way. (Andrew Coen, Commercial Observer)
- Workers in construction and other industries are worried about artificial intelligence, and it’s keeping their companies from moving forward more decisively with the surging technology. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
The Argument for Solar Power
July 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJennifer Goodman in Big Builder provides eight reasons why buyers should opt for solar power. First on her list is “Codes.” Goodman pointed out that beginning in 2020, “California’s Title 24 will require all new residential construction to be net-zero energy, which means that they will need renewable energy systems in order to generate as much power as they consume.”
Other reasons include incentives, aesthetics, appraisal/lending standards, payback, legislation, cost, and finally, “clean, quiet, and abundant power.” Goodman stated that the “technology generates no noise or off gassing and because solar power is generated from sunlight--not heat--even residents in the northern U.S. are able to take advantage of it.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Recording “Un-Neighborly” Documents
April 03, 2019 —
Bob Henry - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn September 2018, in Baumgartner v. Timmins, 245 Ariz. 334, 429 P.3d 567, the Arizona Court of Appeals provided further clarification on what constitutes an “encumbrance” on a property for purposes of Arizona’s statutory scheme prohibiting the recording of “false documents.” The statute, A.R.S. § 33-420, prohibits the recording of documents that a person knows to be forged, are groundless, or that contain material misstatements (or false claims). A person who claims an “interest in, or a lien or encumbrance against” real property who records such documents can be held liable for $5,000 or treble the actual damages caused by the recording (whichever is greater), A.R.S. § 33-420(A), and perhaps even be found guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor, A.R.S. § 33-420(E).
At issue in Baumgartner were neighbors fighting about CC&Rs—a typical neighborhood fight. In 2015, some of the neighbors filed suit against the Timminses for violating the CC&Rs. The Timminses did not contest the lawsuit, resulting in a default judgment. In what the Court of Appeals characterized as a lawsuit filed by the Timminses “in apparent response to the [first] lawsuit and resulting default judgment,” the Timminses created, signed, and recorded affidavits contending that the Plaintiffs in the original lawsuit were themselves “in violation of several provisions of the CC&Rs.” The Plaintiffs then filed suit again against the Timminses, this time contending that the Timminses had violated A.R.S. § 33-420 by recording the affidavits because the affidavits, the Plaintiffs contended, created encumbrances on their properties. The Apache County Superior Court agreed, and issued a final judgment nullifying the recorded documents and awarding the Timminses damages, along with their attorneys’ fees and costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bob Henry, Snell & WilmerMr. Henry may be contacted at
bhenry@swlaw.com
Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims
March 30, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s scary, uncertain times as the world grasps with how to deal with the coronavirus pandemic that has now spread to every continent on the globe with the exception of Antarctica. Although this is a global crisis, it has, and for the immediately future will continue to have, a direct impact on us individually as well our industry.
While the impact of the coronavirus on the construction industry is uncertain, what is certain, is that it will have an impact, whether on the construction labor market, on construction supply chains, on the ability of contractors to deliver projects on time and within budget, and on decisions by owners whether to move forward with projects altogether.
According to Ken Simonson, chief economist with the Associated General Contractors of America, during an interview at the ConExpo conference this past week in Las Vegas, while the coronavirus crises “is a story evolving by the hour . . . the impacts on construction are going to happen, but it’s hard to say how extensive, how long they’ll last, [and] how soon they’ll show up.”
From a legal perspective, the coronavirus, and really any natural disaster, from the “Campfire Fire” in Northern California in 2018 to the “Big One” which can happen anytime, has the potential to adversely impact a construction project or shut it down completely. This in turn raises two different, but interrelated legal concepts: (1) force majeure; and (2) delay and time-impact claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Co-Housing Startups Fly in the Face of Old-School NYC Housing Law
December 18, 2022 —
Amelia Pollard & Diego Lasarte - BloombergA room in an eight-bedroom Bed-Stuy brownstone with “charming views.” A five-bedroom “modern Manhattan” home. In a housing market as hot as New York City’s, these units advertised on co-housing companies’ websites sound promising. According to the city’s housing regulations, however, neither is legal.
That hasn’t stopped companies from offering the rooms, as renters clamor for affordable living space. With the average studio apartment in Manhattan going for nearly $3,100 a month, newcomers to the city often find living with multiple roommates to be their best affordable-housing option. It’s a trend that startups have jumped on, and one some experts endorse as a way to quickly scale up affordable housing — even though municipal housing laws aren’t on board yet.
The reality is that in many cities, housing laws that limit the number of unrelated individuals in a dwelling are still in place. New York, for instance, doesn’t allow more than three unrelated people to live in the same unit. To be sure, New Yorkers often break that law, as expensive housing forces people to find roommates through friends or on sites like Craigslist. But multimillion-dollar companies breaking that law is new.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amelia Pollard, Bloomberg and
Diego Lasarte, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
