Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered
May 20, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Washington Supreme Court found there was coverage for resulting loss despite the original faulty contraction, an exclusion in the policy. Gardens Condominium v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 544 P.3d 499 (Wash. 2024).
Farmers issued a policy to Gardens Condominium providing coverage for loss or damage caused by a "Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Cause of Loss" was defined as any risk of direct physical loss. However, a loss was not covered if it was caused by an excluded event. The policy further provided that damage was caused by an excluded event if that event "initiates a sequence of events that results in loss or damage, regardless of the nature of any intermediate or final event in that sequence." The policy excluded coverage for faulty, inadequate, or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, or renovation. The faulty workmanship exclusion also contained a resulting loss exception: "[I]f loss or damage caused by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage."
Gardens found damage to the building that was caused by faulty design and construction of the building's roof. There was insufficient interior vents and the design of the rafters and joists prevented need ventilation Water vapor condensed on the underside of the roof sheathing, causing damage. Gardens redesigned and repaired the roof assembly to increase ventilation and eliminate condensation by installing sleepers on top of the joists.
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
Insurer’s Optional Appeals Process Does Not Toll Statute of Limitations Following Unequivocal Written Denial
September 22, 2016 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Vishva Dev, M.D., Inc. v. Blue Shield of Cal. (No. B270094, filed 8/31/16), a California appeals court confirmed that the unequivocal denial of a claim, in whole or in part, commences the running of the statute of limitations for suit on the claim, notwithstanding the insurer’s offer to reconsider on new or additional evidence.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
In UK, 16th Century Abbey Modernizes Heating System by Going Back to Roman Times
March 18, 2019 —
Peter Reina - Engineering News-RecordAncient Romans in western England bathed in naturally warm spring water of the spa town of Aquae Sulis, now named Bath. Nearly 2,000 years later, the city’s 16th century abbey is now preparing to draw warmth from the still functioning Great Roman Drain to replace the former monastery’s dilapidated Victorian-era heating system.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Reina, ENRMr. Reina may be contacted at
reina@btinternet.com
Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case
January 28, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFOn January 3rd of this year, Chad Abraham reported in the Aspen Daily News that the Ute City building—a condominium on Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado—“lacks proper entryways to apartments and a basement-level nightclub space for both tenants and the disabled.”
The owners, Michael Sedoy and Natalia Shvachko, have been sued by the city after refusing “to allow access to an eastside staircase and elevator for other building residents and disabled patrons of a basement restaurant,” according to the Aspen Daily News. “Their stance has forced the other tenants and the disabled to use a westside, alleyway service entrance, according to the city.”
Sedoy and Schvachko’s attorney retorts in court documents “that the city approved of a building map and declarations that allow access through the westside entry in the alley.”
Furthermore, in another article by Abraham published in the Aspen Daily News on January 25th, he relates that the owners had filed more than “more than 30 noise complaints with the police and the city’s environmental health department about eateries and bars around their home on Restaurant Row. That led to a trial for the Aspen Brewing Co., which a jury acquitted in about 10 minutes last week.”
In addition, the couple is being sued by Mountain Home Window Fashions, the Ute City building general contractor. According to the lawsuit as reported by the Daily Aspen News, Mountain Home claims they are owed $12,332. The owners have counter-sued, alleging “that there were defects in Mountain Home Window Fashions’ work” and that one of the employees “made unauthorized charges on Sedoy’s credit card.”
Read the full story, January 3rd article ...
Read the full story, January 25th article ...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Building Safety Month Just Around the Corner
May 07, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFFor every week in May, the International Code Council (ICC) will spotlight a specific area of building safety. The theme this year is “Resisient Communities Start with Building Codes.” ICC’s first week focus is “Don’t Get Burned – Build to Code,” and the second week the focus changes to “Bounce Back Faster from Disaster – Build to Code.” Next, the ICC will present “Water Safe, Water Smart – Build to Code,” and conclude with “$save Energy – Build to Code.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Las Vegas Partner Sarah Odia Named a 2023 Mountain States Super Lawyer Rising Star
August 28, 2023 —
Payne & Fears LLPPayne & Fears’ partner
Sarah J. Odia has been named to the list of 2023 Super Lawyers® Mountain States Rising Stars, recognizing her excellent contributions to the Las Vegas area legal community.
A Super Lawyers® Rising Stars selection is an honor reserved for those attorneys who exhibit excellence in practice. Lawyers nominate fellow attorneys who demonstrate excellence in the legal profession.
Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beware: Hyper-Technical Labor Code Violations May Expose Employers to Significant Claims for Penalties under the Labor Code California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)
May 10, 2017 —
Angela Reston-Nunez – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMost employers know that companywide policies or practices that do not strictly comply with applicable state or federal employment laws can expose employers to class action lawsuits by large numbers of employees seeking recovery of massive sums in damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Unfortunately, traditional class action lawsuits are not the only representative actions employers should be concerned with. Recent litigation trends have shown that California’s lesser known Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) can be equally, if not more harmful to employers than class actions due to steep penalties for minor violations.
WHAT IS PAGA?
Under PAGA, “aggrieved employees” can sue employers for alleged Labor Code violations. Like class actions, a PAGA plaintiff sues on a representative basis on behalf of themselves and other workers. However, unlike class action plaintiffs, PAGA plaintiffs do not seek damages; rather, they seek civil and statutory penalties formerly recoverable solely by state agencies in enforcement actions.
The distinction between recovery of damages in class actions and recovery of penalties in PAGA actions reflects the often-insidious nature of PAGA claims. While workers have long alleged “derivative” PAGA claims for penalties in connection with more substantive underlying Labor Code violations (meal or rest break violations, for example), we have seen a recent spike in PAGA suits alleging hyper-technical Labor Code violations with no underlying substantive violation, and where the “aggrieved employees” have suffered no actual harm.
WHAT'S AT STAKE?
Equally troubling for employers is the method by which significant penalties are aggregated. With a few significant exceptions, penalties generally range from $50 to $250 per violation. At first blush, this may not seem like much, however total penalties rise rapidly when considering that calculations are made on a per-employee and a per-pay period basis.
AN EXAMPLE ON HOW PAGA WORKS
Consider the following example based on one recent case:
Issue: An employee brought a PAGA-only lawsuit on behalf of himself and 400 other “aggrieved employees” against his employer for alleged Labor Code violations.
Claim: The employee claimed the employer’s 30-year practice of paying employees 9 days after the close of the applicable payroll period violated Labor Code Section 204(d), which requires payment to be made within 7 days of the close of the payroll period. The employee claimed that, under PAGA, the employer was liable for a minimum penalty of $100 per employee, per pay period, going back at least one year (the statutory limitations period for PAGA claims).
Exposure: With 400 employees, 24 pay periods per year, and $100 per violation, the plaintiff sought a minimum of $960,000 in penalties (not including substantial attorneys’ fees, costs and interest also available under PAGA), despite offering no evidence of harm suffered by the employees or prior notice of the issue.
OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to a draconian penalties scheme, there are a myriad of additional aggravating factors for employers involved in PAGA litigation, such as:
- PAGA plaintiffs are not required to meet the rigorous class certification standards required of class action plaintiffs, meaning plaintiffs’ attorneys may be more likely to bring meritless “strike suits” aimed at obtaining quick settlements based on significant alleged penalties exposure.
- 75% of PAGA penalties recovered by way of settlement or judgment are directed to the state of California, while the "aggrieved employees” only keep 25%, reinforcing the notion that PAGA claims are frequently attorneys’-fee-driven, rather than for protecting employees.
STEPS FOR EMPLOYERS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES
Fortunately, there are a number of measures employers can take prior to and during wage and hour litigation which can dramatically reduce, or even eliminate, exposure to substantial penalties and damages. This includes:
- Regular reviews. Prior to litigation, we recommend regular detailed reviews of company policies and practices in order to identify areas of possible concern and ensure compliance with California’s ever-changing labor laws.
- Take action. On receipt of a new PAGA claim, taking immediate action to remedy an alleged violation within the Labor Code’s 33-day “safe harbor” time-period may help limit an employer’s exposure, and could bar a plaintiff from filing suit at all.
- Be aggressive. Once a PAGA or class action claim is in litigation, a proactive, aggressive approach to claim evaluation, investigation and litigation is critical.
For these reasons and more, it’s in an employers’ best interest to monitor these issues closely and seek input when appropriate.
Angela Reston-Nunez is a labor and employment attorney in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. For questions regarding PAGA, class action or individual wage and hour issues, or other employment law matters, please feel free to contact Angela Reston-Nunez at (925) 988-3249 or angela.reston-nunez@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Leaning Tower of San Francisco
January 24, 2018 —
Dave Suggs - CDJ STAFFThe Millennium Tower located at 301 Mission Street in San Francisco, California opened in 2009 and is fifty-eight stories high. It is comprised of expensive apartments with price tags in the millions. “Yet for all its curb appeal, the building has, quite literally one fundamental problem: it’s sinking into mud and tilting towards its neighbors” reports John Wetheim of CBS News in the
60 Minutes segment about the condition of the tower “San Francisco’s Leaning Tower of Lawsuits.”
In the Tower’s basement along columns that protrude from the foundation of the building there are stress gauges lining the walls illustrating cracks with slow growth which is cause for concern. The tower is tilting a total of 14 inches toward the northwest and has sunk 17 inches so far. Petar Marinkovic, an engineer for the European Space Agency estimates that the tower is sinking 1.5 to 2 inches per year.
Jerry Cauthen, a local engineer, weighs in on what he believes is the cause of the sinking and leaning; it was built from concrete instead of steel. “Concrete is often cheaper. And it’s just as good, but it is a lot heavier. And so you got to design your foundation and your sub-surface to support that higher weight.” A local geotechnical engineer, Larry Karp agrees stating that the foundation of a building of this size and weight should be on solid rock (bedrock). The Millennium Tower is sitting on layers debris from the 1906 earthquake, a gold rush landfill, as well as clay, mud, and sand.
There over 20 parties involved in the Millennium Tower lawsuits so far. Solutions to “fix” the tower’s issues range from removing 20 stories from the top of the building to perpetually freezing the ground beneath the building. There are also ongoing mediation talks to determine the feasibility of drilling down to bedrock under a building where a thousand residents are still upstairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
