Insurers' Communications Through Brokers Not Privileged
April 20, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insured's motion to compel documents withheld for privilege by the insurers. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Amtrack, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27041(E.D. N.Y. Feb. 19, 2016).
Plaintiffs were insurers who did business in the London Insurance Market and who issued one or more liability policies issued to Amtrak. Amtrak demanded coverage under the policies for alleged environmental contamination and/or asbestos exposure. Coverage was denied and the insurers filed for a declaratory judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Question of Parties' Intent Prevents Summary Judgment for Insurer
December 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's and insured's intent as to which entities were to be insured prevented the insurer's motion for summary judgment. Chaus v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136311 (E.D. La. Oct. 5, 2015).
Water damage from a broken pipe occurred at the insured's building. Blaze Chaus LLC owned the building.The building was occupied by two entities which provided health care services: Dr. Kelly G. Burkenstock, M.D. and Azure Spa, Inc. Dr. Burkenstock was the sole owner of all three entities.
The application for commercial insurance was submitted by "Dr. Kelly G. Burkenstock, d/b/a/ Blaze Chaus LLC." The application requested a "Physicians and Surgeons Endorsement" and reflected that the business activities of the applicant as "Internal Medicine Doctor."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Court-Side Seat: FERC Reviews, Panda Power Plaints and Sovereign Immunity
April 26, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a brief report on new environmental law decisions, regulations and legislation.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Massachusetts Lobsterman’s Association v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce
On March 22, 2021, the Supreme Court rejected a petition to review a Presidential decision to invoke the Antiquities Act of 1906 to designate as a monument “an area of submerged land about the size of Connecticut” in the Atlantic Ocean. This action forbids all sorts of economic activity, which compelled the filing of litigation in the First Circuit challenging this designation. Chief Justice Roberts supported the Court’s denial of certiorari, but remarked that a stronger legal case may persuade the Court to review such liberal uses of the Antiquities Act.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Professional Liability Alert: California Appellate Courts In Conflict Regarding Statute of Limitations for Malicious Prosecution Suits Against Attorneys
April 28, 2014 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn conflict with an earlier decision by a different division within the same District, and with a prior decision of another District which followed the earlier case, Division Three of the Second Appellate District has concluded, contrary to established precedent, that the general two-year limitations period set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1 (“Section 335.1”) applies to malicious prosecution claims against attorneys, rather than the specific one-year statute of limitations for claims against attorneys codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 (“Section 340.6”).
In Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. v. Krane & Smith, APC (filed April 15, 2014, Case No. B237424, consolidated with Case No. B239375), Roger Cleveland Golf Co., Inc. (“Cleveland Golf”), filed a malicious prosecution action against Krane & Smith (“the Attorneys”), who had unsuccessfully prosecuted the underlying breach of contract matter for their client against Cleveland Golf. In that action, on April 26, 2010, the trial court entered its order granting a motion for nonsuit and dismissing the complaint in favor of Cleveland Golf. On May 24, 2011, or approximately 13 months after the trial court had dismissed the underlying complaint, Cleveland Golf commenced a malicious prosecution action against the Attorneys. In the interim, the Attorneys initiated an appeal of the underlying judgment, which was eventually dismissed approximately seven months later. In response to the complaint, the Attorneys filed a special motion to strike, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP motion, which included the argument that the malicious prosecution claim was time-barred under the one-year limitations period of Section 340.6. The trial court granted the Attorneys’ motion based on the statute of limitations (and Cleveland Golf’s failure to demonstrate a probability of success on the merits) and dismissed the case. Cleveland Golf’s appeal followed.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFJudge Gleuda E. Edmonds, a magistrate judge in the United States District Court of Arizona issued a ruling in Guadiana v. State Farm on January 25, 2012. Judge Edmonds recommended a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Ms. Guandiana’s home had water damage due to pluming leaks in September 2004. She was informed that polybutylene pluming in her house could not be repaired in parts “it must be completely replaced.” She had had the plumbing replaced. State Farm denied her claim, arguing that “the tear-out provision did not cover the cost of accessing and replacing those pipes that were not leaking.”
In September 2007, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss. The court rejected this motion, stating that “If Guadiana can establish as a matter of fact that the system that caused the covered loss included all the pipes in her house and it was necessary to replace all the pipes to repair that system, State Farm is obligated to pay the tear-out costs necessary to replace all the pipes, even those not leaking.”
In March 2009, State Farm filed for summary judgment, which the court granted. State Farm argued that “the tear-out provision only applied to ‘repair’ and not ‘replace’ the system that caused the covered leak.” As for the rest of the piping, State Farm argued that “the policy does not cover defective materials.”
In December 2011, Ms. Guadiana filed for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that “the policy ‘covers tear-out costs necessary to adequately repair the plumbing system, even if an adequate repair requires replacing all or part of the system.”
In her ruling, Judge Edmonds noted that Ms. Guadiana’s claim is that “the water damage is a covered loss and she is entitled to tear-out costs necessary to repair the pluming system that caused that covered loss.” She rejected State Farm’s claim that it was not obligated to replace presumably defective pipes. Further, she rejected State Farm’s argument that they were only responsible for the leaking portion, noting “Guadiana intends to prove at trial that this is an unusual case where repair of her plumbing system requires replacement of all the PB plumbing.”
Judge Edmonds concluded by directing the District Court to interpret the tear out issue as “the tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay all tear-out costs necessary to repair the plumbing system (that caused the covered loss) even if repair of the system requires accessing more than the leaking portion of the system.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lithium for Batteries from Geothermal Brine
July 08, 2024 —
Robert A. James, Sidney L. Fowler & Clarence H. Tolliver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIf all goes as planned, solar, wind and other clean energy technologies will help us abandon carbon emissions for good. But many green power sources perform their best only when nature cooperates, so an important (and sometimes overlooked) component of the energy transition is the ability to store electricity for a rainy or calm day. Lithium is the ingredient of choice for electric vehicle batteries, solar panels and grid elements. As these innovations ramp up, lithium demand is expected to soar by 90% over the next two decades, driving a surge in production efforts. Some experts predict a deficit in the mineral by as soon as 2025.
Predominant mining and extraction processes can be detrimental to the surrounding air, soil and water, in contrast to the environmentally friendly intentions of the lithium applications. But another type of renewable energy may be able to provide a solution. Hydrothermal brine, a high-saline water mixture found deep within the Earth’s crust, contains lithium-rich deposits that have leached from heated rocks into underground water. Geothermal power players employing hydrothermal brine are spearheading plans to extract the valuable resource in a cleaner and more sustainable manner.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury,
Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and
Clarence H. Tolliver, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Tolliver may be contacted at clarence.tolliver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Four Things Construction Professionals Need to Know About Asbestos
September 23, 2019 —
Daniel King - Construction ExecutiveAlthough asbestos had its heyday in America half a century ago, asbestos exposure remains a major health risk and financial liability for construction professionals. One study estimates that at least 1.3 million construction industry workers are still at risk for occupational asbestos exposure.
Up until the 1980s, U.S. manufacturers mixed asbestos into thousands of construction products. Asbestos is a unique mineral that can be worked into flexible fibers while still retaining its durability and heat resistance. Unfortunately, the fibrous nature of asbestos also makes it highly toxic.
This article provides an overview of what construction professionals need to know about asbestos, including:
- potential long-term health consequences of asbestos exposure for workers and short-term financial consequences for employers;
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration asbestos regulations;
- how to identify and safely remove asbestos-containing materials; and
- what people should do if they have a history of asbestos exposure.
Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel King, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. King may be contacted at
dking@asbestos.com
Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain
October 12, 2020 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and WilliamsThe Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether an insurer has a duty to defend when faced with legal uncertainty as to whether coverage is owed: for example, when there is no Connecticut case law on point, and courts outside of the state have reached conflicting decisions.
The Court suggested that an insurer, in these circumstances, should defend the insured, and should seek a declaratory judgment from a court as to whether coverage is owed.
The issue in Nash St., LLC v. Main St. Am. Assurance Co.,[1] arose out of a home collapse in Milford, Connecticut. The owner of the home (Nash) hired a contractor (New Beginnings) to renovate the home. New Beginnings, in turn, retained a subcontractor to lift the house and to do concrete work on the foundation. While the subcontractor was lifting the house, the house shifted off the supporting cribbing and collapsed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and
Austin D. Moody, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwiliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
