Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance
October 01, 2024 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogEarlier this month, an Illinois federal district court held that a liability insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a property management company or its owner in lawsuits that included allegations of intentional conduct. The suits accused the owner of concealing financial information from and engaging in a scheme to increase tax liability and decrease profit distributions to a minority owner. This case reinforces the importance of maintaining D&O insurance as part of a comprehensive liability insurance program to protect against potential gaps in coverage that could result from allegations of intentional or knowing acts.
Background
The court in Old Guard Insurance Company v. Riverway Property Management, LLC et al., No. 1:23-cv-01098 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2024) was asked to determine whether Old Guard Insurance Co. was required to defend or indemnify Riverway Property Management LLC or its owner under two commercial general liability policies in relation to state court lawsuits. The lawsuits alleged that Riverway’s owner intentionally and improperly misappropriated funds and that the property management company knowingly and substantially assisted with this wrongful scheme.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Deck Collapse Raises Questions about Building Defects
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Inquisitor reports that twenty-one people were injured when a deck collapsed at a rental apartment in Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina. Most of the injuries were not serious. The mayor of Ocean Isle Beach attributed the problem to more people crowding onto it than it was designed for. “I do not think the N.C. building code anticipates 20 to 30 to people in a small deck at one time,” she said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Attorneys’ Fees Are Available in Arizona Eviction Actions
December 19, 2018 —
Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThe Arizona Court of Appeals recently held that any successful plaintiff in a forcible detainer action (i.e., an eviction action) may recover an award of its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred at trial under A.R.S. § 12-1178(A). See Bank of New York v. Dodev, 1 CA-CV 17-0652 (Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2018). Prior to this decision, caselaw held that fees were only awardable in actions arising out of the termination of a residential lease. RREEF Mgmt. Co. v. Camex Prods., Inc., 190 Ariz. 75, 945 P.2d 386 (Ct. App. 1997). Changes to the statute, however, rendered the prior caselaw obsolete. Although the holding in Dodev is important, the facts of the case are truly astonishing…and somewhat depressing.
The Facts
In Dodev, Ivaylo Dodev (Dodev) defaulted on his home loan in 2008. He nevertheless “succeeded in remaining on the [p]roperty by filing numerous legal actions that delayed the foreclosure and subsequent trustee’s sale” at least through the date of the opinion—a ten (10) year period.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Reeves, Snell & WilmerMr. Reeves may be contacted at
breeves@swlaw.com
Rachel Reynolds Selected as Prime Member of ADTA
April 05, 2021 —
Rachel Tallon Reynolds - Lewis BrisboisSeattle Partner Rachel Tallon Reynolds was recently selected as a prime member of the Association of Defense Trial Attorneys (ADTA), an exclusive designation bestowed upon only one lawyer per one million population for each city, town, or municipality.
The ADTA is a select group of diverse and experienced civil defense trial attorneys whose mission is to improve their practices through collegial relationships, educational programs, and business referral opportunities, while maintaining the highest standards of professionalism and ethics. ADTA members possess the highest skill level of civil defense trial attorneys.
Moreover, because ADTA invites only one defense trial attorney to be its prime member per one million in population for each city, town, or municipality across the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Canada, France and The United Kingdom of Great Britain, as well as Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, a prime membership represents the high regard in which that defense trial attorney is held by his or her peers in the defense trial bar of their city and state or province.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rachel Tallon Reynolds, Lewis BrisboisMs. Reynolds may be contacted at
Rachel.Reynolds@lewisbrisbois.com
Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction
February 12, 2024 —
Georgia Stillwell - Construction ExecutiveProject delays have long plagued the construction industry, with risk often identified as the primary culprit. However, finding effective solutions to mitigate risk on complex projects has remained daunting. Traditional methods for simulating risk primarily focus on extending project timelines, overlooking the diverse range of opportunities available for risk mitigation. With the construction industry’s digital transformation, generative methodologies have emerged to handle complex decision-making in uncertain situations. This article aims to shed light on the limitations of existing risk modeling and introduce a novel approach known as generative risk mitigation to enhance decision-making under deep uncertainty.
According to McKinsey, 98% of megaprojects experience cost overruns exceeding 30%. Project delays have become so pervasive that the industry has grown accustomed to them. For example, in 2022, the UK government issued ‘
The Green Book,’ which requires contingency funds in projects, such as a 44% contingency budget for standard civil projects. This implies that for a $100 million project, you should allocate $144 million to manage expected risks. There is no denying significant academic literature on the root cause of these delays: it is ‘risk,’ and there is an entire industry based on it.
Conversations with project directors and risk experts reveal the same issue, different project. And that issue is that we cannot easily forecast risk, qualify the impacts or fully understand the opportunities that exist to mitigate risks and make timely decisions. A method that will finally help us overcome this has emerged within the industry.
Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Stillwell, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
More Thoughts on “Green” (the Practice, not the Color) Building
February 01, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt has been a while since I “mused” on the green building landscape. While I am a LEED AP and have presented on green (read “sustainable”) building in the past, I am not totally sold on LEED as the be all end all in sustainable construction (the USGBC is a private rating organization that, like the rest of us, is imperfect). I’ve also discussed, both here and elsewhere, the potential risks that come with any new(ish) building process.
A recent post by my fellow construction attorney Matt Bouchard (@mattbouchardesq) piqued my interest and started me thinking yet again. Matt’s recent post, entitled Is the U.S. Green Building Council Becoming a Not-So-Jolly Green Giant? outlines recent developments in the sustainable building world (remember “green” is not a specification, but a color), and some of the debate out there among those in the know. From a great infographic on the Top 10 LEED states (Virginia is 3rd) to some sniping from the USGBC (read the LEED folks) toward the GBI (Green Globes) to the fact that LEED is losing some traction as the primary governmental green building certification platform, Matt’s post is worth a read.
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
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year
October 23, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s like that feeling you got when your teacher said you have another week to complete your group project.
On September 21, 2018, Governor Brown signed AB 2913, which, for the first time, provides a uniform 12-month period across the state for work to commence before a building permit expires. Previously, the period was six months.
In addition to doubling the expiration period, the statute includes a “justifiable cause” provision permitting local building departments to extend the time for one or more additional periods of not more than 180 days per extension upon written demonstration of “justifiable cause for the extension.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
