The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers
November 09, 2020 —
Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & VitaShutdowns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted an unprecedented number of business income and business interruption insurance claims. Many claims have resulted in litigation and require judicial intervention to determine whether private insurance carriers owe policyholders indemnification for pandemic related losses. Private insurance carriers that have denied the claims, in large part, argue that they did not underwrite coverage for the pandemic and assert that pandemic coverage is much too unpredictable to underwrite. Private carriers contend that a government-backed insurance program is necessary to mitigate the economic impact resulting from pandemic claims.
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted real estate owners and developers. Real estate owners and developers have sustained business income losses in the form of lost rents at commercial properties, service disruption, labor and/ or material shortages, to name a few. Questions about whether the virus caused “direct physical damage,” as well as whether specific “virus exclusions” on policies, have provided hurdles to coverage under existing schemes, click here.Those that have filed lawsuits against their insurers seeking coverage under current policy terms are having mixed results, at best. Click here to view SDV’s Litigation Tracker. A predictable source of indemnification for future pandemic-related losses would greatly relieve business disruption and, ultimately, the impact on the economy. However, the question remains, who will pay for such massive losses?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. McWilliams may be contacted at
AMcWilliams@sdvlaw.com
Vaccine Mandate Confusion Continues – CMS Vaccine Mandate Restored in Some (But Not All) US States
January 03, 2022 —
David S. Harvey, Jr. & Sarah Hock - Lewis BrisboisTampa, Fla. (December 16, 2021) - As has been widely publicized, the Biden Administration has attempted to impose various forms of vaccine mandates under a variety laws and programs. At the same time, we have seen a flurry of opposition to these efforts ranging from new state laws (for example, in Florida) to court challenges seeking to enjoin the effort.
One of the federal mandates was issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and is applicable to staff at Medicare- and Medicaid-certified healthcare providers. Initially, fourteen states sued in opposition to the CMS mandate and were able to obtain a nationwide injunction issued by a federal district judge in Louisiana. That injunction was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has now issued a decision that awards points to both sides.
The Fifth Circuit ruled the injunction only applies to the 14 states that participated in the Louisiana lawsuit and not nationwide. Those states are Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia. This opinion has the potential to revive the CMS vaccine mandate in just over half of U.S. states. We can anticipate new suits will be filed as to other states, with the outcome still uncertain. It is unknown at this point whether the United States Supreme Court will agree to review the issues when such review is sought in the near future.
Reprinted courtesy of
David S. Harvey, Jr., Lewis Brisbois and
Sarah Hock, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Harvey may be contacted at David.Harvey@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Hock may be contacted at Sarah.Hock@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer’s Duty to Defend: When is it Triggered? When is it Not?
February 18, 2015 —
Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction LitigationIn Colorado it is well recognized that an insurer has a broad duty to defend its policyholder against pending claims. An insurer’s duty to defend is triggered when the underlying complaint against the insured alleges any set of facts that might fall within the coverage policy. Greystone Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance, Co., 661 F.3d 1272, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011). Even if the insurer’s duty to defend is not clear from the pleadings filed against the insured, the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered if the claim is potentially or arguably within the policy coverage. Id. If there is any doubt as to whether a theory of recovery falls within the policy coverage, such doubt is decided in favor of the insured and the insurer’s duty to defend is triggered. Id. In order to avoid this duty to defend, an insurer must show that an exemption to the policy applies and that no other basis exists for coverage under the policy.
In Cornella Brothers, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2014 WL 321335 (D. Colo. Jan. 29, 2015), the Court was to determine whether Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) had a duty to defend a lawsuit filed against its insured, Cornella Brothers, Inc. (“Cornella”). The underlying lawsuit alleged construction defects at a recharging facility. Upon being named a party to the underlying litigation, Cornella provided notice to Liberty Mutual and demanded that Liberty Mutual defend Cornella.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLeroy may be contacted at
mcleroy@hhmrlaw.com
Claims for Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment
August 02, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss claims for bad faith and for punitive damages. Van Der Weide v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101735 (N.D. Iowa June 30, 2017).
The homeowner sued the insured general contractor after water was found leaking into the home, causing significant water damage. Cincinnati rejected the general contractor's tender and denied any duty to defend, contending that the alleged defects were discovered after Cincinnati's policy period had ended. Cincinnati was advised that two experts for the insured would testify that the property damage occurred due to construction defects and that the damage began shortly after completion of the home. Cincinnati still refused to defend.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
You Can Take This Job and Shove It!
June 10, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogThat’s it.
You’ve had it.
They can take their job and shove it!
But can you really tell an owner on a construction project to proverbially shove it where the sun don’t shine?
Well, far be it for me to tread on your First Amendment Rights or stick my nose into the subsequently brought public disturbance charges against you. But can you legally tell an owner to shove it, and that you’re no longer going to perform work on their [insert expletive] project? Well, indeed you can, in limited circumstances, and it’s called a “Stop Work Notice.”
Note: A stop work notice is different from a stop payment notice.
What is a stop work notice?
A stop work notice is a notice given by a direct contractor to a project owner that the contractor will stop work if an amount owed to the contract is not paid within 10 days after notice is given.
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
Los Angeles Recovery Crews Begin to Mobilize as Wildfires Continue to Burn
January 21, 2025 —
Scott Blair, Aileen Cho, & C.J. Schexnayder - Engineering News-RecordMore than a week since wildfires broke out in the Los Angeles area stoked by hurricane-force Santa Ana winds, officials are hoping that a change in the weather will soon allow the long process of recovery to begin.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Blair, ENR,
Aileen Cho, ENR and
C.J. Schexnayder, ENR
Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer Dillion Announces New Partners
January 06, 2020 —
Michael Krueger & Jason Morris - Newmeyer DillionProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Walnut Creek attorney, Michael Krueger, and Newport Beach attorney, Jason Morris, have been elected to partnership. Their promotion is effective immediately.
"We are proud to have Jason and Mike join the firm's partnership," said Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff. "They both embody the firm's core cultural pillars – like, trust, respect and loyalty – and they've both demonstrated a commitment to outstanding client service and excellent legal work. They will continue to propel the firm's success for decades to come."
Michael Krueger is based in the firm's Walnut Creek office, representing companies at every stage of the business life cycle to create business solutions that minimize risk and accomplish strategic objectives. Recognized as a 2019 California Trailblazer by The Recorder, Krueger is a trusted advisor for complex business negotiations, real estate ventures including Opportunity Zone projects, mergers and acquisitions, bank finance and private equity transactions. A former in-house counsel and business owner, he serves as general counsel for clients focused on expanding their operations, products, and services. Krueger earned his B.A from Marian University and his J.D. from Valparaiso School of Law.
Jason Morris is based in the firm's Newport Beach office, representing companies in all aspects of labor & employment law and business litigation. Whether offering practical advice on a wide range of day-to-day employment law issues, or navigating the complexity of all aspects of civil litigation defense, his focus is helping clients avoid potential legal landmines and keep their business assets protected. Morris brings significant leadership and trial experience to his practice, serving for nearly eight years on active duty in the United States Marine Corps as a Judge Advocate both in the Pentagon advising senior military and civilian leaders, and as a trial attorney successfully representing more than 300 cases, including over 10 trials to verdict. Morris earned his B.A. from Marian University, cum laude, and his J.D. from Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. 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 Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dangerous Condition, Dangerous Precedent: California Supreme Court Expands Scope of Dangerous Condition Liability Involving Third Party Negligent/Criminal Conduct
August 19, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin, Laura C. Williams, & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Cordova v. City of Los Angeles (filed 8/13/15, Case No. S208130), the California Supreme Court held a government entity is not categorically immune from liability where the plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property caused the plaintiff’s injury, but did not cause the third party conduct which precipitated the accident.
The case arises out of a traffic collision by which the negligent driving of a third party motorist caused another car to careen into a tree planted in the center median owned and maintained by the City of Los Angeles (“City”). Of the four occupants in the car that collided with the tree, three died and the fourth was badly injured. The parents of two of the occupants sued the City for a dangerous condition of public property under Government Code Section 835. The plaintiffs alleged the roadway was in a dangerous condition because the trees in the median were too close to the traveling portion of the road, posing an unreasonable risk of harm to motorists who might lose control of their vehicles.
The City successfully moved for summary judgment, which plaintiffs appealed. On review, the Court of Appeal affirmed holding the tree was not a dangerous condition as a matter of law because there was no evidence that the tree had contributed to the criminally negligent driving of the third party motorist.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Laura C. Williams and
Lawrence S. Zucker II
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com
And Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
