$109-Million Renovation Begins on LA's Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station
October 02, 2018 —
Greg Aragon - Engineering News-RecordThe Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), along with the Los Angeles office of Stantec, recently began work on the $109-million Willowbrook/Rosa Parks Station Improvement Project in Los Angeles.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Aragon, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Specific Performance of an Option Contract to Purchase Real Property is Barred Absent Agreement on All Material Terms
December 20, 2017 —
Richard H. Herold - Real Estate Litigation BlogOn November 14, 2017, the Court of Appeals (Division 1), in Offerman v. Granada, LLC, 2017 WL 5352664, reversed a trial court order directing specific performance of an alleged option to purchase real property, holding that the alleged option was too indefinite to be specifically performed because the parties did not agree to all of the material terms of the option.
Tenant-Purchaser Offerman executed a two-year lease with Landlord-Seller Granada, which granted Offerman “the option to purchase [the] property…for a sales price to be determined at that time by an independent appraiser acceptable to both Tenant and Landlord. (Terms and Conditions to be stipulated by both parties at such time).” (emphasis added). Offerman timely advised Granada he intended to exercise the option, asked Granada to name an appraiser, and, when Granada did not respond, Offerman tendered a $240,000 appraisal to exercise the option. Granada did not retain an appraiser but instead simply demanded $350,000 to close the sale. After a bench trial, the Court determined that Offerman was entitled to specific performance, and, as the parties had not agreed to certain terms, held a second evidentiary hearing to resolve the form of judgment, therein naming a title agency to handle the escrow, setting a closing date, allocating the transaction fees between the parties, and ordering Granada to pay for the property inspection.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Herold, Snell & WilmerMr. Herold may be contacted at
rherold@swlaw.com
DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban
September 14, 2020 —
Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & AbramsonIn our previous
alert, we discussed the expansion on the Section 889(a)(1)(B) ban on certain Chinese telecommunications equipment and services to contractors and subcontractors who use the equipment and services in their internal operations. Effective August 13, 2020, federal agencies were prohibited from procuring, obtaining, extending, or renewing a contract with a contractor that uses equipment, systems, or services that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component or as critical technology, unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted. Since then we have received feedback from contractors, complaining about the difficulties in determining whether their internal operations use covered telecommunications equipment and services and the need for additional time to become compliant or even obtain enough information to submit a waiver request.
Now it seems that Department of Defense (DoD) contractors and subcontractors may be getting a temporary reprieve. The DoD Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment requested a waiver that would allow DoD to continue to execute procurement actions providing supplies, equipment, services, food, clothing, transportation, care, and support necessary to execute the DoD mission. The Director of National Intelligence granted the temporary waiver until September 30, 2020 pending a further review of waiver request. Depending upon the outcome of this additional review, the temporary waiver may be continued beyond September 30, 2020 if it is in the national security interests of the United States.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and
Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com
Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances
August 19, 2015 —
David W. Evans & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel.
Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony Luckie Speaks With Columbia University On Receiving Graduate Degree in Construction Administration Alongside His Father
October 02, 2023 —
Lewis BrisboisNew York, N.Y. (September 7, 2023) – New York Partner Anthony P. Luckie recently spoke with the Columbia University School of Professional Studies' Alumni publication regarding earning a Master of Science in Construction Administration alongside his father, as well as how the degree will benefit his law practice and clients.
As the article explains, Mr. Luckie and his father completed Columbia’s Construction Administration Program last year – only one week before the birth of Mr. Luckie’s own son. Mr. Luckie described that being accepted into the program at Columbia – a school from which “some of the most important figures in American history” have graduated – “was a really big thrill . . . .” He further explained that although he felt a sense of pride in earning the degree, the fact that he and his father shared the experience held even greater meaning for him. He noted, “[W]hile it’s an incredible achievement for both of us to graduate from an Ivy League school, for me, that day was a culmination of a father raising his son. Standing there with him onstage . . . I made sure I took time to feel grateful.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Excess Must Defend After Primary Improperly Refuses to Do So
August 13, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe excess insurer had a duty to defend after the primary carrier improperly refused its defense obligations. IMG Worldwide, Inc. v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13703 (6th Cir. July 15, 2014).
IMG was sued for over $300,000,000 for alleged fraud, conversion, civil theft and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act (FDUTPA). The lawsuit stemmed from a real estate development project. The plaintiffs had invested in the project and alleged that the developer had sold them undeveloped properties with the promise they would be developed. IMG was a consultant on the project and also licensed to the developer the use of the IMG name and logo in marketing materials. IMG had no contractual obligation to actually develop the property or finance the project.
IMG sought coverage from its primary carrier, Great Divide, and from its excess carrier, Westchester. Both denied coverage and 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
Insurance Policy to Protect Hawaii's Coral Reefs
December 26, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe New York Times recently reported on an insurance policy issued to the non-profit Nature Conservancy to protect coral reefs in Hawaii. Cihistopher Flavelle, Catrin Einhorn, In a First, Nonprofit Buys Insurance for Hawaii's Threatened Coral Reefs, N.Y. Times, Nov. 21, 2022.
If damaged by a storm, coral reefs need immediate attention if they are going to recover. The Nature Conservancy plans a four step process to save damaged reefs:
- Purchase a policy for all 400,000 acres of coral reefs surrounding the Hawaii island.
- If reefs are sufficiently damaged by a storm the policy will pay out within two weeks.
- The Nature Conservancy will ask the State of Hawaii, owner of the reefs, for a permit to repair the storm damage.
- Finally, if the state officials issue the permit, the insurance proceeds will pay teams of divers to repair the damage. Crews will have about six weeks before coral begins to die.
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
Contractors Can No Longer Make Roof Repairs Following Their Own Inspections
July 02, 2018 —
Jason Feld & Alex Chazen - Kahana & Feld LLPCalifornia law mandates that any person who conducts roof inspections for a fee can no longer effectuate the actual repairs to the same property. Effective January 1, 2018, Business & Professions Code Section 7197 (Unfair Business Practices) deems it to be an unfair business practice for a home inspector who charges a homeowner a monetary fee for inspecting the property, to perform or offer to perform additional repairs due to the inherent financial interest and conflict raised by identifying alleged defects necessitating repairs. The new law is a result of California AB 1357, which was signed into law on October 5, 2017. The goal of the new law is to disincentivize a roof inspector from creating a report for the sole purpose of obtaining a bid to perform those documented repairs. The roof contractor can perform repairs identified in their report only after a twelve month “cooling period” which provides the homeowner an opportunity to obtain multiple bids/estimates for repairs based upon the inspector’s report. The new law also discourages home inspectors from providing a list of contractors who provide monetary referral fees back to the home inspector upon receiving repair work from the homeowner based exclusively on the home inspection report.
The California Business & Professions Code Section 7195(a)(1) defines a “home inspection” as a “non-invasive, physical examination, performed for a fee in connection with the transfer…of the real property…or essential components of the residential dwelling.” Home inspection includes “any consultation regarding the property that is represented to be a home inspection or any confusingly similar term.” Business & Professions Code section 7195(a)(2) further defines a “home inspection” as including energy efficiency and solar. A “home inspection report” is a written report prepared for a fee issued after an inspection. Business & Professions Code section 7195(c). It is noted that a home inspector does not have to be a licensed architect, professional engineer, or general contractor with a Class “B” license issued by the California Contractors State License Board, but “it is the duty of a home inspector who is not licensed as a general contractor, structural pest control operator, or architect, or registered as a professional engineer to conduct a home inspection with the degree of care that a reasonably prudent home inspector would exercise. Business & Professions Code section 7196.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Feld, Kahana & Feld LLP and
Alex Chazen, Kahana & Feld LLP
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanalaw.com
Mr. Chazen may be contacted at achazen@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
