Illinois Federal Court Applies Insurer-Friendly “Mutual Exclusive Theories” Test To Independent Counsel Analysis
November 09, 2020 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogInsureds often request independent counsel when insurers agree to provide a defense subject to a reservation of rights, pursuant to which an insurer takes the position that certain damages may not be indemnifiable. Requests for independent counsel are often rooted in fear that a defense attorney who has a relationship with the insurer may be incentivized to defend the insured in a way that maximizes the potential for the insurer to succeed on its coverage defenses. As explained by the Illinois Supreme Court in Maryland Cas. Co. v. Peppers, 355 N.E.2d 24 (Ill. 1976), when a conflict of interest arises between an insurer and its insured, the attorney appointed by the insurer is faced with serious ethical questions and the insured is entitled to its own attorney.
Illinois courts generally follow the rule that an insured is entitled to independent counsel upon a showing of an actual conflict. In Builders Concrete Servs., LLC v. Westfield Nat’l Ins. Co., No. 19 C 7792, 2020 WL 5518474 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 14, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently addressed a dispute between an insurer and its insured about independent counsel.
Westfield insured Builders Concrete Services (BCS). Focus Construction hired BCS as a subcontractor to perform concrete work on a new apartment building. BCS’ work included pouring concrete for structural columns, one of which buckled and failed. BCS sued Focus Construction for withholding payment, and Focus Construction counter-sued for breach of contract and negligence relating to BCS’ alleged faulty work that caused the column to fall. Focus Construction’s counterclaim alleged that the column failure damaged other parts of the building on which Builders did not perform work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
It's a Wrap! Enforcing Online Agreements in Light of the CPRA
March 08, 2021 —
Kyle Janecek – Newmeyer DillionWe're all familiar with it at this point. A popup comes up on your device informing you of a change to terms and conditions, or otherwise asking for permission. For those operating websites, they know that this inconvenience is required to comply with various legal requirements. What they may not be aware of yet, is that these requirements, and popups, are about to become much, much, more prevalent. Recently, the California Privacy Rights Act ("CPRA"), passed by the voters of the State of California, includes new language specifying how consent is supposed to be obtained for the collection of personal information, amending the California Consumer Privacy Act ("CCPA"). This new manner of consent rules out browsewrap agreements, and would require that popups increase as website operators shift focus to clickwrap agreements, if they have not already.
Browsewrap and Clickwrap
Typically, online agreements comprising Terms of Service or a Privacy Policy can be broken into either (a) browsewrap agreements - agreements that imply assent or agreement to online terms by the mere act of using a website or an online service after a clear and conspicuous notice that terms exist or (b) clickwrap agreements - agreements that show assent or agreement to online terms by having an individual click or otherwise agree to. While the best option to ensure enforceability is always the one that leaves the most documented signs of assenting to terms (i.e. a clickwrap agreement), both are typically recognized and enforced under California law. The practical effect of this is that to get consent, all that is technically needed is either to (a) show actual consent by having the person click on an "I agree" button, or (b) provide that the website visitor had ample notice that terms existed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer DillionMr. Janecek may be contacted at
kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
Subprime Bonds Are Back With Different Name Seven Years After U.S. Crisis
January 28, 2015 —
Jody Shenn – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- The business of bundling riskier U.S. mortgages into bonds without government backing is gearing up for a comeback. Just don’t call it subprime.
Hedge fund Seer Capital Management, money manager Angel Oak Capital and Sydney-based bank Macquarie Group Ltd. are among firms buying up loans to borrowers who can’t qualify for conventional mortgages because of issues such as low credit scores, foreclosures or hard-to-document income. They each plan to pool the mortgages into securities of varying risk and sell some to investors this year. JPMorgan Chase & Co. analysts predict as much as $5 billion of deals could get done, while Nomura Holdings Inc. forecasts $1 billion to $2 billion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jody Shenn, BloombergMs. Shenn may be contacted at
jshenn@bloomberg.net
When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk
December 18, 2022 —
Michael V. Pepe & Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & VitaGeneral conditions and general requirements are terms of art in the construction industry that describe the indirect costs necessary to complete a construction project. After physical loss or damage to a project, the following question often arises: Are “general conditions” and “general requirements” covered under a builder’s risk policy?
General Conditions vs. General Requirements
General conditions are usually described as the cost of managing a construction project. Examples include salaries for personnel like project managers, supervisors, engineers, field office staff, as well as the cost of field trailers, office equipment and supplies, and anything necessary to support the staff.
General requirements are the non-management indirect costs of executing the project, including items such as pre-development costs, permits, security, dumpsters, fences, temporary lighting, worker amenities, and clean-up costs.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at GHebbel@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Business Risk Exclusions Dismissed in Summary Judgment Motion
November 09, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiWhile the court denied summary judgment on whether the alleged damage was due to faulty workmanship and not covered, it granted summary judgment for dismissal of several business risk exclusions the insurer asserted against the developer. United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Dorn Homes, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138431 (D. Ariz. Aug. 4, 2020).
Dorn, a residential home developer, developed a 350 single family residential home division. Dorn did not perform the actual construction, but contracted with various subcontractors.
After completion, Dorn began to receive complaints from homeowners about interior damage to some of the homes. Inspections showed interior cracking, wall separation and foundation movement. Dorn ultimately installed an unvented foam insulated roof system to address these issues. Therefore, it did not repair the faulty workmanship of its subcontractors because it would not have been efficient or as effective. Dorn paid for the repairs to the 87 homes at issue.
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
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Adobe Opens New Office Tower and Pledges No Companywide Layoffs in 2023
April 18, 2023 —
Edward Ludlow & Brody Ford - BloombergAdobe Inc., breaking ranks with an industry cutting costs and laying off workers, has opened a new office tower in its home city, adding new capacity for staff and pledging no companywide job cuts in 2023.
The Founders Tower is an 18-story, 1.25 million-square-foot shimmering glass addition to San Jose, California, a city Adobe has called home since the early ’90s. The software company’s fourth tower has capacity for 3,000 employee workstations, Adobe said Wednesday in a statement. Despite opening a new office with amenities, the company remains supportive of hybrid and flexible work arrangements.
“We’re actually committed to continuing to grow here,” Adobe Chief People Officer Gloria Chen said in an interview with Bloomberg Television to air Wednesday. “We are committed to not having companywide layoffs.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward Ludlow, Bloomberg and
Brody Ford, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Grenfell Fire Probe Faults Construction Industry Practices
November 28, 2022 —
Peter Reina - Engineering News-Record"Incompetence and poor practices in the construction industry" and among others led to the June 2017 fire at London's Grenfell residential high-rise building, causing 72 deaths, according to the lead counsel for the public inquiry that ended Nov. 10.
Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Reina, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Reina may be contacted at reina@btinternet.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
