One More Thing Moving From California to Texas: Wildfire Risk
June 19, 2023 —
Patrick Sisson - BloombergIn early January, Keith Elwell was doing one of the things he does best, swinging chainsaws to help save forests from wildfire. Amid groves of junipers and white oak trees, Elwell led a team of a half-dozen volunteers, clearing brush and dead limbs in Twin Springs Preserve in Williamson County, Texas, a 170-acre county preserve a 40-minute drive north of downtown Austin.
Set on the northeastern edge of Hill Country, a rolling, rocky landscape of natural springs and wild grasses, it’s also adjacent to Georgetown, the fastest-growing city in the United States according to US Census Bureau data. Once a small farming town, it’s now an Austin suburb of more than 75,000 people with 60 subdivisions under construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg
Checking the Status of your Contractor License During Contract Work is a Necessity: The Expanded “Substantial Compliance” under B&P 7031 is Here
June 05, 2017 —
Ivo G. Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP News AlertIt is paramount that a contractor diligently maintains its license prior to and during the performance of any contract work. Failure to do so could result in barring a contractor from receiving payment and/or disgorgement of profits received under the construction contract.
California Business and Professions Code section 7031 is part of the Contractors State License Law (Business & Prof. section 700 et seq.), and is both feared and loathed by all contractors performing work in the state of California. This draconian statute is known as the “Shield” and was enacted over 70 years ago for the singular purpose to bar all actions by contractors seeking compensation for unlicensed contract work – even precluding a contractor from enforcing his or her mechanic’s lien rights. However, a contractor could potentially avoid the harshness of B&P 7031 by establishing that he or she had substantially complied with the appropriate licensing requirements.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH LICENSE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO 2017 AMENDMENT
The substantial compliance exception is found in section B&P 7031(e), which authorizes the court to determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements, if the contractor has shown at an evidentiary hearing that he or she engaged in the unlicensed work had:
- Been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract;
- Acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain the license;
- Did not know or reasonably should not have known that he or she was not licensed when he or she performed the work; and
- Acted promptly and in good faith to reinstate the license once it learned the license had lapsed.
Although not impossible, satisfying all four requirements of the exception was challenging for the contractor, specifically, requirement # (3) – the lack of knowledge that he or she was unlicensed during performance of work.
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE POST 2017
Fortunately, Governor Brown heard the collective cry for relief and signed Assembly Bill 1793 (“AB 1793”) into law. The new bill revises the criteria for the court to determine if a contractor is in substantial compliance with the licensing requirements by deleting requirement # (3) in its entirety and modestly amending requirement # (4) to require the contractor to act promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
As a result, the substantial compliance exception under B&P 7031(e) reads as follows:
(e) The judicial doctrine of substantial compliance shall not apply under this section where the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor has never been a duly licensed contractor in this state. However, notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 143, the court may determine that there has been substantial compliance with licensure requirements under this section if it is shown at an evidentiary hearing that the person who engaged in the business or acted in the capacity of a contractor
(1) had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract, (2) acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure, and (3) acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.
This new legislation has tempered the burden of proof born by the contractor in establishing substantial compliance, although be it minor in its modification, the fact of the matter remains the same – be diligent in maintaining your license during all phases of contract work.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in the Walnut Creek office focusing his practice on commercial transactions and business and construction litigation. For questions regarding California Business and Professions Code section 7031, please feel free to contact Ivo Daniele at (925) 988-3222 or ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. 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 have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
HHMR is pleased to announce that David McLain has been selected as a 2020 Super Lawyer
June 29, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationDavid McLain is a founding member of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell. Mr. McLain has over 22 years of experience and is well known for his work in the defense of the construction industry, particularly in the area of construction defect litigation. He is a member of the Executive Committee of the CLM Claims College - School of Construction, which is the premier course for insurance, industry, and legal professionals. Law Week Colorado recently named Mr. McLain as the 2019 People’s Choice for Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants.
HHMR is highly regarded for its expertise in construction law and the litigation of construction-related claims, including the defense of large and complex construction defect matters. Our attorneys provide exceptional service to individuals, business owners, and Fortune 500 companies. The firm is experienced in providing legal support throughout trials and alternative dispute resolution such as mediations and arbitrations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed
April 20, 2020 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn Monday, Oceana Grill, a restaurant in New Orleans, Louisiana, became the first to file a lawsuit over coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. The lawsuit, styled Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al. (La. Dist. Court, Orleans Parish), seeks a declaratory judgment that an “all risks” property insurance policy issued by Lloyd’s of London must cover losses resulting from the closure of the restaurant following an order by the Governor of Louisiana restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans’ order closing restaurants.
The Lloyds’ policy, like most first-party property insurance policies, affords coverage for business- interruption losses and contains an “extension of coverage in the event of the businesses closure by order of Civil Authority.” Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a declaration that “the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from Coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises.” Furthermore, according to the complaint, “[t]he policy does not provide any exclusion due to losses, business or property, from a virus or global pandemic.”
As the complaint implies, an important issue will be whether the novel coronavirus constitutes the requisite “direct physical loss or damage” under the policy. Understanding COVID-19, its manner of transmission and its ability to live beyond a host organism helps support a conclusion that COVID-19 does indeed amount to the required direct physical loss or damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kushners Abandon Property Bid as Pressures Mount Over Conflicts
May 10, 2017 —
David Kocieniewski & Caleb Melby - BloombergA company owned by the family of Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, has abandoned plans to buy a sprawling industrial site in New Jersey from Honeywell International Inc., a major federal contractor, and develop it into a residential community.
Kushner Cos. had been the leading bidder for the 95-acre formerly contaminated site known as Bayfront, which is co-owned by Honeywell and Jersey City, city officials said. The company had submitted plans to build as many as 8,100 housing units to be marketed to Orthodox Jewish residents of the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn who are being priced out of that neighborhood.
Last fall, the Kushners bid about $150 million, tens of millions higher than competitors, according to people involved in the negotiations. Honeywell heard from others who would only make an offer once the environmental approvals for the cleaned-up site were final. So the bidding is scheduled to reopen later this year and Kushner Cos. had been expected to continue in the process, the people said.
But on Tuesday, when Bloomberg News asked about Bayfront, company spokesman James Yolles said the Kushners are no longer pursuing the project. He wouldn’t elaborate or explain.
Reprinted courtesy of
David Kocieniewski, Bloomberg and
Caleb Melby, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insureds Survive Summary Judgment on Coverage for Hurricane Loss
June 19, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe magistrate judge recommended that the insurer's motion for summary judgment be denied, finding a material issue of fact regard the cause of loss after Hurricanes Laura and Delta. Armstrong v. Amguard Ins Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76869 (E.D. Texas, April 14, 2023).
The policy excluded damage caused by wear and tear, differential foundation movement, as-built deficiencies, manual damage, and pre-existing conditions. Texas applied the doctrine of concurrence causes, meaning if damages were due to both covered and non-covered causes of loss, the insureds had to segregate the damage caused by covered causes of loss from the damage caused by non-covered causes of loss. Coverage was denied and the insureds filed suit.
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
Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
July 11, 2018 —
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:
Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at
jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com
