Beginning of the 2020 Colorado Legislative Session: Here We Go Again
February 10, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationThe 2020 Colorado legislative session started on Wednesday, January 8th. It seems like there will be plenty of issues this year to which home builders will want to pay close attention. On January 13th, Senators Fenberg, Foote, and Jackson sponsored SB 20-093, known as the “Consumer and Employee Dispute Resolution Fairness Act.”
For certain consumer and employment arbitrations, the act:
- Prohibits the waiver of standards for and challenges for evident partiality prior to a claim being filed and requires any waiver of such provisions after the claim is filed to be in writing;
- Provides that the right of a party to challenge an arbitrator based on evident partiality is waived if not raised within a reasonable time of learning of the information leading to the challenge but that such right is not waived if caused by the opposing party;
- Establishes ethical standards for arbitrators; and
- Requires specified public disclosures by arbitration services providers but includes protections for certain confidential information.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Residential Mortgage Lenders and Servicers Beware of Changes to Rule 3002.1
December 08, 2016 —
James C. Vandermark & Amy E. Vulio – White and Williams LLPThis December, residential mortgage lenders and servicers will be required to comply with new requirements for providing notices of payment changes (PCNs) and post-petition fees, expenses, and charges (PPFNs) to mortgage borrowers in Chapter 13 bankruptcies. While the new Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 will provide much needed clarity, it will also significantly increase the number of PCNs and PPFNs that lenders will need to file.
Reprinted courtesy of
James C. Vandermark, White and Williams LLP and
Amy E. Vulio, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Vandermark may be contacted at vandermarkj@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Vulpio may be contacted at vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cyber Thieves Phish Away a $735K Payment to a Minnesota Contractor
May 06, 2024 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordThe contractor's project manager asked for money due, $735,000 under Payment Application 13, to be sent by the owner electronically. "Hi Rick," the project manager, whose first name is Jalen, wrote in an email dated Aug. 15. "Can we have payments remitted electronically as we currently have numerous uncleared checks on hold?"
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment on Business Interruption Claim Denied
September 12, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's motion to cap a potential business interruption claim after the insured failed to provide documentation was denied. Lake Charles Instruments Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116802 (W.D. La. July 2, 2022).
Plaintiff operated a business that was damaged during Hurricane Laura on August 27, 2020, and subsequently by Hurricane Delta on October 9, 2020. Plaintiff had a commercial property policy issued by Scottsdale that provided business income coverage of up to $500,000.
After Hurricane Laura, plaintiff submitted a claim. Plaintiff requested an advance. Scottsdale paid $50,000 on the business interruption (BI) claim while reserving rights to require full compliance with the policy, including submission of appropriate documentation. Scottsdale continued to request documentation, but none was received. Plaintiff also failed to provide documentation for its BI claim after Hurricane Delta. When documentation was finally provided, Scottsdale disputed that the documentation showed a BI claim that exceeded policy limits. Scottsdale determined the BI claim was below the policy limits.
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
Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben Obtains Federal Second Circuit Affirmance of Summary Judgment in Insurer’s Favor
April 10, 2023 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanIn the underlying action, a property owner hosting a motorcycle rally was sued after a motorcycle collided with an auto near the entrance to the premises, injuring the cyclists. The cyclists sued the property owner, among others, alleging failure to supervising traffic on the adjoining roadway. The property owner tendered the claim under its CGL policy, which was endorsed with an “absolute auto exclusion,” precluding coverage for claims “arising out of or resulting from the ownership, maintenance, use or entrustment to others of any…auto.” The CGL insurer disclaimed coverage based on the endorsement.
In the ensuing coverage litigation, Traub Lieberman represented the insurer, and moved for summary judgment arguing that the “absolute auto exclusion” was dispositive of coverage on the facts alleged, citing case law from New York state courts enforcing similar exclusions to preclude coverage for multi-vehicle accidents. The insured argued in opposition that the outcome should be controlled by Essex Insurance Company v. Grande Stone Quarry, LLC, 82 A.D.3d 1326, 918 N.Y.S.2d 238 (3rd Dep’t 2011), in which the court declined to apply such exclusion in the case of a single-vehicle accident caused by a dangerous condition of the insured’s premises. The federal district judge disagreed with the insured’s argument in this regard, granting Traub Lieberman’s motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
Deadlines Count for Construction Defects in Florida
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFScott Kiernan, an attorney in the Orlando offices of Becker & Poliakoff, writing on their Florida Construction Law Authority site notes that “nothing lasts forever, especially the right to sue for building defects.” Under Florida law, according to Mr. Kiernan, the time in which a condominium association can file a construction defect is “only 4 years from the time that the Condominium Association knew or should have known of the defect(s).” However, for defects that aren’t even discovered during those first four years, there is a ten-year period where claims for latent defects can become the subject of a construction defect claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”
While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”
Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”
In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.
The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”
The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.
The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”
The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”
The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”
The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Federal Court Determines if Damages Are Too Remote
July 13, 2020 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistForeseeability is a tort concept that tends to permeate several aspects of legal analysis, often causing confusion in litigants’ interpretation of, and courts’ application of, foreseeability to their cases. In Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Progress Rail Services. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73967 (C.D. Ill.), the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois took on the task of analyzing a case dealing with foreseeability issues to determine if the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty and if the damages were so remote as to violate public policy. The court held that since the defendant’s actions contributed to the risk of harm to the plaintiff and the facts satisfied the four-prong duty test, the defendant owed the plaintiff’s subrogor a duty of reasonable care. It also held that the plaintiff’s damage claim did not open the defendant up to liability that would violate public policy.
In the case, an employee of defendant Progress Rail Services Corporation (Progress Rail) was operating a crane at Progress Rail’s Galesburg location on May 7, 2018. The employee struck an overhead power line while working, causing a power disruption to nearby businesses. The plaintiff’s subrogor, Midstate Manufacturing Company (Midstate), was one of the affected businesses, reporting that its Amada hydraulic punch was damaged. Midstate submitted a property damage claim to its carrier, Cincinnati Insurance Company (Cincinnati), who reimbursed it under its policy. Subsequent to its payment, Cincinnati filed suit against Progress Rail in Illinois state court. Progress Rail then removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
