“You Can’t Make Me Pay!”
January 28, 2025 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologySeveral years ago, Louisiana enacted a law prescribing a mandamus proceeding for unpaid contract sums purportedly owed by a public entity to a contractor – Louisiana Revised Statute 38:2191. The statute tackles both progress payments and final payment, distinguishing between the two and allowing withholding of a progress payment when there is “reasonable cause” to do so.
On the other hand, at least one Louisiana appellate decision held on the topic of final payment: once a final payment amount is “due” per the statute – based upon passage expiration of the lien period following “formal final acceptance” – the act of making the final payment is purely ministerial and not subject to defenses. According to that court, a defense to payment based on assessed liquidated damages – because the damages were disputed by the contractor – could not trump the essence of the statute allowing the contractor to pursue mandamus to collect the final payment.
More recently, on a public works levee project in Lafourche Parish, a dispute arose during the work concerning the means to secure material for constructing the levees. The net effect of the dispute entailed a major change in the contract price.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Parking Reform Takes Off on the West Coast
January 23, 2023 —
Allan Van Vliet - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogStarting January 1, 2023, real estate developers in Oregon and California will no longer be required to build off-street parking facilities for certain projects located near public transit. Both states enacted new rules during the course of 2022 which are effective as of the beginning of 2023, and which seek to reduce the costs of building at least some new projects in major population centers.
In California, A.B. 2097 was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in September, and prohibits city governments throughout the state (including in charter cities) from enforcing any local land use provisions which would require the developer to build parking spaces as part of their project if the project is located within one half-mile of a major public transit stop. The law applies to both residential and commercial projects. Cities can continue mandating parking for individual projects if they find that doing so is important to support the development of affordable housing—this exception was added to allay concerns that the bill would undermine “density bonus” programs which have become an important tool for the promotion of new affordable housing development around the state.
In Oregon, following a 2020 executive order by Governor Kate Brown, the state Land Conservation and Development Commission (the body responsible for land use and planning regulation in Oregon) embarked on a two-year rulemaking process which culminated in July of 2022 with the approval of a set of “Climate Friendly and Equitable Communities Rules.” Like the California legislation, these rules (in part) limit the ability of Oregon’s most populous cities to enforce parking minimums for new development projects. Unlike the California law, the Oregon rules encourage cities simply to repeal their parking mandates entirely. Cities subject the new rules which choose not to repeal their parking mandates in full must, as an alternative, adopt new local policies to reduce the amount of land dedicated to parking in certain geographies or in connection with certain uses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Allan Van Vliet, PillsburyMr. Van Vliet may be contacted at
allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com
New York Restaurant and Bar Fire Caused by Electric Defect
February 04, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA fire at McGill’s Restaurant and Bar located in Schuyler, New York, resulted in “a total loss” according to the Little Fall Times. Schuyler Fire Chief Don Kane told the Little Fall Times, “no one was inside the building at the time of the fire, as the bar had closed at 2:30 a.m.” and the fire was reported at 3:52 a.m. Weather hindered the firefighters abilities to deal with the situation as “a small squall moved through the area.”
An investigation concluded that an “electrical malfunction is to blame,” reported the Utica Observer-Dispatch. The Herkimer County Office of Emergency Services stated that the “fire was caused by an electrical defect within the base of the front wall.”
The restaurant owner, who leased the building, “did not carry fire loss insurance for his business,” though the “building owner was insured,” according to the Utica Observer-Dispatch.
Read the full story at The Little Falls Times...
Read the full story at The Utica Observer-Dispatch... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Common Law Indemnification - A Primer
April 12, 2021 —
Brian F. Mark - Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.“Common law indemnification is generally available ‘in favor of one who is held responsible solely by operation of law because of his relationship to the wrongdoer.’” McCarthy v. Turner Constr., Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 369, 375 (2011), quoting Mas v. Two Bridges Assocs., 75 N.Y.2d 680, 690 (1990).
What is Common Law Indemnification and Who Can Assert it?
Indemnification, in general terms, is the right of one party to shift a loss to another and may be based upon an express contract or an implied obligation. Bellevue S. Assoc. v. HRH Constr. Corp., 78 N.Y.2d 282 (1991). Based on a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor, common law indemnification, or implied indemnification, permits one who was compelled to pay for the wrong of another to recover from the wrongdoer the damages paid to the injured party. D’Ambrosio v. City of New York, 55 N.Y.2d 454, 460 (1982); Curreri v. Heritage Prop. Inv. Trust, Inc., 48 A.D.3d 505, 507 (2d Dept. 2008).
The premise of common law indemnification is vicarious liability, defined as “liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Common law indemnification “reflects an inherent fairness as to which party should be held liable for indemnity.” McCarthy, 17 N.Y.3d at 375. It is a restitution concept which permits shifting the loss because, to fail to do so, would result in the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of the other. Mas, 75 N.Y.2d at 680, 690; Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center v. Islam, 172 A.D.3d 1342, 1343 (2d Dept. 2019).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian F. Mark, Hurwitz & Fine, P.C.Mr. Mark may be contacted at
bfm@hurwitzfine.com
Analysis of the “owned property exclusion” under Panico v. State Farm
March 08, 2011 —
Colorado Construction LitigationThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently concluded that the “owned property exclusion” applied to bar coverage for claims of property damage. See Panico v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2011 WL 322830 (10th Cir. 2011). In Panico, the plaintiffs sold property in Aspen, Colorado to the Taylors, who sued the Panicos upon discovering the property was not as represented. After refusing to defend, the Panicos sued State Farm for breach of contract. The district court concluded that the Taylors’ claims were not covered under the Panicos insurance policies and granted summary judgment in State Farm’s favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Mr. Panico built the house on the property as well as several additions to the house. As the Taylors lived in Florida, they primarily relied on their real estate agent and an inspector to ensure the property was acceptable. According to their complaint, the Taylors discovered that the house was “virtually uninhabitable due to serious design and construction defects, mold, rodents, and drainage problems.” Id. at *1. In their complaint, the Taylors asserted three claims for relief against the Panicos based upon misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment about the condition of the property.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson of Higgins, Hopkins, McClain & Roswell, LLP. Ms Anderson can be contacted at anderson@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis Obtain Summary Judgment Based on Plaintiff’s Failure to Comply with Policy Conditions
June 12, 2023 —
Kathryn Keller & Steven A. Hollis - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Katie Keller and Associate Steven Hollis obtained summary judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the Circuit Court for the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Osceola County, Florida. The underlying claim involved a water loss in the kitchen of the Plaintiff’s property allegedly resulting in substantial damage to the home necessitating renovations throughout the residence. The claim was reported seventeen days after the reported date of loss by Plaintiff’s counsel. The Plaintiff had retained counsel and two vendors before giving notice to the insurer. In addition, the insurer’s field adjuster was not provided the opportunity to inspect the plumbing materials which had been allegedly damaged. Specifically, the bottom panel of the sink kitchen cabinet box had been removed. The insurer retained an engineer, who concluded that the removal of the damaged property hindered the ability of the engineer to determine their conditions prior to removal or whether exposure from waste arm leakage occurred. It was later learned that the damaged plumbing fixtures and the bottom of the cabinets had been thrown out by the contractors, which all happened before the claim was reported to the insurer. The insured also failed to provide a signed, sworn proof of loss within sixty days after the loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman and
Steven A. Hollis, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Hollis may be contacted at shollis@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Housing Starts in U.S. Climb to an Almost Eight-Year High
August 19, 2015 —
Sho Chandra – BloombergNew-home construction in the U.S. climbed in July to the highest level in almost eight years, indicating the industry will pick up in the second half of the year.
Residential starts rose 0.2 percent to a 1.21 million annualized rate, the most since October 2007, from a 1.2 million pace in the prior month that was higher than previously estimated, a Commerce Department report showed Tuesday in Washington. The median forecast of 77 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was 1.18 million. A drop in permits, a proxy for future construction, signals additional gains will take time to develop.
Rising employment and historically low mortgage rates are enticing buyers, while increasing prices induced by a lack of homes on the market is an incentive to start new developments. Data showing builder sentiment at a decade high in August underscores the view that the housing rebound will stay on track even as the Federal Reserve is poised to boost borrowing costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sho Chandra, Bloomberg
Claim Against Broker for Failure to Procure Adequate Coverage Survives Summary Judgment
April 15, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe broker's motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss negligence claims for failure to obtain adequate coverage, was denied by the court in Voss v. The Netherlands Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. LEXIS 384 (N.Y. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2014).
The insured met with a representative of CH Insurance Brokerage Services Co., Inc. (CHI) to discuss coverage for the premises and her two companies. At CHI's request, the insured shared information on sales figures for calculating business interruption coverage. The broker represented that CHI would reassess and revisit the coverage needs as her business grew.
CHI recommended $75,000 per incident in coverage for business interruption losses. The insured questioned whether the $75,000 limit was adequate, but the broker assured her that it was sufficient. The insured then accepted the recommendation. Subsequently, the insured's business grew, but CHI renewed the policy with the same $75,000 business interruption limit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
