Appraiser Declarations Inadmissible When Offered to Challenge the Merits of an Appraisal Award
March 14, 2018 —
Valerie Moore and Christopher Kendrick - Publications & InsightsIn
Khorsand v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (No. B280273, filed 2/27/18), a California appeals court affirmed an appraisal award favorable to a homeowners insurer, ruling that it was improper to admit as evidence in opposition to a petition to confirm the award a declaration from the policyholders’ appraiser, except for the limited purpose of showing improprieties in the appraisal, bias, partiality or other improper conduct.
The homeowners had a pipe leak and submitted a claim. The insurer responded to an estimate from the owners’ adjuster by retaining an expert and paying an undisputed amount that was significantly less. Eleven months later the owners had upper deck damage and submitted another claim. Relying on the same expert, the insurer paid another undisputed amount significantly less than the owner’s estimate. The owners requested appraisal but the insurer denied the request, contending that the dispute was over coverage and outside the scope of appraisal.
The owners’ petition for appraisal was granted, with the court ordering separate listing of items the insurer disputed regarding coverage or causation. The appraisal panel issued an award stating that total damage was $132,293, of which $96,530 was contested by the insurer. The insurer filed a petition to confirm the award, which was granted despite the fact that the owners’ appraiser had refused to sign it.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting
February 01, 2022 —
Robert A. James & Shade Oladetimi - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogPublic-private partnerships are often cited as a key pathway to restoring and enhancing the nation’s infrastructure. They can be challenging arrangements to structure. (As a result of the pandemic, they have even suffered the indignity of having their “PPP” acronym coopted by the
Paycheck Protection Program. With apologies to Small Business Administration practitioners, we use “PPP” in this article to refer to the infrastructure tool.)
One gating condition to setting up a PPP is identifying the authority for a public entity to use a contracting method that does not run afoul of the general requirements that (i) works of improvement be let to the lowest responsive bid by a responsible bidder and (ii) design services be awarded through a qualifications-based selection process. Integrated forms of project delivery that vest in a single concessionaire multiple design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and entrepreneurial roles must find an exception to any applicable background rules.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury and
Shade Oladetimi, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Oladetimi may be contacted at shade.oladetimi@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reversing Itself, West Virginia Supreme Court Holds Construction Defects Are Covered
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiThe West Virginia Supreme Court previously held that construction defects were not covered under a CGL policy. The Court, however, reversed itself in Cherrington v. Erie Ins. Prop. & Cas. Co., 2013 W.Va. LEXIS 724 (W.V. June 18, 2013).
The underlying complaint against the general contractor alleged various defects in the plaintiff’s recently constructed house, including an uneven concrete floor, water infiltration through the roof and chimney joint, a sagging support beam, and numerous cracks in the drywall walls and partitions throughout the house. Erie Insurance denied coverage. The insured general contractor sued, but the trial court found that faulty workmanship was not sufficient to give rise to an “occurrence.”
The West Virginia Supreme Court reversed its prior rulings determining there was no coverage for construction defects. The court recognized its prior position was in the minority, as is Hawaii's position on coverage for construction defects. See Group Builders Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., 123 Haw. 142, 148, 231 P.3d 67, 73 (Haw. Ct. App. 2010). Now joining the majority position, the West Virginia Supreme Court found that defective workmanship causing property damage was an “occurrence” under a CGL policy. Further, the homeowner had demonstrated that she sustained "property damage" as a result of the allegedly defective construction of her home.
The trial court also determined that the business risk exclusions barred coverage. Again, the West Virginia Supreme Court disagreed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of A Builder’s Implied Warranty Of Habitability
September 10, 2014 —
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr. and William L. Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Conway v. Cutler Group, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 4064261 (Pa.), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania addressed the question of whether a subsequent home buyer can recover from a home builder pursuant to the builder’s implied warranty of habitability, a warranty that protects those who purchase a newly constructed home from latent defects. Concluding that a builder’s warranty of habitability is grounded in contract, the Court held that a subsequent purchaser of a previously inhabited home cannot recover damages from a builder-vendor based on the builder-vendor’s breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The Court’s decision leaves unanswered the question of whether a purchaser who is also the first user-purchaser of a new home can pursue a breach of warranty action against a builder with whom the purchaser is not in privity of contract.
In Conway, the Cutler Group, Inc. (Cutler) sold a new home to Davey and Holly Fields. The Fields subsequently sold the home to Michael and Deborah Conway. After the Conways discovered water infiltration problems in their home, they filed a one-count complaint against Cutler, alleging that Cutler breached its implied warranty of habitability. In response to the Conways’ complaint, Cutler filed preliminary objections, arguing that the warranty of habitability extends from the builder only to the first purchaser of a newly constructed home. The trial court sustained Cutler’s preliminary objections based on the lack of contractual privity between the parties and the Conways appealed the trial court’s decision. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed, stating that the implied warranty of habitability is based on public policy considerations and exists independently of any representations by the builder, and even in the absence of an express contract between the builder and the purchaser. Cutler appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court.
To address the question of whether the implied warranty of habitability extends to a subsequent purchaser of a used residence, the Court discussed the history of the implied warranty of habitability in Pennsylvania. As stated by the Court, the Court adopted the implied warranty of habitability in the context of new home sales to reject the traditional doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) because the purchaser of a new home justifiably relies on the skill of the developer. Thus, as between the builder-vendor and the buyer, the builder should bear the risk that the home he builds is habitable and functional. In adopting the doctrine, the Court noted that the doctrine is rooted in the existence of a contract – an agreement of sale – between the builder-vendor and the buyer.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward A. Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP and
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What is the Effect of an Untimely Challenge to the Timeliness of a Trustee’s Sale?
April 13, 2017 —
Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogEver wonder what happens if a person challenges the timeliness of a trustee’s sale after the sale already occurred? Waiver of the argument of course! And, in the case of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Waltner, the affirmance of an eviction judgment.
In the Waltner case, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-PR4 Trust (the “Bank”), purchased a residential property at a trustee’s sale in September 2015. The Bank gave the occupant of the house, Sarah Waltner (“Waltner”), notice to vacate the property, but she did not do so. Accordingly, the Bank filed a summary action to evict Waltner, which the trial court ultimately granted.
After the trial court granted the Bank relief, Waltner filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to vacate the eviction judgment arguing, among other things, that the judgment was void because the Bank conducted the trustee’s sale after the statute of limitations expired. Both motions were denied, and Waltner appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Reeves, Snell & WilmerMr. Reeves may be contacted at
breeves@swlaw.com
Award Doubled in Retrial of New Jersey Elevator Injury Case
February 14, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFRichard Tufaro, a New Jersey carpenter who suffered injuries from an elevator accident in 2005, had lost a $4 million award on appeal, but has recently “won $8million on retrial” according to The New Jersey Law Journal.
In March of 2012, during the first trial, the “jury awarded $2.8 million for pain and suffering, $233,000 in medical expenses and $950,000 per quod to Tufaro's wife, totaling about $4 million.” In March 2013 the ruling was reversed by the Appellate Division who found “the verdict sheet and Coburn's jury instructions ‘together created a misleading and ambiguous deliberative environment, fully capable of engendering an unjust result.’"
On February 11th, at the conclusion of the retrial, the jury “found Schindler Elevator and Escalator Co.'s negligent maintenance of an elevator led to a two-and-a-half-story plunge that left Richard Tufaro with neck and back injuries” and awarded Tufaro “$5.5 million for pain and suffering, $2.25 million per quod and $250,000 in medical expenses.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Not so Fast – Florida’s Legislature Overrules Gindel’s Pre-Suit Notice/Tolling Decision Related to the Construction Defect Statute of Repose
May 11, 2020 —
Rahul Gogineni - The Subrogation StrategistAs discussed in a prior blog post, in Gindel v. Centex Homes, 2018 Fla.App. LEXIS 13019, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal held that when the plaintiffs provided a pre-suit notice in compliance with §558.004 of Florida’s construction defect Right-to-Cure statute, Fla. Stat. §§ 558.001 to 558.005, et. seq., they commenced a “civil action or proceeding,” i.e. an “action,” within the meaning of Florida’s construction defect Statute of Repose, Florida Statue § 95.11(3)(c). Thus, the court held that the plaintiffs commenced their action prior to the time Florida’s 10-year statute of repose period ended. In overturning the lower court’s dismissal of the action, the court found that because the Right-to-Cure statute, §558 of the Florida Statutes, sets out a series of mandatory steps that must be taken prior to bringing a judicial action, filing pre-suit notice of claim sufficiently constituted an “action” for purposes of Florida’s Statute of Repose.
For various reasons, the parties appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Florida. In July of 2019, before the Florida Supreme Court could decide whether to hear the case, the Florida legislature passed legislation that effectively overruled the decision. To overrule the decision, the Florida Legislature modified § 558.004 of Florida’s Right-to-Cure statute to expressly state that a notice of claim served pursuant to the Right-to-Cure statute does not toll the 10-year statute of repose period for construction claims. See Fla. Stat.
§ 558.004(d).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rahul Gogineni, White and Williams LLPMr. Gogineni may be contacted at
goginenir@whiteandwilliams.com
Flood Insurance Claim Filed in State Court Properly Dismissed
October 28, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insureds' claim for flood coverage filed in state court was properly dismissed by the trial court. Rodriguez-Roble v. Am. Nat'l Prop. & Cas. Co., 2015 La. App LEXIS 1810 (La. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2015).
The insureds' home was damaged by wind, rain and flood water during Hurricane Isac. The insureds provided to American National what they contended was satisfactory proof of their claim. American National failed to make any offers to resolve the claim.
The insureds sued in state court, seeking damages under the policy and penalties for American National's alleged bad faith in failing to settle or pay the claim. American National moved to dismiss, arguing that the state court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. American National further argued that under the National Flood Insurance Program, the federal courts had exclusive jurisdiction over the denial and adjustment of flood insurance claims. The trial court agreed that the flood insurance policy was governed by federal law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
