Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole
July 30, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistArkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]
In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Possible Real Estate and Use and Occupancy Tax Relief for Philadelphia Commercial and Industrial Property Owners
September 07, 2017 —
James Vandermark & Kevin Koscil - White and Williams LLPA recent decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court puts in jeopardy all of the recent real estate tax reassessments completed by the City of Philadelphia for tax year 2018 as well as appeals initiated by the School District of Philadelphia in 2016 for tax year 2017.
The City’s current practice is to certify the market values of any reassessed properties to the Board of Revision of Taxes on March 31st prior to the year that the assessment would be implemented. The City then relies on those certified values to determine the applicable tax rate when it creates its budget each summer. Accordingly, the Office of Property Assessment (OPA) submitted the values applicable for the 2018 tax year to the BRT on March 31, 2017. The City set the applicable tax rates during its summer budget sessions. However, unlike prior years, this year the City only reassessed commercial and industrial properties and excluded residential properties. The result was reported to be an increase of over $118 million in new real estate taxes.
Shortly after the City finished its budget, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the case of Valley Forge Towers Apartments N, LP, et al. v. Upper Merion Area School District. The case involved a challenge by property owners to the Upper Merion School District’s practice of only appealing assessments on commercial properties. As with the recent reassessments by the City, Upper Merion was only seeking to increase the real estate tax assessments for high value commercial properties. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the school district’s practice violated the Uniformity Clause in the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court reaffirmed the principle that real estate within a jurisdiction should be treated as a single class and that tax authorities are not permitted to discriminate against commercial and industrial properties in favor of residential properties for purposes of real estate taxation.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Vandermark, White and Williams LLP and
Kevin Koscil, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Vandermark may be contacted at vandermarkj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Koscil may be contacted at koscilk@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Round and Round: Inside the Las Vegas Sphere
December 16, 2023 —
Grace Calengor - Construction ExecutiveHow does the typical contractor approach building something taller than the Statue of Liberty, wider than a football field and with the most square footage of LED lighting in the world? Perhaps it’s enough to say that Sphere Entertainment Company is not your average contractor—and Sphere in Las Vegas is not your average construction project.
With a budget of approximately $2.3 billion, Sphere is a massive entertainment venue constructed mainly of steel and concrete. How different is that from the typical Vegas high-rise, casino or hotel? When you account for the structure’s sheer size, uncommon shape and intertwining technologies—very.
Reprinted courtesy of
Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Discovery Requests in Bad Faith Litigation Considered by Court
June 10, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court considered a variety of discovery requests by the insured in a bad faith case against State Farm. Stephens v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2015 WL 1638516 (M.D. Pa. April 13, 2015).
The insured plaintiff was a quadriplegic. His complaint alleged that he notified State Farm, through its agent, that he would have to leave his residence for medical treatment and intended to rent the home while he received care for his disabling condition. The complaint further alleged that the insured was told by State Farm's agent that his insurance would remain unaffected by his departure while he sought medical care. Nevertheless, when the insured reported loss due to vandalism and water damage at his home, State Farm relied upon his departure from the residence to cancel his insurance.
In discovery, the insured requested three categories of documents from State Farm. First, he requested State Farm's claims manuals, guidelines and instructions materials relating to insurance claims like those made by this insured. Second, the plaintiff requested performance reviews and performance incentive programs for all of State Farm's employees who played a role in decisions in this case from 2009 to the present. Finally, the plaintiff demanded that State Farm compile information relating to other insurance lawsuits brought against State Farm involving theft, vandalism and water damage claims, as well as all lawsuits or complaints regarding the conduct of this particular claims adjuster. When the materials were not produced, plaintiff filed a motion to compel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Entire Fairness or Business Judgment? It’s Anyone’s Guess
January 09, 2015 —
Maurice Pesso, Greg M. Steinberg and Christopher J. Orrico – White and Williams LLPIn lawsuits challenging the validity of business transactions and combinations, the most significant issue is often which standard of review the court applies: the defense-friendly “Business Judgment Rule” or the more stringent “Entire Fairness Standard.” The standard utilized by the court – or more often times the standard which the parties think the court will apply – can drive decisions on motion practice, settlement discussions, and resolution strategy. Under the Business Judgment Rule, directors are presumed to have acted in good faith and their decisions will only be questioned when they are shown to have engaged in self-dealing or fraud. However, if a “Controlling Shareholder” stands on both sides of the transaction, the court will often scrutinize the transaction under the more plaintiff-friendly “Entire Fairness Standard.”
So, what constitutes a “Controlling Shareholder?” If the party in question owns more than 50% of a company’s equity, the answer is clear-cut. However, for cases involving stockholders who own less than 50% of a company’s equity and stand on both sides of the disputed transaction, the answer is not so simple. This uncertainty was highlighted in back-to-back decisions by the Delaware Chancery Court in November 2014. On November 25, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss a derivative lawsuit alleging breach of fiduciary duty in In Re Sanchez Energy Derivative Litigation (“Sanchez”). Vice Chancellor Glasscock held that the complaint failed to plead facts sufficient to raise an inference that two directors with a collective 21.5% equity interest in the company were Controlling Shareholders. The very next day, in In Re Zhongpin Inc. Stockholders Litigation (“Zhongpin”), the Delaware Chancery Court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of fiduciary duty claims against an alleged “Controlling Shareholder” and members of the company’s board. In Zhongpin, Vice Chancellor Noble held that sufficient facts were plead to raise an inference that a CEO with a 17.5% equity was a “Controlling Shareholder.”
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Maurice Pesso,
Greg M. Steinberg and
Christopher J. Orrico
Mr. Pesso may be contacted at pessom@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Steinberg may be contacted at steinbergg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Orrico may be contacted at orricoc@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Thanks to All for the 2024 Super Lawyers Nod!
May 13, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt is with humility and a sense of accomplishment that I announce that I have been selected for the seventh straight year to the
Virginia Super Lawyers in the Construction Litigation category for 2024. Add this to my recent election to the
Virginia Legal Elite in Construction and I’ve had a pretty good year. As always, I am thrilled to be included on these peer-elected lists.
So without further ado, thank you to my peers and those on the panel at Virginia Super Lawyers for the great honor. I feel quite proud to be part of the
5% of Virginia attorneys that made this list for 2024.
The full list of Virginia Super Lawyers will appear in the May edition of Richmond Magazine. Please check it out.
If you want to see the lists before then, a digital version of the Virginia Super Lawyers Magazine is
available here (click on the Virginia magazine).
Thanks again to all of you who participated in my nomination and election.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not
April 15, 2024 —
Mason Fletcher - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe University of Washington (UW), a public university, aimed to secure a real estate developer for a new building on its campus. The proposal involved an 80-year ground lease (the “Lease”), and developers submitted bids. The selected developer would demolish an existing building, construct a new one, own it during the Lease at its own cost, and UW would lease back a portion, with ownership reverting to UW at the Lease’s end. Alexandria Real Equities, Inc. (ARE) was a finalist but ultimately was not selected, and the Lease was awarded to Wexford Science and Technology, LLC (Wexford). As a result, ARE filed suit against UW asserting three claims: 1) UW lacked authority to execute the Lease, 2) UW didn’t follow required competitive bidding procedures, and 3) UW’s developer selection process was arbitrary and capricious. None of these claims were successful and ARE appealed.
Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. v. Univ. of Wash., __ Wn. App. __, 539 P.3d 54 (2023), a published decision. The Court concluded, based on the facts in that case, that because construction was not publicly funded, UW did not have to follow competitive bidding requirements that were laid out in a statute relevant to state universities. Still, the Court applied the “bright-line cutoff point” that prohibits disappointed bidders from challenging an award once a contract has been executed. See Dick Enterprises, Inc. v. Metro. King County, 83 Wn. App. 566, 572, 922 P.2d 184 (1996).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Fletcher may be contacted at
mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com
Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays
February 16, 2017 —
Engineering News-RecordA federal judge on Feb. 8 dismissed a claim by the state of South Carolina against the U.S. Dept. of Energy over delayed construction of the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, near Aiken, S.C. The claim for financial compensation was part of a lawsuit the state filed in February 2016 seeking payment of $1 million per day—or an annual maximum of $100 million—for the MOX facility not producing fuel by Jan. 1, 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
