In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims
December 02, 2015 —
Michael L. DeBona – White and Williams LLPIn Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., Certified Gunite Company d/b/a Custom Pools, and John M. Pieklo, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5438782 (3d DCA Sept. 16, 2015), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, discussed whether products liability claims related to a pool filter, a component part of a pool system, were subject to Florida’s twelve-year products liability statute of repose, section 95.031, Florida Statutes. The court held that a pool filter does not constitute an improvement to real property and, thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the statute of repose.
Background Facts
Ryan and Jessica Dominguez had a pool installed at their house; the delivery and installation of the pool and its filter were completed on December 20, 1999. Over twelve years later – on November 17, 2012 – the pool filter exploded, causing Mr. Dominguez a severe head injury. Mr. Dominguez and his wife brought a products liability action against, among others, the pool filter manufacturer and distributor, Hayward Industries, Inc., and the installer of the pool and intermediate distributor of the pool filter, Certified Gunite Company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLPMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case
May 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Superior Court of New Jersey reversed the decision in Frumer v. National Home Insurance Company (NHIC) and the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation (HBW), stating that the mandatory arbitration provision within the Frumer’s home warranty policy was binding.
The Frumers alleged that the construction defects were discovered immediately after moving into their million dollar home. After failing to achieve any results from dealing with the builder, they turned to their home warranty. There was some dispute over claims, and a settlement offer was rejected by the Frumers. The Frumers elected to commence litigation rather than utilize the binding arbitration.
The NHIC and the HBW filed a motion to compel arbitration, however, the motion judge denied the motion: “…the Warranty leaves open the option for [plaintiffs] to commence litigation, which [plaintiffs have] done in this case. The clause also states that ‘the filing of a claim against this limited Warranty shall constitute the election of remedy and shall bar the Homeowner from all other remedies.’ However, the provision does not state that the filing of a claim elects arbitration as the exclusive remedy, and any ambiguity in the language must be inferred against the drafter.”
The NHIC and the HBW appealed the decision. The Superior Court reversed the decision: “Where, such as here, the homeowner files a claim against the warranty for workmanship/systems defects, the warranty clearly and unequivocally establishes binding arbitration as the exclusive remedy. There is, however, no election of remedies for a dispute involving a major structural defect claim. The warranty clearly and unequivocally establishes binding arbitration as the exclusive remedy.”
Charles Curley of Halberstadt Curley in Conshohocken, Pa., the local counsel for National Home and Home Buyers, told the New Jersey Law Journal that “the ruling reaffirms New Jersey’s commitment to enforcing arbitration agreements and requiring people to go to mandatory arbitration when the contracts call for it.”
“At this point, their hope is that the warranty company will do what it's supposed to do — repair covered defects,” Eric McCullough, the Frumer’s lawyer said to the New Jersey Law Journal.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia
January 05, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsOne of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not.
A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement
August 02, 2017 —
Stella Szantova Giordano - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On July 14, 2017, the Trump administration released a statement indicating that the United States intends to sign the U.S. – EU bilateral insurance agreement. The announcement came several weeks after the Council of the European Union adopted a decision authorizing the signing of this agreement. The agreement attempts to “level the playing field for U.S. insurers and reinsurers operating in the EU.”[1] This U.S. – EU bilateral agreement is a direct response to EU’s January 2016 enactment of Solvency II. Solvency II is a legislative program implemented in all twenty-eight Member States, aimed at codifying EU insurance regulations in an attempt to protect policy holders and to incentivize risk management. We previously wrote about this comprehensive program of insurer regulatory requirements here.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Giordano may be contacted at
ssg@sdvlaw.com
The Results are in, CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte is Elected to OCBA’s 2024 Board of Directors!
October 09, 2023 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte has been elected to the Orange County Bar Associations (“OCBA”) slate of four open Board of Directors for a three-year term beginning January 2024, alongside Casey Johnson (Aitken Aitken Cohn LLP), William O’Neill (Ross, Wolcott, Teinert & Prout LLP), and Lesley Young (Orange County District Attorney’s Office).
“It is one of the greatest honors of my career to have been elected to the OCBA board of directors. Thank you to all those who supported me; I will work tirelessly as your representative to serve our bar and community. I am especially excited to work alongside President Elect Christina Zabat-Fran and the other esteemed members of the board. I look forward to applying my skills and knowledge to serve our legal community as we work to promote excellence, integrity and honor in our profession, and to improve the practice for all.” – Nicole Whyte
Nicole is honored to have the opportunity to continue her support with the OC legal community. For over two decades, she has served on various OCBA legal committees and boards. Nicole currently serves on the board of OCBA Master’s Division and is the 2023 Board President of the Public Law Center, the largest pro-bono law firm in Orange County. She is also a current board member of the Sonenshine Pro Bono Committee. Nicole is a founding fellow of the OC Bar Foundation and served as secretary for the Robert Banyard Inn of Court for eight years. Nicole plans to call upon her experience serving on various boards, and her many years of law practice and management experience, to help identify and support the needs of the OCBA and its thriving and diverse OC legal community.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
South Carolina Legislature Defines "Occurrence" To Include Property Damage Arising From Faulty Workmanship
May 26, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii On May 17, 2011, South Carolina passed legislation to combat the restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an "occurrence" under CGL policies. S.C. Code Ann. sec. 38-61-70.
The legislation reversed a decision by the state's Supreme Court issued earlier this year. See Crossman Communities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 W.L. 93716 (S.C. Jan. 7, 2011). Crossman had overruled an earlier decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court that holding that defective construction was an “occurrence.” Crossman, however, reversed course, holding that damages resulting from faulty workmanship were the “natural and probable cause” of the faulty work and, as such, did not qualify as an “occurrence.”
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ireland Said to Plan Home Loans Limits to Prevent Bubble
October 01, 2014 —
Joe Brennan – BloombergIreland’s central bank plans to impose limits for the first time on how much banks can lend home buyers as real estate values soar again in the home of western Europe’s worst property collapse, two people with knowledge of the matter said.
The regulator is preparing to publish a consultation paper on its proposals within weeks, said one of the people, who asked not to be named, as the matter is private. Banks and lobby groups will have a chance to comment on the plans, which center on introducing loan-to-value and loan-to-income restrictions. A spokesman for the central bank in Dublin declined to comment.
Irish homes prices are surging even as banks grapple with the aftermath of mortgage crisis that forced the government to bail out most of the nation’s lenders. A quarter of the country’s owner-occupier home loans are in arrears or had their terms eased. Loans granted during the boom for more than 85 percent of the property value were most likely to default in the wake of the crash, central bank economists said today.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joe Brennan, BloombergMr. Brennan may be contacted at
jbrennan29@bloomberg.net
Skipping Depositions does not Constitute Failure to Cooperate in New York
March 09, 2020 —
Ryan G. Nelson - Saxe Doernberger & VitaInsurance policies typically impose, on the insured, a duty to cooperate with the insurer during investigation and litigation of a claim. Non-cooperation can be grounds for denying coverage. This begs the question: what constitutes non-cooperation?
Recently, a New York appellate court affirmed a trial court’s decision that failure by an employee of the insured to show up for three court-ordered depositions did not rise to the level of “willful and avowed obstruction” and therefore, the insurer could not deny coverage on the basis of non-cooperation. See Foddrell v. Utica First Insurance Co., 178 A.D.3d 901 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019). In so holding, the Foddrell court applied the Thrasher test: “To effectively deny coverage based upon lack of cooperation, an insurance carrier must demonstrate (1) that it acted diligently in seeking to bring about the insured’s cooperation, (2) that the efforts employed by the insured were reasonably calculated to obtain the insured’s cooperation, and (3) that the attitude of the insured, after his or her cooperation was sought, was one of willful and avowed obstruction.” Id.; see Thrasher v. U. S. Liab. Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159, 167 (1967).
Thomas Foddrell’s suit against Utica First Insurance Company (“Utica First”) stemmed from his personal injury suit against Janey & Rana Construction Corporation (“J&R” (Utica First’s insured). During that lawsuit, J&R’s principal, Gardeep Singh, failed to appear for two court-ordered depositions. After his failure to appear at those depositions, Utica First sent an investigator to inform Singh that he was scheduled for a third deposition. Singh responded to the investigator that he would speak with J&R’s attorneys about the matter. Ultimately, Singh did not appear for the third court-ordered deposition. In response to Singh’s repeated failure to appear for the depositions, Utica First sent Singh a letter advising him that because of his lack of cooperation, Utica would no longer agree to indemnify J&R.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan G. Nelson, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Nelson may be contacted at
rgn@sdvlaw.com
