Hawaii Federal District Court Rejects Bad Faith Claim
November 30, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court for the district of Hawaii rejected the insured's argument that the insurer acted in bad faith because the insured had to contribute to a settlement of the underlying case. Hanover Ins. Co. v. Anova Food, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146114 (D. Haw. Oct. 21, 2016).
After a prior round of briefing, the court determined that Hanover had a duty to defend, but rejected Anova's claim for pre-tender fees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increase at Slower Pace
February 25, 2014 —
Victoria Stilwell – BloombergHome prices in the U.S. climbed at a slower pace in the year through December, pointing to a moderation in the market that will help keep more properties within reach for prospective buyers.
The S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values in 20 cities rose 13.4 percent from December 2012 after increasing 13.7 percent in the year ended in November, the group said today in New York. It was the first deceleration since June. The gain matched the median estimate of 33 economists surveyed by Bloomberg.
Price appreciation is slowing as rising mortgage rates combined with harsh winter weather to cool home purchases over the past few months. Smaller increases mean more homes will remain affordable as the labor market improves, helping maintain the rebound in residential real estate that has boosted growth.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Stilwell, BloombergMs. Stilwell may be contacted at
vstilwell1@bloomberg.net
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
The Contractor’s Contingency: What Contractors and Construction Managers Need to Know and Be Wary Of
December 04, 2023 —
Skyler L. Santomartino - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Contractors and construction managers who enter into cost reimbursable contracts subject to a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) are responsible for all project costs exceeding the GMP. For this reason, it is imperative that contractors negotiate and incorporate into the GMP a financial buffer that accounts for the unanticipated project costs that are not reimbursable as change orders or costs of the work. This is where the contractor’s contingency comes into play.[
1]
The contractor’s contingency is a vehicle that allows contractors to mitigate some of the risks inherent in GMP contracts. When drafted properly, a contingency clause allows the contractor and only the contractor to access funds set aside by the owner to address unpredictable or unknown project costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Skyler L. Santomartino, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Santomartino may be contacted at
ssantomartino@pecklaw.com
Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails
February 03, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's efforts to exclude two of the insured's experts in a collapse case were unsuccessful. Hudon Specialty Ins. Co. v. Talex Enterprises, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150148 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 4, 2019).
The insureds' building collapsed. The remaining portions of the building required immediate stabilization. The insureds hired Mr. Laird, an engineer, to prevent further property destruction. The insured designated Mr. Laird as a non-retained expert for trial. Mr. Laird's report claimed that the collapse was caused because the building had been re-roofed many times without removal of the degraded underlying roofing materials, thereby adding additional weight to the roof structure.
The insureds also designated Steve Cox as a non-retained expert. Mr. Cox was an architect who owned property neighboring the building that collapsed. He opined that the building collapsed because of the condition of very old mortar and not because of water standing on the building roof or because of roof repairs.
Hudson sought to strike these two experts because their opinions were inconsistent with the admitted facts. A document produced by the insureds stated that a large amount of rainwater had collected on the roof and the weight of the rainfall was the proximate cause of the collapse. Hudson claimed that this statement qualified as a judicial admission, removing the question of causation from contention. The court disagreed that the statement was a judicial admission because it did not form any part of the pleadings. The statement may have been an evidentiary admission that could be controverted or explained by the parties.
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
Wes Payne Receives Defense Attorney of the Year Award
September 30, 2019 —
Wesley Payne, IV - White and Williams LLPWes Payne was recognized by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute (PDI) as the Defense Attorney of the Year. The award was given at PDI’s Annual Conference held in Bedford Springs, PA on July 11th.
The annual award honors an attorney that “best exemplifies the qualities of professionalism, dedication to the practice of law, promotion of the highest ideals of justice in the community, and has a demonstrated commitment to PDI and its members.”
Wes has over 30 years of experience representing insurance carriers and insureds in first and third-party litigation matters. He is Chair of the firm's Diversity Committee, Co-Chair of the Pro Bono Committee and Chair of the firm's Homeless Advocacy Group. He also serves on several pro bono and civil boards and is active in several legal organizations, holding leadership positions with many of them.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wesley Payne, IV, White and Williams LLPMr. Payne may be contacted at
paynew@whiteandwilliams.com
CGL, Builders Risk Coverage and Exclusions When Construction Defects Cause Property Damage
May 17, 2021 —
Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction ExecutiveDirect damage to property under construction caused by faulty or defective work or defective materials has been a coverage issue for decades. Two specific policies, the Commercial General Liability for the contractors building the structure and the Builders Risk Policy on the project both are sources of potential coverage.
A CGL policy protects the named insured (the contractor in this case) from third party liability arising out of the insured’s operations that results in either bodily injury or property damage. Damage to property caused by poor workmanship or defective materials would qualify as property damage. To understand how the CGL policy might respond to claims such as these, it is necessary to evaluate several exclusions in the CGL policy.
CGL policies cover “property damage,” defined as physical injury to tangible property, including loss of use of such property, and loss of use of tangible property that has not been physically injured.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
