Homeowners Sue Over Sinkholes, Use Cash for Other Things
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFQuoting one homeowner as saying that his house “can fall in the ground for all I care, I made my money,” the Tampa Bay Times looks at the issue of sinkhole claims in Florida. Homeowners “have paid off mortgages, put in pools, replaced roofs, or otherwise used money from sinkhole claims to do something besides fix sinkhole damage.
It’s been tough for insurance companies. Citizens Property Insurance took in $32 million in premiums for sinkhole coverage in 2010, but paid out $245 million in sinkhole claims. The Tampa Bay Times notes that some of those claims come from settling problems caused by their repairs, including one settlement of $350,000 for repairs to a house worth $39,000.
One couple, after receiving $217,000 from Citizens, sold the house to a company that bought unrepaired sinkhole homes for $190,000. The home has been sold since and remains unrepaired.
Sometimes the preferred solution by the insurance company isn’t the cheapest either. One couple was informed that Citizens was going to spend $150,000 to have the hole filled with grout. After they settled with the insurance company, they fixed the problem by installing steel piers, at a cost of about $45,000.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act
March 02, 2020 —
Kevin Bonsignore - Wilke FleuryThe recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA” or the “Act”) goes into effect on January 1, 2020 and with it comes enhanced consumer protections for California residents against businesses that collect their personal information. Generally speaking, the CCPA requires that businesses provide consumers with information relating to the business’ access to and sharing of personal information. Accordingly, businesses should determine whether the CCPA will apply to them and, if so, what policies and procedures they should implement to comply with this new law.
Application of the CCPA
Importantly, the CCPA does not apply to all California business. The requirements of the CCPA only apply where a for-profit entity collects Consumers’ Personal Information, does business in the State of California, and satisfies one or more of the following: (1) has annual gross revenues in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000); (2) receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or (3) derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(c)(1)(A)-(C).) Thus, as a practical matter, small “mom and pop” operations will likely not be subject to the CCPA, but most mid-size and large companies should review their own books or consult with an accountant to determine whether the CCPA applies to their business.
Rights Granted to Consumers
“Consumers,” as the term is used in the CCPA, means “any natural person who is a California resident…” (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(g).) This broad definition makes no carve-outs or exclusions for a business’s employees and, despite the traditional definition of the term “consumer,” does not seem to require that the resident purchase any goods or services. This definition seems intentional and was likely designed to prevent businesses from attempting to circumvent the requirements of the CCPA by arguing that the personal information they collect does not belong to “consumers” under the traditional meaning of the word.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Bonsignore, Wilke FleuryMr. Bonsignore may be contacted at
kbonsignore@wilkefleury.com
Insurer Awarded Summary Judgment on Collapse Claim
January 06, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit agreed with the insurer that there was no coverage for a collapse under the policy. S.O. Beach Corp. v. Great Am. Ins. Co.,2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 32569 (11th Cir. Oct. 31, 2019).
S.O. Beach Corporation and Larios on the Beach, Inc ("Larios") owned a building in Miami Beach. Sometime between march 4, 2012 and April 10, 2013, Larios discovered that parts of the first three floors of its building had caved in to varying degrees. The primary cause of the collapse was a wooden support beam that had severely rotted. Larios found a broken pipe that was gushing water onto the beam, causing deterioration. Larios was forced to evacuate the building until the damage was repaired.
Larios submitted a claim under its all-risk policy with Great American. The policy required that a collapse an "abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building" to be covered. Before a coverage decision was made, Larios sued for breach of contract. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Great American's motion and denied Larios' motion.
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
Seattle Council May Take a New Look at Micro-Housing
April 15, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Puget Sound Business Journal, “there’s remorse at [Seattle, Washington’s] City Hall over last year’s controversial decision to make it more onerous and costly to build ultra-affordable micro-housing.” City Council President Tim Burgess stated that the council “may ‘very well’ take up the micro-housing issue again as it works with Mayor Ed Murray on a long-term program to develop more housing.” This comes after Murray “announced a goal of building and preserving 50,000 housing units over the next 10 years.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Seven Former North San Diego County Landfills are Leaking Contaminants
April 07, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFDeborah Sullivan Brennan of the North County Times reported that seven former dumps in San Diego are leaking contaminants into the surrounding groundwater. John R. Odermatt, a senior engineering geologist for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board s San Diego region, told the North County Times, “the risk to most county residents is very small or negligible, while local water supplies located in more rural areas may be at a somewhat elevated but unquantified level of risk.”
This issue is causing heavy scrutiny of a new proposed landfill in Gregory Canyon. The landfill would be located on 308 acres of undeveloped land near Pala, alongside the San Luis Rey River. The group “Save Gregory Canyon” has been speaking out against the landfill, stating that “the project threatens major detrimental impacts to both surface and groundwater, as well as a potential compromise of the two major San Diego Water Authority pipelines nearby.” Richard Felago, a Gregory Canyon Ltd. Consultant, told the North County Times that the 8-foot-thick liner, composed of layers of gravel and synthetic material, would not leak.
The appeal hearing is being rescheduled later this month after one of the three panelists recused himself due to having a competing interest in the property, according to the article by Gary Warth in the North County Times.
Read the full story (link 1)...
Read the full story (link 2)...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Home Building on the Upswing in Bakersfield
May 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFLow inventories and low mortgage rates are leading developers to build new homes in Bakersfield, California. According to KGET, home permits are up forty-five percent over last April. In one development, a street of six homes all sold on the same day. Indications are also that people who lost their homes during the bust are entering homeownership again.
Prices are also up. A year ago, the average home sale price was $145,000. Now it’s $250,000. Oh, and that development where they sold six homes in a day? The next phase of development goes on sale in May.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor
December 27, 2021 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupThe General Rule in California: The Winner Does NOT Receive Attorney Fees and Costs:
There is a common misconception that court decisions require the loser in a lawsuit to reimburse the winner for the fees and costs incurred during the lawsuit. Reliance on this misconception in developing a legal strategy for dealing with disputes is a serious strategic error. Where the legal issue is, for example, “breach of contract,” the general rule in California is that there are only two methods by which the winning litigant will be awarded the attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing or defending the lawsuit. The first of these is if the contract in question contains an effective attorney fee clause specifically providing that the prevailing party will recover their attorney fees and costs. The second is if there is a statute on point which provides that the prevailing party will be awarded those fees and costs. The general rule in California is that each party pays their own attorney fees and costs, unless there is an independent legal basis that provides otherwise. This is known as the “American Rule,” used throughout most of the country.
The Issue is Important Because Spending More Money Than You Can Be Awarded is a Losing Strategy:
The importance of whether the prevailing party in a lawsuit will be awarded their fees and costs cannot be underestimated. The party contemplating whether to bring a lawsuit must seriously consider whether it is even worth the trouble. In many cases, unless the one bringing the lawsuit (the “plaintiff”) is entitled to be reimbursed for the considerable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the case, it is just not worth doing so. There is no point spending $50,000 on attorneys on a $40,000 claim unless the plaintiff can be awarded both the $40,000 and the $50,000 if the plaintiff wins. Unless fees and costs are awarded, the plaintiff will still be out $10,000 in the very best of cases. For a party sued (the “defendant”) a similar situation arises in that the defendant faces the reality that it may be less expensive to just pay on a frivolous or false claim than to fight it. Either scenario is unsatisfactory. On the whole, it is beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract when either a plaintiff or a defendant must vindicate its rights. Both deserve to be fully compensated to achieve justice. It is also beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract to encourage the one who is at fault to resolve the case rather than risk paying the fees and costs of the other party who is likely to win the case. In either case, the presence of an attorney fee clause facilitates the party in the right and encourages resolution outside of litigation. These are admirable societal goals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution
March 23, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Truck Ins. Exchange v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 03-08-00526-CV (Tex. App. 3d Aug. 27, 2010), insured contractor DCI was sued by the project owner seeking damages for defective construction. DCI tendered its defense to its CGL insurers Truck and Mid-Continent. Truck agreed to defend while Mid-Continent denied a defense. While the underlying suit was pending, Mid-Continent sued DCI, but not Truck, and obtained a judicial declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify DCI in the underlying suit. After settling the underlying suit, Truck sued Mid-Continent seeking contribution towards defense costs and indemnity payments. The state trial court entered summary judgment for Mid-Continent. The intermediate appellate court affirmed.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
