Remand of Bad Faith Claim Evidences Split Among Florida District Courts
September 04, 2018 —
Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogWhether an insurance bad faith claim, joined by amendment to an underlying insurance coverage action, may be removed more than a year after the original action was begun has divided federal judges in the state of Florida but has not yet been considered by the Eleventh Circuit. Now, a new opinion out of the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville Division) has added to the debate.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Court Determines Insurer Must Defend Negligent Misrepresentation Claim
December 09, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the insureds disclosed flooding problems in the basement, the buyers purchased their home. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. McInerney, 2011 Ill. App. LEXIS 1130 (Ill Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2011). In a supplemental disclosure, the insureds reported that during heavy rains light seepage occurred in the basement.
After moving in, the buyers experienced significant water infiltration and flooding in the basement. The buyers and their children also began to experience mold-related illnesses.
The buyers sued for rescission of the contract or, in the alternative, damages. They alleged breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. In the claim for negligent misrepresentation, the buyers alleged that the insureds carelessly omitted the fact that there were material defects in the basement and foundation when they should have known of such defects.
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
Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill: Overview of Key Provisions
January 04, 2021 —
White and Williams LLPIn a much needed holiday gift for businesses and individuals who continue to be affected by COVID-19, Congress finally approved a $900 billion aid package follow-up to the CARES Act (the Winter Covid-19 Relief Bill), the several trillion dollar stimulus that was enacted early in the pandemic. The bill, part of the larger annual spending bill, will hopefully be signed into law by President Trump in the coming days although the President has indicated his disappointment about the small amount of direct relief to individuals included in the bill. The bill was passed by both houses of Congress by a veto proof majority and is expected to become law whether or not the President chooses to exercise his veto power.
White and Williams has and will continue to provide more detailed updates on important components of the legislation, some of which address matters beyond COVID-19-related relief and support, including a new Paycheck Protection Program and tax deductibility of expenses paid for with PPP funds, extension and expansion of the employee retention tax credit, direct payments to individuals, additional unemployment assistance, restrictions on surprise medical billing, rental assistance and extension of the eviction moratorium, education funding, vaccine distribution, testing and tracing, and other healthcare funding. In the meantime, here is a brief overview of several pieces of the legislation:
Paycheck Protection Program
The Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill provides for $284 billion of funding for a new round of the popular Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was established by the CARES Act and allowed borrowers to receive forgivable loans to be used to retain employees and cover certain other basic operating expenses. New and existing businesses may participate in the program. However, eligibility for PPP Part II is more restrictive and targeted then the original PPP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
WSDOT Excludes Non-Minority Women-Owned DBEs from Participation Goals
June 15, 2017 —
Ellie Perka - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCA drastic change has been implemented by the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) Program in Washington. Effective June 1, 2017, WSDOT has implemented a “waiver” to exclude women-owned DBEs[i] from qualifying toward Condition of Award (“COA”) Goals on federally-funded projects. This move is significant. It will likely result in long-lasting detrimental impacts on the DBE community, women-owned businesses, and the entire construction community in Washington. The construction industry should be in an uproar over this change. Instead, it has largely gone unnoticed (likely because its impacts have not yet been felt). It is a de facto exclusion of women-owned businesses from the DBE program, and the severity of this change cannot be overstated.
Under the waiver, women-owned businesses no longer satisfy COA Goals on federally-funded projects (i.e., projects receiving funding from the Federal Highway Administration) advertised after June 1, 2017. Existing contracts are not impacted and may continue to utilize women-owned DBEs to satisfy COA Goals until the project is complete. The waiver is not retroactive.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ellie Perka, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMs. Perka may be contacted at
eperka@ac-lawyers.com
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
Jersey City, New Jersey, to Get 95-Story Condo Tower
January 21, 2015 —
David M. Levitt and Terrence Dopp – BloombergA Chinese developer is planning a 95-story condominium tower for the Jersey City, New Jersey, waterfront that would be the tallest building in the state.
China Overseas America Inc. plans to construct the 950-foot (290-meter) building at 99 Hudson St., according to a statement on Tuesday from Mayor Steven Fulop. The skyscraper, with 760 for-sale dwellings, would surpass the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. tower two blocks to the south, which is 781 feet tall, according to the statement.
Mr. Levitt may be contacted at dlevitt@bloomberg.net; Mr. Dopp may be contacted at tdopp@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Levitt and Terrence Dopp, Bloomberg
ACEC Statement on Negotiated Bipartisan Debt Limit Compromise
June 05, 2023 —
The American Council of Engineering CompaniesWashington, D.C. – The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) released the following statement applauding the negotiated bipartisan compromise to raise the debt limit ahead of the scheduled House vote tonight:
"The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) applauds President Biden and Speaker McCarthy for negotiating a bipartisan compromise to raise the debt limit and avoid a catastrophic default. We are particularly pleased that the bipartisan deal protects the critical funds provided under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and does not include any changes to the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) climate and clean energy provisions, which the engineering industry is working hard to deliver successfully. ACEC also strongly supports the provisions in the deal to reform the federal permitting process. These commonsense measures to modernize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), particularly through the use of digital technologies, will improve interagency collaboration and allow engineering firms to help their clients deliver project benefits more efficiently while ensuring strong environmental protections and opportunities for community and stakeholder engagement."
The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is the business association of the nation's engineering industry. Founded in 1909, ACEC is a national federation of 51 state and regional organizations representing more than 5,500 engineering firms and 600,000+ engineers, surveyors, architects, and other specialists nationwide. ACEC member firms drive the design of America's infrastructure and the built environment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Insurance Case: Owners' Insurance Barred in Reimbursement Action against Tenant
April 17, 2019 —
Jason Adams - Gibbs GidenThe Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Frances Todd, Inc. (2019 Cal.App. LEXIS 299 / 2019 WL 1450731) case has potential implications for insurance carriers, policyholders, condominium associations, unit owners, landlords and tenants.
The case involves a fire at a commercial condominium complex (the “Association”). The Association’s CC&Rs required the Association to purchase a master fire insurance policy for the benefit of the Association and owners, with a waiver of subrogation endorsement that stated the insurance company could not seek reimbursement from the Association, its officers, owners or occupants of the units in the event of a covered fire. The CC&Rs also prohibited individual owners from obtaining their own fire insurance. The Association purchased the required fire insurance policy from Western Heritage Insurance Company (“Western Heritage”).
One of the owner’s tenants, Frances Todd, Inc. (“Frances Todd”), allegedly caused a fire that damaged several units. Although the unit owner was covered as an additional named insured under the Western Heritage fire policy, the tenant, Frances Todd, was not. Western Heritage paid for the common area fire damage caused by Francis Todd, and then sued Frances Todd in a subrogation action to recover the amounts paid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason M. Adams, Gibbs GidenMr. Adams may be contacted at
jadams@gibbsgiden.com
