Connecticut Court Finds Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause Enforceable
March 19, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiCanvassing both case law and scholarly authority, the court determined that the anti-concurrent cause (ACC) provision barred coverage for loss caused by Tropical Storm Irene. Lombardi v. Universal N. Am Ins. Co., 2015 Conn. Super. LEXIS 138 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 21, 2015).
Tropical Storm Irene caused the insured's home to shift and move from its concrete pier foundation. The house later had to be demolished.
The insurer's expert concluded that the house was removed from the foundation by storm surge and not by wind. The damage caused by wind was limited to 24 feet of trim missing from the roof and about 70 square feet of shingles that were blown away. The insured's expert concluded the house was removed from its foundation due to a combination of wind and water forces. The insured's expert reported that "the water wave action most probably caused most damage to the dwelling support pilings, with wind conditions contributing to the wave action."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Need to Be Specific and Precise in Drafting Settling Agreements
December 30, 2013 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCThe case of Bituminous Casualty Corp. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Corp., 2013 WL 452374 (D. Colo. February 6, 2013) is instructive as an example of both the confusion and resulting escalation of litigation that can result from a lack of clarity in settlement negotiations. This is particularly true where parties settle outside of their insurance coverage, and/or without notifying their insurer(s), which have denied coverage.
The case involved coverage litigation following settlement of a multi-party construction defect case involving the Rivergate multi-family residential development in Durango, Colorado. The condominium owners association sued, among others, the developer (Rivergate Lofts Partners, hereafter “RLP”) and the general contractor (Genex Construction, LLC, hereafter “Genex”). This follow-on case involved the insurers for RLP (“Hartford”) and Genex (“Bituminous”). The coverage dispute was complicated by the Bituminous allegations that Hartford insured Genex in its alleged role as a manager for RLP, as part of Hartford’s insurance of RLP more generally.
The underlying facts were that Hartford denied insurance coverage and defense to Genex/Bituminous. The underlying construction defect case went to mediation, with the COA, RLP, and Genex all in attendance with their respective insurer representatives, and coverage counsel. While the evolving facts of that mediation were later disputed as to their motives, intentions, and the contemporaneous knowledge of the parties, the facts reflected in documents were fairly clear.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
Out of the Black
May 30, 2022 —
John Drentlaw - Construction ExecutiveEven if you previously weren’t familiar with the term “black swan event,” you’ve likely become intimately familiar with what one looks like over the past two years. Coined by author Nassim Taleb in his book The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, the term refers to a rare, unpredictable event—perhaps, say, a pandemic—that has an extreme impact.
“Extreme” certainly seems to be an accurate description of the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the construction industry, at nearly every level. The Commercial Construction Index (CCI) fell from 74 to 56 during Q2 2020 and remained statistically unchanged through Q3 of that year. Recovery has been slow, with the CCI remaining eight points below pre-pandemic levels through the end of 2021. Prices for raw materials such as lumber and steel have been extremely volatile, reaching historic highs and dramatic lows. March and April of 2020 alone saw 1.1 million jobs disappear from the industry—roughly half as many jobs as were lost throughout the entire Great Recession (although many of these jobs have since returned).
While the industry has persevered through what should be the worst of these effects, many contractors and project owners are now wondering: How can we predict the next black swan event?
Reprinted courtesy of
John Drentlaw, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Deducting 2018 Real Property Taxes Prepaid in 2017 Comes with Caveats
January 04, 2018 —
William Hussey – White and WilliamsMany clients and friends have inquired about accelerating the payment of their 2018 real property taxes as a result of the recent enactment of the federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Pursuant to that Act, the deduction for state and local income, real property and other taxes will be capped at $10,000 in tax years 2018 through 2025. The Act, moreover, specifically disallows a deduction in 2017 for 2018 state and local income taxes that are prepaid before year-end.
The Act was not clear on whether a prepayment of 2018 real property taxes would be deductible in 2017. For certain taxpayers that are not subject to the alternative minimum tax, a prepayment of those 2018 real property taxes might be of current benefit to them.
Yesterday, the IRS issued an advisory to taxpayers outlining which real property tax prepayments will be deductible in 2017 and which are not. The text of that advisory, together with the illustrative examples, is set out below for your consideration.
IR-2017-210, DEC. 27, 2017
WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service advised tax professionals and taxpayers today that pre-paying 2018 state and local real property taxes in 2017 may be tax deductible under certain circumstances.
The IRS has received a number of questions from the tax community concerning the deductibility of prepaid real property taxes. In general, whether a taxpayer is allowed a deduction for the prepayment of state or local real property taxes in 2017 depends on whether the taxpayer makes the payment in 2017 and the real property taxes are assessed prior to 2018. A prepayment of anticipated real property taxes that have not been assessed prior to 2018 are not deductible in 2017. State or local law determines whether and when a property tax is assessed, which is generally when the taxpayer becomes liable for the property tax imposed.
The following examples illustrate these points.
Example 1: Assume County A assesses property tax on July 1, 2017 for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. On July 31, 2017, County A sends notices to residents notifying them of the assessment and billing the property tax in two installments with the first installment due Sept. 30, 2017 and the second installment due Jan. 31, 2018. Assuming taxpayer has paid the first installment in 2017, the taxpayer may choose to pay the second installment on Dec. 31, 2017, and may claim a deduction for this prepayment on the taxpayer’s 2017 return.
Example 2: County B also assesses and bills its residents for property taxes on July 1, 2017, for the period July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018. County B intends to make the usual assessment in July 2018 for the period July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019. However, because county residents wish to prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017, County B has revised its computer systems to accept prepayment of property taxes for the 2018-2019 property tax year. Taxpayers who prepay their 2018-2019 property taxes in 2017 will not be allowed to deduct the prepayment on their federal tax returns because the county will not assess the property tax for the 2018-2019 tax year until July 1, 2018.
The IRS reminds taxpayers that a number of provisions remain available this week that could affect 2017 tax bills. Time remains to make charitable donations. See IR-17-191 for more information. The deadline to make contributions for individual retirement accounts - which can be used by some taxpayers on 2017 tax returns - is the April 2018 tax deadline.
IRS.gov has more information on these and other provisions to help taxpayers prepare for the upcoming filing season.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Hussey, White and WilliamsMr. Hussey may be contacted at
husseyw@whiteandwilliams.com
If You Can’t Dazzle Em’ With Brilliance, Baffle Em’ With BS: Apprentices on Public Works Projects
October 24, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe “Big Four” when it comes to public works contracting on state and local projects in California are:
- Registration with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”);
- Payment of prevailing of wages and maintenance and submission of certified payroll;
- Compliance with the “skilled and trained workforce” requirements on certain projects; and
- Hiring apprentices on state and local public works projects with a value of $30,000 or more.
The next case,
GRFCO, Inc. v. Superior Court, 89 Cal.App.5th 1295 (2023), discusses the last of these requirements. The case also reminded me of W.C. Field’s old saying – “If you can’t dazzle em’ with brilliance, baffle em’ with bullshit” – and which ended with expected results.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
New OSHA Rule Creates Electronic Reporting Requirement
June 22, 2016 —
John K. Baker & Kevin Conrad – White and Williams LLPThe United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a
Final Rule revising portions of its Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses regulations (Recording and Reporting Regulations). The revisions take effect August 10, 2016.
Employers subject to the new requirements have until July 1, 2017 to submit electronically the required information for calendar year 2016. OSHA will make electronically-submitted workplace-safety data for each reporting employer available publicly in an online database.
Reprinted courtesy of
John K. Baker, White and Williams LLP and
Kevin Conrad, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Baker may be contacted at bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Conrad may be contacted at conradk@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals
February 10, 2012 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogStonewood v. Infinity Homes is a simple construction dispute over a matter of about $9,000.00. But sometimes these tiny little disputes turn into expensive legal battles over mere procedural quivering. In Stonewood, a small subcontractor won a big victory yesterday when the Divison 1 Court of Appeals upheld its judgment against a lien release bond posted by an owner.
Infinity Homes contracted with Stonewood Design to lay tile in one of its customer’s homes. Stonewood did the work, but Infinity withheld roughly $9,000.00 of the contract sums for what it alleged were trade damages left on the tile. The two parties were unable to come to an agreement over payment and Stonewood proceeded with a lien under RCW 60.04. It then filed an action to enforce the lien against the homeowner, Infinity and its bonding company.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.
In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”
Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.
The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”
The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”
The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
