California Court Forces Insurer to Play Ball in COVID-19 Insurance Coverage Suit
December 13, 2022 —
Latosha M. Ellis & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOne of the threshold issues in COVID-19 insurance coverage cases that have been brought across the country is whether the policyholder’s allegations meet the applicable pleading standard in alleging that the virus caused physical loss or damage. In many cases, the courts have gotten it wrong, effectively holding policyholders to a higher standard than required. But recently, a California federal judge righted those wrongs by acknowledging the correct pleading standard in that case, which is whether the allegations state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The Court, here, correctly recognized that the policyholder, the Los Angeles Lakers, met that pleading standard when it alleged that the COVID-19 virus can cause physical loss or damage by physically altering property.
In its complaint, the Los Angeles Lakers alleged that the virus physically altered its property by changing its chemical and physical property conditions, creating viral vectors that required remedial measures before the property was safe again. Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 591 F. Supp. 3d 672 (C.D. Cal. 2022), adhered to on reconsideration, 2022 WL 16571193 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). The Court agreed that these allegations by the Lakers adequately pled physical alteration to support a claim for property damage. The insurer requested reconsideration of the decision, and the Court emphatically affirmed its prior decision, explaining its rationale as follows:
The Court lacks the scientific expertise necessary to conclude, based solely on the allegations in the FAC . . . that it is not plausible for the Lakers’ property to have been physically altered by the Virus, which the Lakers adequately alleged. Consequently, the Court, in the March 17 Order, concluded that the Lakers’ theory was plausible. Whether the Lakers can actually prove its theory will be determined at summary judgment or trial.
Reprinted courtesy of
Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congress Addresses Homebuilding Credit Crunch
May 20, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) reports that Representatives Gary Miller (CA), Brad Miller (NC) and twenty-nine cosponsors have put forth a bill with bipartisan support to “address the severe credit crunch for acquisition, development, and construction (AD&C) financing.” They report in addition to more than 1.4 million construction workers who have been “idled since 2006,” the housing slump has cost 3 million jobs and $145 million in wages.
NAHB reports that they worked closely with lawmakers on the bill. The association had members meet with legislators both in D.C. and in their home districts. They state that HR 1755 would help homebuilders “find the credit they need to move forward with new or existing projects.”
The bill would allow lenders to use the value upon completion when assessing loan collateral and ban the use of foreclosed or distressed sale properties in assessing values of projects. The would bill would also lessen restrictions by banking regulators, which the lead sponsors said “have hindered federal and state chartered banks and thrifts’ ability to make and maintain loans to qualified small home builders that have viable projects.”
The NAHB is urging members of Congress to cosponsor the bill and is urging the Senate to introduce a companion bill.
Read the full story…
Read HR 1755
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Substitution Hearings Under California’s Listing Law
March 04, 2019 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe next case, JMS Air Conditioning and Appliance Service, Inc. v. Santa Monica Community College District, 2nd District Court of Appeal, Case No. B284068 (December 17, 2018), provides an interesting behind-the-scenes look at substitution hearings under the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act.
The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act
- The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (Public Contract Code Section 4100 et seq.), also commonly referred to as the “Listing Law,” requires that prime contractors on state and local public works projects “list” the following subcontractors in their bids:
- Subcontractors who are anticipated to perform work with a value in excess of 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid; and
Subcontractors, on street, highway and bridge projects, who are anticipated to perform work with a value in excess of the greater of: (a) 0.5% of the prime contractor’s total bid; or (b) in excess of $10,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel RosenMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Florida SB 2022-736: Construction Defect Claims
February 07, 2022 —
Kelly A. Johnson - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.*Special thank you to SDV Law Clerk Iliriana Fteja for contributing to this article.
A new bill (SB 2022-736) was recently introduced to the Florida Senate. The proposed amendments to the statutes of limitations and repose could significantly impact construction defect claims by effectively creating additional exposure to contractors and insurance carriers.
The proposed bill requires all actions founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property to be commenced within four years after the time to commence an action begins. Under the proposed amendment, the time to commence an action runs from the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion of the contract or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and their employer. This provision would effectively alter the time to commence an action to whichever triggering event is earliest instead of the latest triggering event per the previous statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Johnson may be contacted at
KJohnson@sdvlaw.com
Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”
While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”
Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”
In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.
The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”
The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.
The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”
The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”
The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”
The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brazil's Success at Hosting World Cup Bodes Well for Olympics
July 16, 2014 —
David Biller and Juan Pablo Spinetto – BloombergA month ago, everyone from soccer analysts to economists said Brazil would win the World Cup title while the monthlong tournament would be marred by unfinished stadiums, violence and horrific traffic. How things change.
Fans booed Brazil’s soccer team during the nation’s biggest-ever loss, a 7-1 pummeling by Germany last week which ended hopes of winning a record sixth championship. In the wake of the team’s 3-0 loss to the Netherlands in the consolation game, there have been calls from fans in the streets to President Dilma Rousseff to rebuild the national team.
Yet Brazil’s unprecedented defeats contrast with the organizational success of the world’s most-watched sports event, which went off without major hitches following months of public criticism about partially-finished stadiums, labor strikes and threats of mass protests. The results may bode well for the country’s ability to pull off a successful 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio.
Mr. Biller may be contacted at dbiller1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Spinetto may be contacted at jspinetto@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Biller and Juan Pablo Spinetto, Bloomberg
What Should Business Owners Do If a Customer Won’t Pay
January 02, 2024 —
Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation BlogIt should be simple: you provide a service, and your customer pays you for that service. Unfortunately, it is not always so simple.
Not getting paid for your work can be one of the most frustrating issues, especially for small businesses. It also does not take much for money matters to
lead to larger disputes. So, what should small business owners do in these cases?
1. Start with a reminder notice
Most sources, including the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, agree that business owners should not begin by escalating the situation. Take time to review and fully understand the circumstances of this individual case. Then, begin with resending the invoice or sending reminders to pay.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott L. Baker, Baker & AssociatesMr. Baker may be contacted at
slb@bakerslaw.com
Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations
November 01, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesUnder the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project.
Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you!
In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
