Does Your 998 Offer to Compromise Include Attorneys’ Fees and Costs?
June 15, 2017 —
Anthony J. Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer to compromise is explained in section 998(c)(1):
If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.
Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added).
The Basic Requirements for a Valid 998 Offer
Pursuant to section 998(b), a 998 offer must satisfy three principal conditions: (1) it must be contained in a writing; (2) it must state the terms and conditions of the proposed judgment or award; and (3) it must contain a provision allowing the offeree to accept the offer by signing a statement to that effect. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(b).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony J. Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Motion to Strike Insurer's Expert Opinion Granted
August 13, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insured's motion to strike the testimony of the insurer's expert because the opinion lacked sufficient explanation or analysis. Affinity Mut. Ins. v. Thacker Air Conditioning Refrigeration Heating, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84713 (N.D. Ind. May 20, 2019).
The insured owned a market that needed renovations. The roof over an addition to the market extended from the wall of the extension to the top of the existing roof. The area between the old and new roofs was filled with blown-in insulation, so that the structural support from the new overbuilt roof was not visible. The weight of the overbuilt roof rested on top of the existing roof at the point where they met. This added additional weight on the trusses supporting the main roof.
In 2014, the market upgraded the building with heating and insulation. Thacker was a subcontractor for work on the hearing system. Six gas furnaces, spaced about 35 feet apart along the length of the building, were placed by Thacker. The total weight of each unit was estimated at 280 pounds.
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
Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”
August 30, 2017 —
H. Scott Williams & Brendan Holt - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A recent federal court decision rendered in July of 2017 highlights the importance of worker classification in the transportation industry and the potential insurance implications. In Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Kailey, 1 the court determined that an “employee exclusion” in a motor carrier’s automobile liability insurance policy did not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the bodily injury of an independent contractor operating the motor carrier’s tractor-trailer. In April of 2014, a team of two drivers hired by the motor carrier, Kailey Trucking Line (KTL), were involved in a collision while operating KTL’s truck. The passenger in the truck, who was not operating the vehicle at the time, was killed in the accident. Subsequently, the spouse of the decedent filed suit against KTL as well as the driver of the truck.
KTL sought coverage for the suit under its automobile liability insurance policy, issued by Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (Spirit). However, Spirit took the position that it had no duty to defend or indemnify KTL, and ultimately filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The policy issued to KTL provided coverage for damages due to bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. However, the policy excluded from coverage any bodily injury to an employee or fellow employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment of the insured. Accordingly, to the extent that the decedent qualified as an “employee” of KTL, Spirit had no duty to indemnify KTL in the litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of
H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Brendan C. Colt, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Holt may be contacted at bch@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractors and Owners Will Have an Easier Time Identifying Regulated Wetlands Following Recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion
August 01, 2023 —
David Scriven-Young - ConsensusDocsContractors appreciate how difficult it often is on a technical level to perform work in or near wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas. Such work is even more difficult due to the complex, and ever-changing regulations issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The CWA applies to “navigable waters”, which are defined as “the waters of the United States.” To determine whether certain wetlands are in fact “the waters of the United States”, contractors and owners have had to engage in a fact-intensive “significant-nexus” determination dependent upon a lengthy list of hydrological and ecological factors found in the regulations. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the applicability of those regulations and instituted a simpler test to determine whether wetlands on an owner’s property fall within them.
In
Sackett v. EPA, the Sacketts purchased property near a lake in Idaho. In preparation for building a home, they began backfilling the site with dirt and rocks. A few months later, the EPA sent the Sacketts a compliance order informing them that their backfilling violated the CWA because their property was part of protected wetlands. The EPA demanded that the Sacketts immediately undertake activities to restore the site and threatened the Sacketts with penalties of over $40,000 per day if they did not comply. According to the EPA, the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot fell under the jurisdiction of the CWA because they were “adjacent to” (i.e., in the same neighborhood as) an unnamed tributary on the other side of a 30-foot road, which fed into the nearby lake. The EPA concluded that the Sacketts’ wetlands, when considered together with a large nearby wetland complex, significantly affected the ecology of the lake. Thus, the EPA charged that the Sacketts had illegally dumped soil and gravel into “the waters of the United States.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson PCMr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at
dscriven-young@pecklaw.com
Event-Cancellation Insurance Issues During a Pandemic
September 07, 2020 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Latosha M. Ellis - Hunton Andrews KurthAs the effects of coronavirus continue, organizations and companies now are considering whether events in late 2020 and early 2021 can take place or need to be converted to virtual events. What insurance effects will those changes and cancellations have? Consideration of these important decisions requires a review of both event-cancellation insurance and a consideration of force majeure and other such issues.
On the insurance front, years ago, many policyholders purchased event-cancellation insurance for events in 2020, 2021, and even as far out as 2024. Such policies, purchased before the middle of March 2020, generally contain explicit coverage “buy-backs” for losses from “communicable disease.” That is, the policyholders paid an extra, specifically identified premium to remove any exclusion for communicable disease from these policies. Typically, these policies do not use the word, “virus”, but rather use “communicable disease”; and exclude neither. Those policies typically cover a specified amount of net profit and include additional coverages for “Cost of Remedial Action”, “Future Marketing Expense”, etc., over and above that specified amount of coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Policy Lanuage Expressly Prohibits Replacement of Undamaged Material to Match Damaged Material
March 09, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiConstruing an all-risk Businessowners Policy, the court found that the policy language did not required replacement of undamaged material match materials that were damaged. Pleasure Creek Townhomes Homeowners' Ass'n v. Am. Family Ins. Co., 2019 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1095 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2019).
The policy covered the Association's 14 townhome buildings. In June 2017, a hail storm damaged siding on all 14 buildings. An appraisal panel included the cost to replace the undamaged, faded siding in its appraisal award so that it would match the new siding. American Family refused to pay this component - which was appraised at about $211,382 - of the award.
An exclusion in the policy provided,
We will not pay to repair or replace undamaged material due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.
We do not cover the loss in value to an property due to mismatch between undamaged material and new material used to repair or replace damaged material.
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
Airbnb Declares End to Party!
January 27, 2020 —
Patrick J. Paul - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogAs municipalities around the country evaluate changes to their respective codes in an effort to exert greater control over bad actors in the vacation rental market, Airbnb announced on November 2nd that it is banning party houses. The move comes in response to the shooting deaths of five people at a Halloween party hosted at an Airbnb rental house in Orinda, CA. CEO Brian Chesky announced on Twitter that starting November 2, Airbnb would ban “party houses” and redouble the company’s efforts to “combat unauthorized parties and get rid of abusive host and guest conduct.” twitter.com/bchesky
The four-bedroom rental reportedly had been rented on Airbnb by a woman who advised the owner her family members had asthma and needed to escape smoke from a wildfire burning in Sonoma County about 60 miles north of Orinda earlier in the week. Nevertheless, the homeowner was suspicious of a one-night rental on Halloween and reminded the renter that no parties were allowed. Having received complaints from neighbors and witnessing some party activity via his camera doorbell, the homeowner called police who were en route to the home, but arrived after the shooting. The Halloween party apparently was advertised on social media as an “Airbnb Mansion Party,” with an admission fee of $10 per person.
Independently owned vacation rentals are currently growing at a faster rate than hotels or motels, and in some instances are owned by out-of-state investors seeking not only a real estate return on investment, but also a return on investment associated with revenue streams generated by “pay to play” parties promoted on social media.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick J. Paul, Snell & WilmerMr. Paul may be contacted at
ppaul@swlaw.com
The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada is Just the Beginning
August 28, 2023 —
Payne & Fears LLPOn June 3, 2023, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo signed into law
AB 398 (the Act) which modifies the Nevada insurance code by restricting the types of liability policies that can be offered in the state.
The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada
First, the Act prohibits liability insurers from issuing “eroding limits” or “burning limits” policies. These are insurance policies under which defense costs decrease policy limits. Most professional liability policies are eroding limits policies. As of Oct. 1, 2023, insurers in Nevada may no longer issue or renew any policy where policy limits are eroded by defense costs.
This change may result in higher premiums on these types of policies to compensate for the higher payouts they will now have to provide in Nevada.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
