Insurer’s Confession Of Judgment Through Post-Lawsuit Payment
June 25, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe recent opinion in the property insurance coverage dispute, Bryant v. Geovera Specialty Ins. Co., 44 Fla.L.Weekly D1232a (Fla. 4thDCA 2019), discusses the doctrine known as an insurer’s “confession of judgment.” In this case, an insured suffered water damage from a pipe leak. The insurer paid the insured $6,000 because of sublimits in the property insurance policy. There was a $5,000 sublimit for mold and a $1,000 sublimit for water leakage that occurs over a period of 14 days or more. The insured sued the insurer for covered water damage arguing that the sublimits did not apply.
After the lawsuit was filed, an agreed order was entered that stayed the case pending an appraisal. The appraisal award did not apply the $1,000 sublimit to the water damage from the pipe leak and segregated out damage for mold. (The insurer already paid the mold sublimit). The insurer ended up paying the appraisal award for the water damage caused by the pipe leak after deducting its pre-lawsuit sublimit payment. The insurer paid the award and did NOT challenge the application of the $1,000 sublimit in court, although it could have since coverage issues are decided by courts.
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
OSHA Extends Temporary Fall Protection Rules
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFOSHA announced that its current rules on fall protection for residential construction will remain in place until September 15, 2012. The current measures became effective in June 2011. Under the new rules, falls must be prevented by fall protection measures unless the measures can be shown to be unfeasible or even hazardous.
Under the extension of the temporary enforcement measures, contractors who ask for compliance assistance with OSHA are given top priority and penalties can be reduced. OSHA has conducted more than 1,000 outreach sessions on the new rules.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals
October 28, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIt’s a tactic as old as war itself.
You can often gain a strategic advantage by selecting the location of battle.
The same is true in litigation.
But as the next case illustrates, when it comes to disputes between contractors (and design professionals), it isn’t always the combatants who dictate where the battle will be fought.
Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.
In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc., Case No. A141010, California Court of Appeals for the First District (September 25, 2015), Texas architecture firm HKS Architects, Inc. (“HKS”) was hired to provide architectural services. HKS’ design service agreement included a Texas forum selection clause which provided:
As a condition precedent to the institution of any action [or] lawsuit all disputes shall be submitted to mediation” and “[a]ll claim , disputes, and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or related to the Agreement . . . be resolved by the . . . courts in . . . Texas.”
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com
Congratulations 2019 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
December 09, 2019 — White and Williams LLP
Fifteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eight received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.
Super Lawyers 2019
John Balaguer, PI Defense: Med Mal
David Chaffin, Business Litigation
Kevin Cottone, PI Defense: Med Mal
Steven Coury, Real Estate: Business
John Eagan, Tax: Business
Randy Friedberg, Intellectual Property
Bridget La Rosa, Estate Planning & Probate
Christopher Leise, Civil Litigation: Defense
Randy Maniloff, Insurance Coverage
David Marion, Business Litigation
John McCarrick, Insurance Coverage
Peter Mooney, Business Litigation
Michael Olsan, Insurance Coverage
John Orlando, General Litigation
Wesley Payne, Insurance Coverage
Daryn Rush, Insurance Coverage
Anthony Salvino, Workers’ Comp
Patricia Santelle, Insurance Coverage
Jay Shapiro, Business Litigation
Heidi Sorvino, Bankruptcy: Business
Craig Stewart, Business Litigation
Andrew Susko, Civil Litigation: Defense
Robert Wright, Insurance Coverage Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP
Insurance Law Alert: Ambiguous Producer Agreement Makes Agent-Broker Status a Jury Question
September 10, 2014 — Valerie A. Moore & Christopher Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Douglas v. Fidelity National Ins. (No. A137645; filed 8/29/14), a California appeals court held that it was a jury question whether a retail insurance service with limited binding authority should be deemed a broker or an agent for the purpose of determining if application misrepresentations would void coverage.
In Douglas, the homeowners needed insurance for a house they had used as a group home. They sought coverage from Cost-U-Less, which provided personal lines insurance from, among others, Fidelity National Insurance Company. According to the couple’s wife, she went to a Cost-U-Less office where she answered application questions from a person on the telephone, who was later identified as an employee of another company, InsZone.
InsZone had a producer contract with Fidelity. In practice, InsZone would be contacted by Cost-U-Less via telephone, at which point an InsZone employee would verbally solicit information from the client, with the information being entered into a computer by the InsZone employee and then transmitted electronically to Fidelity.
Reprinted courtesy of Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property
April 15, 2015 — Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche, et al. (No. A139189 & A141090, filed 4/9/15) (Ram’s Gate), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held the doctrine of merger did not extinguish a seller’s contractual duty to disclose potentially hazardous seismic conditions on a Sonoma winery property.
In Ram’s Gate, the buyer of the property filed a lawsuit alleging the seller failed to disclose information relating to earthquake issues prior to the close of escrow. In the parties’ “Purchase and Sales Agreement” (Purchase Agreement) the seller agreed to disclose any information known to it regarding “known geological hazards . . . soil reports . . . geotechnical reports” and other facts “having effect on the value of the ownership or use of the property.” The seller, however, argued this disclosure warranty did not survive the escrow period because it did not expressly provide for survival while other provisions in the Purchase Agreement did.
Reprinted courtesy of Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Statute of Frauds Applies to Sale of Real Property
April 19, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
In law school, one of the first legal doctrines we learn is known as the “statute of frauds.” The statute of frauds is essentially a defense to a contract enforcement action claiming the contract is unenforceable due to the statute of frauds. In other words, this doctrine is raised when one party seeks to enforce a contract. The other party argues, “not so fast,” because the contract is NOT enforceable in light of the statute of frauds.
Common scenarios where the statute of frauds comes into play are with transactions involving real property or agreements where services are not to be performed within one year.
The statue of frauds doctrine is contained in Florida Statute s. 725.01:
No action shall be brought whereby to charge any executor or administrator upon any special promise to answer or pay any debt or damages out of her or his own estate, or whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person or to charge any person upon any agreement made upon consideration of marriage, or upon any contract for the sale of lands, tenements or hereditaments, or of any uncertain interest in or concerning them, or for any lease thereof for a period longer than 1 year, or upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of 1 year from the making thereof, or whereby to charge any health care provider upon any guarantee, warranty, or assurance as to the results of any medical, surgical, or diagnostic procedure performed by any physician licensed under chapter 458, osteopathic physician licensed under chapter 459, chiropractic physician licensed under chapter 460, podiatric physician licensed under chapter 461, or dentist licensed under chapter 466, unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by her or him thereunto lawfully authorized.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com
Review of Recent Contractors State License Board Changes
February 27, 2023 — Alexander Moore - Kahana Feld
California’s Contractors State License Board (CSLB) was established in 1929 to protect California residents through licensing and regulating contractors working in the state. Today, the CSLB licenses approximately 290,000 contractors, utilizing forty-four different classifications. Each licensing classification specifies the type of contracting work permitted by that classification.
The CSLB website (www.cslb.ca.gov) contains a wealth of information for contractors and non-contractor consumers alike. Consumers can use the website’s features to check the history and business information of contractors, searching via license number, business name, or individual name. License applicants can use the website for instructions and forms for the application process. Contractors can use the website for renewals, regulations, and various resources.
One the CSLB’s most important roles is assisting contractors with keeping track of the multitude of state regulations, and periodic changes thereto, that apply to those in the construction trades. The CSLB posts periodic Industry Bulletins which provide helpful guidance and reminders of important construction topics. At year end, the CSLB issues a bulletin to update licensees of the changes to California Law that will become effective on the first of January in the coming year. Below are four of the more interesting and impactful statutory changes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Alexander Moore, Kahana Feld
Mr. Moore may be contacted at amoore@kahanafeld.com
