Who is Responsible for Construction Defect Repairs?
August 24, 2017 —
Laura Parsons-CDJ STAFFAn appellate court has ruled that the sponsor and not the condo board is responsible for repairing construction defects at 50 Madison Avenue, a multi-story apartment building in New York City across from Madison Square Park, Habitat reported. Plaintiff’s Simon and Ludmilla Lorne have brought upon three lawsuits in a legal battle lasting a decade.
The first came in 2007, two years after the Lorne’s purchased their $3 million seventh-floor apartment. At that time, the sponsor offered to repair the concrete slab under the hardwood floors that had not been properly leveled. However, the Lorne’s and the condo board disagreed about who and how the repairs would be accomplished. The second lawsuit wherein the court ruled that repairing the construction defects was the responsibility of the sponsor occurred in 2009. However, the Lorne’s sued the board yet again in 2015, citing failure to maintain and repair the building. Since the 2015 suit was based on the same allegations as the 2007 suit, it was dismissed by the judge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Illinois Federal Court Determines if Damages Are Too Remote
July 13, 2020 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistForeseeability is a tort concept that tends to permeate several aspects of legal analysis, often causing confusion in litigants’ interpretation of, and courts’ application of, foreseeability to their cases. In Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Progress Rail Services. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73967 (C.D. Ill.), the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois took on the task of analyzing a case dealing with foreseeability issues to determine if the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty and if the damages were so remote as to violate public policy. The court held that since the defendant’s actions contributed to the risk of harm to the plaintiff and the facts satisfied the four-prong duty test, the defendant owed the plaintiff’s subrogor a duty of reasonable care. It also held that the plaintiff’s damage claim did not open the defendant up to liability that would violate public policy.
In the case, an employee of defendant Progress Rail Services Corporation (Progress Rail) was operating a crane at Progress Rail’s Galesburg location on May 7, 2018. The employee struck an overhead power line while working, causing a power disruption to nearby businesses. The plaintiff’s subrogor, Midstate Manufacturing Company (Midstate), was one of the affected businesses, reporting that its Amada hydraulic punch was damaged. Midstate submitted a property damage claim to its carrier, Cincinnati Insurance Company (Cincinnati), who reimbursed it under its policy. Subsequent to its payment, Cincinnati filed suit against Progress Rail in Illinois state court. Progress Rail then removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Apple to Open Steve Jobs-Inspired Ring-Shaped Campus in April
February 23, 2017 —
Adam Satariano - BloombergApple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs’ last public event in 2011 was a city council meeting in Cupertino, California, where he presented plans for a sprawling new campus with a spaceship-shaped building and tree-filled park. Apple announced Wednesday that it will begin moving employees into the 2.9 million-square-foot facility in April.
Apple said a new 1,000-seat auditorium at the facility will be named the Steve Jobs Theater in honor of its co-founder, who died four months after his city council presentation and would have turned 62 on Feb. 24.
As with many large-scale construction projects, Apple faced budget overruns and delays. The building cost an estimated $5 billion (though Apple has never said how much), and the opening date had initially been set for 2015.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Adam Satariano, BloombergMr. Satariano may be followed on Twitter @satariano
The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on the Insurance Industry, Part One: Coverage, Exposure, and Losses
August 22, 2022 —
Michael Kopit - Lewis Brisbois(August 10, 2022) - The Russia-Ukraine conflict has far-reaching implications for the insurance industry and for insurers and insureds alike. Many corporate policy holders around the world have withdrawn or scaled back operations with Russia and/or Russian-based corporations. In doing so, the corporate policy holders left behind property, assets, and inventory in Russia and/or suffered losses in revenue. Corporate policy holders are looking to their insurers to offset the losses. It is estimated that the insurance and reinsurance markets could face losses at nearly $20 billion. S&P Global predicts that losses could reach $35 billion. Additionally, the conflict in Ukraine creates uncertainty for insurers on how to navigate the influx of claims, especially from the cybersecurity sector.
A key issue with the rise in claims is coverage. The general rule is that coverage under a policy for any loss must be evaluated by considering the policy language, the law applicable to the governing jurisdiction, and the facts surrounding the loss. Many policies contain a “war exclusion” clause, which can exclude property losses resulting from acts of war or governmental instability. However, corporate policy holders may have Political Risk Insurance, which can provide coverage for losses for items such as damaged property, seized property, and lost assets at a time of political turmoil or war. Even if a policy has Political Risk Insurance, it does not guarantee payout. Careful analysis of the policy language and facts surrounding the loss must still take place. For example, in the event of property claims, an insurer must still determine whether the loss is related to the conflict and/or whether the subject property was voluntarily abandoned or seized.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Kopit, Lewis BrisboisMr. Kopit may be contacted at
Michael.Kopit@lewisbrisbois.com
Florida Court Puts the Claim of Landlord’s Insurer In The No-Fly Zone
March 06, 2023 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn United States Aviation Underwriters v. Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC, No. 3D22-270, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 1207 (U.S. Aviation), the Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District (Appellate Court) considered whether the insurer for a commercial landlord could pursue subrogation against the landlord’s tenant. Based on the terms of the lease between the landlord and the tenant, the Appellate Court held that the landlord’s insurer could not pursue subrogation.
In U.S. Aviation, the defendant, Turnberry Airport Holdings, LLC (Turnberry Airport) leased space to an insured aircraft owner. The lease contained the following provision:
TENANT agrees that all policies of insurance obtained by it in connection with the Space or as required hereunder shall contain appropriate waiver of subrogation clauses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
A Court-Side Seat: Environmental Developments on the Ninth Circuit
July 13, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn May 26, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided three significant environmental law cases. Two of these cases involved whether global warming tort cases could be brought in California state courts on, for example, a public nuisance claim, and whether the defendant energy companies had the right to have them removed to the federal courts.
County of San Mateo, et al. v. Chevron Corp., et al. and City of Oakland v. BP PLC, et al.
While acknowledging the immensity of the legal issues, the Ninth Circuit held that the federal removal statutes did not permit these cases to be removed to the federal courts. For one thing, state court jurisdiction was not preempted by the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the ruling of Federal Judge Chhabria in the Chevron case, and vacated Judge Alsup’s ruling in the BP case that he had jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to federal common law, and then to dismiss it. The court also remanded the case to Judge Alsup, and directed him to determine if there was an “alternate basis” for federal court jurisdiction based on the pleadings that an issue of ”navigable waters” was a concern.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Fire Raging North of Los Angeles Is Getting Fuel From Dry Winds
June 17, 2024 —
Brian K Sullivan - BloombergA wildfire raging north of Los Angeles has sent smoke billowing south and forced more than 1,000 people to evacuate — and with dry winds raking the hills, the blaze is poised to intensify.
A red flag fire warning has been raised in the area around the Post Fire, which is forecast to be whipped with winds reaching at least 20 miles (32 kilometers) per hour, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, commonly called Cal Fire. The flames, which have burned more than 14,000 acres (5,700 hectares), are only about 8% contained and the smoke has prompted air quality alerts in parts of Los Angeles County and Ventura County.
“Crews are working to establish perimeter fire lines around the fire’s edges,” Cal Fire said in a report. “Aircraft are being utilized to halt the fire’s forward progress but are facing challenges due to limited visibility.”
Along with the Post Fire, crews are battling 10 other blazes throughout the state that flared up over the weekend in an ominous start to wildfire season. While California had heavy snow and rain this past winter, that doesn’t mean a respite from fires. The moisture that kept drought away allowed for grasses and brush to grow, meaning more wildfire fuel as California enters its driest months.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian K Sullivan, Bloomberg
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
