The Fifth Circuit, Applying Texas Law, Strikes Down Auto Exclusion
July 11, 2022 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogPenn-America Ins. Co. v. Tarango Trucking, LLC, 30 F.4th 440 (5th Cir. 2022), involved a coverage dispute over Penn-America Insurance Company’s (“Penn-America”) duty to defend and indemnify third-party claims against Tarango Trucking, LLC (“Tarango”) for a fatal accident on its property. At the time of the accident, Penn-America insured Tarango under a commercial general liability policy, which included an “Auto Exclusion” and “Parking Exception” provision. The Auto Exclusion stated the policy did not apply to bodily injury or property damage arising out of the use of any automobile, including the operation and loading or unloading. The Parking Exception stated the Auto Exclusion did not apply to parking an auto on Tarango’s premises. The main issues on appeal were whether the Parking Exception restored coverage otherwise precluded by the Auto Exclusion, and whether the district court prematurely decided Penn-America’s duty to indemnify. The appellate court answered yes to both.
On March 2, 2020, a truck driver employed by WS Excavation, LLC (“WS”), parked his tractor-trailer on Tarango’s property and proceeded to inspect and off-load heavy equipment. While operating the hydraulic lift, the tractor’s braking system disengaged. The tractor rolled back and struck the WS driver and his personal vehicle, resulting in his death and significant property damage. Notably, WS allegedly failed to properly maintain the tractor’s electronic and braking systems, and Tarango allegedly failed to maintain a level parking and loading facility compliant with industry standards and guidelines.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Providing Your Insurer Prompt Notice
May 20, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesSometimes, when it comes to insurance, you may hear the argument that you breached your insurance policy by failing to provide your insurer with prompt notice as the insurance policy requires. Well, this is not such an absolute issue. With that said, you should absolutely provide your insurer with prompt notice of a claim or loss. No legitimate reason not to. But, if you don’t, it is not an absolute get out of jail free card for your insurer, but it does give them a good argument, which you don’t really want to deal with.
In Gulfpoint Construction Co., Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2024 WL 1759228 (11th Cir. 2024), an insured appealed a trial court’s ruling that found it did not provide prompt notice to its property insurer as the policy required. In this case, notice was provided two years after a loss from a hurricane. The insurer denied coverage and, in doing so, relied on the insured’s failure to provide prompt notice. Although the trial court agreed, the appellate court found this was a genuine issue of material fact.
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
Mortgage Firms Face Foreclosure Ban Until 2022 Under CFPB Plan
April 05, 2021 —
Alex Wittenberg - BloombergMillions of homeowners who’ve fallen behind on mortgage payments due to the pandemic would have more time before facing foreclosure under rules proposed Monday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The revamp would generally prohibit mortgage servicers from starting foreclosures until after Dec. 31, the CFPB said in a statement. The goal is to give the nearly 3 million borrowers who’ve delayed or stopped making payments a chance to resume them before lenders initiate forced home sales.
A key reason why the CFPB said the change is necessary is because an estimated 1.7 million consumers will exit U.S. forbearance relief programs in September and the ensuing months, meaning they will have to start making payments again.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alex Wittenberg, Bloomberg
Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Secures Summary Judgment Win for National Hotel Chain
August 26, 2019 —
Bradley T. Guldalian - Traub LiebermanOn June 26, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment on behalf of a national hotel chain in a slip and fall accident filed in Osceola County Circuit Court in Kissimmee, Florida. The underlying loss occurred when the Plaintiff slipped and fell in a puddle of water allegedly existing in the hotel’s laundry room and suffered a partial thickness rotator cuff tear involving the distal infraspinatus tendon for which he underwent surgery and incurred over $70,000 in medical bills. The Plaintiff filed a premises liability action against the hotel claiming the hotel had failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition proximately causing the Plaintiff’s fall and resulting injuries.
After discovery closed, Mr. Guldalian filed a motion for summary judgment on behalf of the hotel arguing that to prevail in a negligence claim involving a “transitory foreign substance”, such as water on a floor, an injured party must plead and prove pursuant to Florida Statute 768.0755 that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it prior to the time of the alleged fall. Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that (1) the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition or (2) that the condition occurred with such regularity that it was foreseeable that the condition would be present on the day the injury occurred.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub LiebermanMr. Guldalian may be contacted at
bguldalian@tlsslaw.com
Is Your Home Improvement Contract Putting You At Risk?
February 10, 2020 —
Hannah Kreuser - Porter Law GroupIf you are like many contractors, odds are that your home improvement contract (HIC) is not compliant with California law, putting you at risk for disciplinary action, voiding of the contract, and even criminal prosecution.
Generally, the laws allow parties to contract how they wish. However, California HICs are an exception and California Business and Professions Code (BPC) requires much in the way of content, form and formatting for a HIC to meet the legal requirements. This is because California has written its laws to provide broad protections to homeowners when it comes to construction work performed at their residence. However, in attempting to promote this goal, the laws surrounding HICs have produced requirements that are confusing and fail to account for the realities of a home improvement project, making it difficult and uncomfortable for contractors to comply.
A HIC is required for home improvement projects that change a residence or property. Specifically, the law defines a “home improvement” as “the repairing, remodeling, altering, converting, or modernizing of, or adding to, residential property and shall include, but not be limited to, the construction, erection, replacement or improvement of driveways, swimming pools, including spas and hot tubs, terraces, patios, awnings, storm windows, landscaping, fences, porches, garages, fallout shelters, basements, and other improvements of the structures or land which is adjacent to a dwelling house.” (BPC section 7151.) A HIC is not required for new residential construction; for work priced at $500 or less; the sale, installation, and service of a fire alarm or burglar system; or a service and repair contract (which has its own requirements).
When a HIC is used, BPC section 7159 specifies certain content, form, and format requirements, all of which must be followed to produce a compliant HIC. While this article will not discuss all of these requirements, it will discuss some of the problems commonly seen in HICs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hannah Kreuser, Porter Law GroupMs. Kreuser may be contacted at
hkreuser@porterlaw.com
Resulting Loss From Faulty Workmanship Covered
May 20, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Washington Supreme Court found there was coverage for resulting loss despite the original faulty contraction, an exclusion in the policy. Gardens Condominium v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 544 P.3d 499 (Wash. 2024).
Farmers issued a policy to Gardens Condominium providing coverage for loss or damage caused by a "Covered Cause of Loss." "Covered Cause of Loss" was defined as any risk of direct physical loss. However, a loss was not covered if it was caused by an excluded event. The policy further provided that damage was caused by an excluded event if that event "initiates a sequence of events that results in loss or damage, regardless of the nature of any intermediate or final event in that sequence." The policy excluded coverage for faulty, inadequate, or defective design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction, or renovation. The faulty workmanship exclusion also contained a resulting loss exception: "[I]f loss or damage caused by a Covered Cause of Loss results, we will pay for that resulting loss or damage."
Gardens found damage to the building that was caused by faulty design and construction of the building's roof. There was insufficient interior vents and the design of the rafters and joists prevented need ventilation Water vapor condensed on the underside of the roof sheathing, causing damage. Gardens redesigned and repaired the roof assembly to increase ventilation and eliminate condensation by installing sleepers on top of the joists.
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
Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause
March 09, 2020 —
Aimee Cook Oleson - Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogIndemnification clauses appear in nearly every agreement, but they are often overlooked as mere boilerplate provisions after the parties have painstakingly negotiated all of the other terms. It is not uncommon for parties to simply re-use the indemnity language from a prior agreement without considering whether it is a good fit for their current project. This can be a big mistake that may lead to ambiguities and uncertainties if a dispute arises down the road. A standard or canned indemnification clause might work to undo all of the effort that has gone into properly allocating risk. These clauses often contain language such as “notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,” or the like, which can alter and override other provisions in the agreement.
Indemnification clauses are arguably the most important part of an agreement when an accident or dispute arises on a project. Therefore, they deserve an extra look before finalizing an agreement. Here are a few issues to keep in mind when reviewing your next indemnification clause:
- Have you included all necessary parties?
- Any party who could face potential liability should be included as an indemnified party. This often includes entities and persons related to the contracting parties, not just the parties themselves.
- A well drafted indemnity clause will ensure that all parties are liable for the result of their own work and negligence and that of any party that they have hired to work on a project. This includes employees, agents, subcontractors, or any other similar party.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aimee Cook Oleson, Sheppard MullinMs. Oleson may be contacted at
AOleson@sheppardmullin.com
The Riskiest Housing Markets in the U.S.
June 26, 2014 —
Ben Steverman – BloombergThe real estate rollercoaster ride for U.S. homeowners isn't new. Some markets had even rockier rides in the early 1980s or '90s.
When so much wealth is tied up in one asset, the risk -- or stability -- of a local market can mean a lot to a homeowner. (See “The Hidden Risks in Your Housing Market” for more on this.)
Bloomberg.com asked real estate website Zillow.com to help us figure out which U.S. markets have been the riskiest over the last 35 years.
Our measure of risk: Assuming buyers held on to their homes for five years before selling, what was their chance of suffering a loss? As a secondary criterion, we compared the worst annual losses homeowners in these markets have experienced since 1979.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Steverman, BloombergMr. Steverman may be contacted at
bsteverman@bloomberg.net
