Court of Appeal Holds Only “Named Insureds” May Sue for Bad Faith Under California FAIR Plan Policy
May 10, 2021 —
Valerie A. Moore & Kathleen E.M. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Wexler v. California Fair Plan Association (No. 303100, filed 4/14/21), Brooke Wexler’s parents insured their residence, which was located in a mountainous high-fire risk area, with a California FAIR Plan Association owner-occupied dwelling policy. The policy only listed Wexler’s parents and did not name Wexler, their adult child, under the policy’s “Insured Name” section. The FAIR Plan expressly disclaimed coverage for “unnamed people,” referred to by the court as the “no-coverage-for-unnamed-persons clause.”
FAIR Plan was created by the Legislature in 1968 and is a joint reinsurance association created to give homeowners in high risk areas access to basic property insurance and is a self-described “insurer of last resort.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kathleen E.M. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kemoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Housing Sales Hurt as Fewer Immigrants Chase Owner Dream
July 01, 2014 —
Kathleen M. Howley – BloombergAfter decades of factory shutdowns and population loss, the city of Dayton, Ohio, has found a fix for its housing market hard-hit by foreclosures -- immigration.
The rust-belt city of 140,000 has been encouraging immigrants from Mexico, Nigeria and Turkey to move there since 2011, after its population hit a 90-year low, by offering to help with resettlement and starting businesses. Dayton’s foreign population grew and so did its housing sales, rising last year at almost twice the national rate.
As the housing recovery nationwide sputters, the story of Dayton reveals a reason why: the U.S. market is missing the sales jolt provided by immigration. Last year, the number of immigrants granted U.S. residency -- typically a requirement to get a mortgage -- hit a nine-year low, according to government data. Immigrants, deterred by a weak American labor market since 2008, aren’t likely to get encouragement from Congress, where support for a reform bill has mostly evaporated.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kathleen M. Howley, BloombergMs. Howley may be contacted at
kmhowley@bloomberg.net
Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds
November 04, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIn Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker.
East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion.
As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Legislative Update: HB 20-1155, HB 20-1290, and HB 20-1348
August 03, 2020 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationThis year’s Colorado State Legislative session was cut short. However, in the period of time Colorado’s Legislature was in session, it passed and evaluated important legislation for Colorado homebuilders. This article highlights relevant legislation for Colorado homebuilders.
1. HB 20-1155
This Bill creates new requirements on new homebuilders to offer renewable energy systems to the buyer of a new home. Specifically, the Bill requires homebuilders to offer each of the following:
- A solar panel system, a solar thermal system, or both;
- Prewiring or pre-plumbing for the above solar systems; and,
- A chase or conduit for future installation of such systems.
The Bill further requires Colorado homebuilders to offer homebuyers one of the following:
- An electric vehicle charging system;
- Prewiring for the future installation for such a system; or,
- A plug-in receptacle in a place accessible to a vehicle parking area.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed
December 06, 2021 —
Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker, LLP - ConsensusDocsConstruction surety bonds are risk management tools utilized by parties on large construction projects. However, bonds are not insurance, and a surety is not an “insurer” of the project. Different from insurance, a surety’s obligation to act typically arises if the principal fails to perform in accordance with the construction contract, and if the claimant satisfies the conditions precedent to enforcing the bond.[1]
This article focuses exclusively on performance bonds on private projects,[2] and highlights practical considerations and surety defenses to enforcement of the performance bond.[3] Spoiler alert – the party making a claim on the bond must strictly adhere to the conditions precedent set forth in the bond throughout the construction project and when calling upon the surety to take action, otherwise the performance bond may be rendered void and unenforceable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker, LLPMr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at
bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com
Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?
June 08, 2020 —
Ben Volpe - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn 1986, the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Pro Rata Liability Act, codified at C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, which eliminated joint and several liability for defendants in favor of pro rata liability.[1] The statute was “designed to avoid holding defendants liable for an amount of compensatory damages reflecting more than their respective degrees of fault.”[2] However, the following year, the Colorado legislature carved out an exception to preserve joint liability for persons “who consciously conspire and deliberately pursue a common plan or design to commit a tortious act.”[3] Because of this conspiracy exception, plaintiffs try to circumvent the general rule against joint and several liability by arguing that construction professionals defending construction defect cases were acting in concert, as co-conspirators. Plaintiffs argue that if they can prove that two or more construction professionals consciously conspired and deliberately pursued a common plan or design, i.e., to build a home or residential community, and such a plan results in the commission of a tort, i.e., negligence, the defendants may be held jointly and severally liable for all of the damages awarded.
Since 1986, Colorado courts have construed the “conspiracy” provision in § 13-21-111.5(4), but some have disagreed as to what constitutes a conspiracy for purposes of imposing joint liability.
Civil Conspiracy
In Colorado, the elements of civil conspiracy are that: “(1) two or more persons; (2) come to a meeting of the minds; (3) on an object to be accomplished or a course of action to be followed; (4) and one or more overt unlawful acts are performed; (5) with damages as the proximate result thereof.”[4]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Benjamin Volpe, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Volpe may be contacted at
volpe@hhmrlaw.com
Newark Trial Team Secures Affirmance of ‘No Cause’ Verdict for Nationwide Housing Manager & Developer
January 07, 2025 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomNewark, N.J. (December 30, 2024) - Newark Partner Afsha Noran and Managing Partner Colin Hackett recently obtained a ruling by a New Jersey Appellate Division panel affirming a unanimous "no cause" defense verdict obtained on behalf of a nationwide housing developer and manager.
In this case, the plaintiff and her two minor children brought suit against the firm's client. They appealed a unanimous no-cause jury verdict rendered in May 2023 that found the defendants not liable for mold exposure in their apartment. The plaintiffs argued that several trial errors, including improper jury instructions, a confusing verdict sheet, and prejudicial remarks by defense counsel led to an unjust result. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that there was no miscarriage of justice and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in handling the case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined
November 30, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesLargely in the federal contract arena, there is a theory referred to as “cumulative impacts” used by a contractor to recover unforeseeable costs associated with a multitude of changes that have an overwhelming ripple effect on its efficiency, particularly efficiency dealing with its original, base contract work. In other words, by dealing with extensive changes, there is an unforeseeable impact imposed on the contractor relative to its unchanged or base contract work. Under this theory, the contractor oftentimes prices its cumulative impact under a total cost approach with an examination on its cost overrun. However, this is not an easy theory to prevail on because there needs to be a focus on the sheer number of changes, causation supporting the impact, and whether there were concurrent impacts or delays that played a role in the ripple effect. See, e.g., Appeals of J.A. Jones Const. Co., ENGBCA No. 6348, 00-2 BCA P 31000 (July 7, 2000) (“However, in the vast majority of cases such claims are routinely denied because there were an insufficient number of changes, contractor-caused concurrent delays, disruptions and inefficiencies and/or a general absence of evidence of causation and impact.”).
To best articulate how the cumulative impact theory has been defined, I want to include language directly from courts and board of contract appeals that have dealt with this theory. This way the contractor knows how to best work with their experts with this definition in mind–and, yes, experts will be needed–to persuasively package and establish causation and damages stemming from the multitude of changes. While many of these definitions are worded differently, you will see they have the same focus dealing with the unforeseeable ripple effect of the extensive changes.
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
