Additional Insured is Loss Payee after Hurricane Damage
October 01, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiConstruing the policy language, the federal district court found that the policy's additional insured was the loss payee for damage caused by Hurricanes Laura and Delta. TCP Ryan St. LLC v. Weschester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125529 (W.D. La. July 16, 2024).
Hurricanes Laura and Delta caused damage to TCP Ryan Street, LLC's (TCP) property. Westchester had issued a policy to MRI Heritage Brand, Inc. (MRI). MRI, as lessee, was obligated pursuant to the lease terms to "purchase and maintain . . . a policy of fire, extended coverage, vandalism and malicious mischief (or 'all risk') insurance coverage on all real property situated at the Lease Premises." The lease also required MRI to obtain coverage under a policy naming only the landlord as the sole insured and provided that the proceeds would be payable to the landlord.
The policy provided that no entity was covered unless Westchester had received identifying information for the entity during the application process or the entity was added by endorsement.
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
Energy Company Covered for Business Interruption Losses Caused by Fire and Resulting in Town-Ordered Shutdown
February 15, 2021 —
David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In the case of NextSun Energy Littleton, LLC v. Acadia Ins. Co., the United States District Court of Massachusetts held that once direct physical damage from a covered peril causes a covered business interruption loss, any increase in the duration of such business interruption, due to the enforcement of an ordinance or law, extends the coverage period provided for lost income. The Court further held that a policy exclusion for business interruption due to the enforcement of any ordinance or law not in force at the time of the loss only applies when the ordinance or law itself, not the enforcement action that it authorizes, was not in force at the time of the loss.
The case involved a solar panel company, NextSun Energy Littleton (NextSun), that operated solar panel arrays providing electricity to the town of Littleton, Massachusetts. Due to a fire, 88 of the solar panels were damaged, and the Town immediately issued a “red-tag” order halting all energy-generating activity pending a safety inspection. The plaintiff purchased insurance for its panels along with “Energy Generating Income” (EGI) coverage, from the defendant, Acadia Ins. Co. (Acadia). The EGI policy covered “direct physical loss or damage” to “renewable energy generating equipment” and also covered the actual loss of surplus power income incurred during the interruption period. However, it excluded interruption of energy-generating income “caused by the enforcement of any ordinance, law, or decree … not in force at the time of loss.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Jordan may be contacted at
DJordan@sdvlaw.com
Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company
January 11, 2021 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn Auburn Woods HOA v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 56 Cal.App.5th 717 (October 28,2020) (certified for partial publication), the California Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) regarding a lawsuit for breach of contract and bad faith brought by Auburn Woods Homeowners Association (“HOA”) and property manager, Frei Real Estate Services (“FRES”) against State Farm and the HOA’s broker, Frank Lewis. The parties’ dispute arose out of the tender of two different lawsuits filed against the HOA and FRES by Marva Beadle (“Beadle”). The first lawsuit was filed by Beadle as the owner of a condominium unit against the HOA and FRES for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an accounting related to amounts allegedly owed by Beadle to the HOA as association fees. The second lawsuit filed by Beadle was for the purpose of setting aside a foreclosure sale, cancelling the trustee’s deed and quieting title, and for an accounting and injunctive relief against an unlawful detainer action filed by Sutter Group, LP against Beadle. The complaint filed in the second lawsuit alleged that Allied Trustee Services caused Beadle’s property to be sold at auction and that Sutter Capital Group, LP purchased the unit and obtained a trustee’s deed upon sale. Beadle claimed the assessments against her were improper and the trustee’s deed upon sale was wrongfully executed. Beadle sought an order restoring possession of her unit and damages.
The HOA and FRES tendered both lawsuits to State Farm. As respects the first lawsuit, State Farm denied coverage of the lawsuit based on the absence of alleged “damages” covered by the policy issued to the HOA affording liability and directors and officers (“D&O”) coverages. State Farm agreed to defend the HOA under the D&O coverage in the second lawsuit. However, State Farm denied coverage of FRES in both lawsuits as it did not qualify as an insured under the State Farm policy issued to the HOA. Subsequently, the HOA and FRES filed an action against State Farm arguing that a duty to defend was triggered under its policy for the first lawsuit and a duty to defend FRES was also owed under the D&O policy for the second lawsuit. After a bench trial, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm based on the failure of the first lawsuit to allege damages covered by the State Farm policy under the liability and D&O coverages afforded by the policy. As respects the second lawsuit, the trial court held that FRES did not qualify as an insured and State Farm did not act in bad faith by refusing to pay the HOA’s alleged defense costs in the second lawsuit before it agreed to defend the HOA against such lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
The EPA and the Corps of Engineers Propose Another Revised Definition of “Waters of the United States”
February 14, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn December 7, 2021, the most recent proposed revision to the Clean Water Act’s term, “Waters of the United States” was published in the Federal Register. (See 86 FR 69372.) Comments on this proposal must be submitted by February 7, 2022. This term controls the scope of federal regulatory powers in such programs as the development of water quality standards, impaired waters, total maximum daily loads, oil spill prevention, preparedness and response plans, state and tribal water quality certification programs, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, and the Corps of Engineers’ dredge and fill program. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Corps of Engineers have jointly drafted this comprehensive proposed rule, which also responds to President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, issued in January 2021.
Background
The agencies noted that they have repeatedly defined and re-defined “Waters of the United States” since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972. This level of sustained commitment is unique to this program, perhaps reflecting the importance of the programs that are implemented through the Clean Water Act. The most recent rulemaking efforts took place in 2015, 2017, 2020 and now 2022, and the Supreme Court has issued several landmark rulings in response to these efforts. See City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 US 304 (1981), United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 US 121 (1985), SWANCC v. United States, 531 US 159 (2001), Rapanos v. United States, 547 US 715 (2006), National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, 138 S Ct 617 (2018), and County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 140 S, Ct 1462 (2020). The rules promulgated in 2015 and entitled, “Clean Water Act: Definition of Waters of the United States” expanded the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction, but the 2020 rule, entitled the “Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” contracted that scope. Now, the agencies have proposed the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” which will rescind the 2020 rule and inevitably restore something of the scope of the 2015 rule by returning to the familiar “1986 rules” that were issued by the Corps of Engineers in 1986 and EPA in 1988, as modified by the recent Supreme Court decisions mentioned above. Both the 2015 and 2020 rules were mired in litigation and the Corps and EPA view the resort to the 1986 rules as a fresh start for the Clean Water Act. In short, the topsy-turvy history of regulation under the Clean Water Act continues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Buyer Alleges Condo Full of Mold and Mice
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSarah Schottenstein purchased a New York condo for $1.65 million, and claimed that “she wound up getting a moldy, mouse-infested mess,” according to DNAinfo New York. Schottenstein alleged that “within a month of moving in she found her apartment was infested with mice, had toxic mold growing beneath her floors, brown water coming from the tap and leaks from the ceiling, according to court documents.”
According to DNAinfo New York, “Microecologies Inc., an environmental health firm, found 'very heavy levels' of the infectious mold Aspergillus Chaetomium under the floor of Schottenstein's apartment.”
However, Larry Pittinsky, an attorney for the condo board, told DNAinfo New York that “the case was "about a woman trying to escape her obligation to pay money.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Contract Basics: Venue and Choice of Law
February 19, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsPreviously in this on-again-off-again series of posts on construction contract basics, I discussed attorney fees provisions and indemnification. In this installment, the topic at hand is venue and choice of law.
As construction professionals (outside of us construction attorneys), you are likely to be focused on things like the scope of work in a construction contract, the price terms, payment, delays, change orders, and the like. However, the venue (where any lawsuit or arbitration will have to happen) and the choice of law (what state’s law applies) can be equally important. You need to know where you will have to enforce your rights under the contract and also what law will apply. Will you need to go to another state to enforce your rights? Even if not, will your local attorney have to learn the law of another jurisdiction? These are important questions when reading and negotiating your prime contract (if with the owner) or subcontract (if with the general contractor).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Contractual “Pay if Paid” and “Pay when Paid” Clauses? What is a California Construction Subcontractor to Do?
November 29, 2021 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupThe Situation California Construction Subcontractors Face in Obtaining Payment:
California construction subcontractors find themselves faced with a significant payment issue every time they are asked to sign a subcontract on a major project. Invariably, the subcontract the prime contractor presents to the subcontractor for signature will contain a clause by which the prime contractor imposes a condition on payment from the prime contractor to the subcontractor. The condition will be either one or the other of two general types. Either the prime contractor will specify that it never has to pay the subcontractor if the prime contractor itself is not paid by the owner (a “pay-if-paid” clause), or the prime contractor will pay the subcontractor only after the prime contractor has first exhausted all its efforts to obtain payment from the owner through litigation, arbitration or otherwise, possibly delaying payment to subcontractors by months or even years (a “pay-when-paid” clause).
Goal of the Article:
The goal of this article is to draw a distinction between the pay-if-paid and pay-when-paid clauses, discuss the legality of these clauses in California, the problems these clauses create for subcontractors, advise the reader of helpful recent legal developments in this area of law, address the possibility of a further legislative remedy to address the issue, and discuss what the subcontractor might do to protect itself while awaiting a legislative remedy that may or may not ever arrive.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long
November 15, 2021 —
Debra K. Rubin & Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans on Nov. 6 stayed the Biden administration's requirement that workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly, citing potential "grave statutory and constitutional" issues raised by opponents of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration's emergency temporary standard announced on Nov. 4.
Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record and
Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
