Efficient Proximate Cause Doctrine Bars Coverage for Collapse of Building
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiThe court rejected the insured's argument that there was coverage for the collapse of a building caused by water leakage (a covered peril) and landslide (an uncovered peril). Stor/Gard, Inc. v. Strathmore Ins. Co., 2013 U.S. LEXIS App. 11015 (1st Cir. May 31, 2013).
A severe rain storm caused soil to slide down a hill and over a retaining wall, thereby damaging a building owned by the insured. Investigators hired by Strathmore Insurance Company determined that rain had soaked into the soil, causing the landslide. Although the investigators found some water leakage, they determined the leakage was not a cause or contributing factor, and was negligible compared to the rain amount.
The insured's policy with Strathmore was an all-risk policy. Loss caused by a landslide was excluded. Further, loss caused by collapse was excluded from coverage except as set forth in the policy's "additional coverage for collapse" section. This section provided coverage for a collapse caused by water damage or a leakage of water. Another exclusion barred coverage for loss caused by weather conditions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case
January 28, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFOn January 3rd of this year, Chad Abraham reported in the Aspen Daily News that the Ute City building—a condominium on Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado—“lacks proper entryways to apartments and a basement-level nightclub space for both tenants and the disabled.”
The owners, Michael Sedoy and Natalia Shvachko, have been sued by the city after refusing “to allow access to an eastside staircase and elevator for other building residents and disabled patrons of a basement restaurant,” according to the Aspen Daily News. “Their stance has forced the other tenants and the disabled to use a westside, alleyway service entrance, according to the city.”
Sedoy and Schvachko’s attorney retorts in court documents “that the city approved of a building map and declarations that allow access through the westside entry in the alley.”
Furthermore, in another article by Abraham published in the Aspen Daily News on January 25th, he relates that the owners had filed more than “more than 30 noise complaints with the police and the city’s environmental health department about eateries and bars around their home on Restaurant Row. That led to a trial for the Aspen Brewing Co., which a jury acquitted in about 10 minutes last week.”
In addition, the couple is being sued by Mountain Home Window Fashions, the Ute City building general contractor. According to the lawsuit as reported by the Daily Aspen News, Mountain Home claims they are owed $12,332. The owners have counter-sued, alleging “that there were defects in Mountain Home Window Fashions’ work” and that one of the employees “made unauthorized charges on Sedoy’s credit card.”
Read the full story, January 3rd article ...
Read the full story, January 25th article ...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The California Legislature Return the Power Back to the People by Passing the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
January 02, 2019 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., David A. Napper, Esq., & Lana Halavi – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerIntroduction
Data breaches and social media hacks are becoming increasingly common stories on the news cycle. Meanwhile, companies have made fortunes on unsuspecting individuals by selling information gathered on the user. Every internet user has wondered why a pop-up ad or banner on an unrelated website relates to something you purchased or searched for "that one time. The California legislature has decided to return some power back to the people with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018. California is the first state to introduce privacy protection for individuals personal data and could pave the way for other states to follow suit in the near future.
The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018
On June 28, 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 ("the Act"). The California Legislature eagerly passed the Act, which comes into effect on January 1, 2020, granting broad new privacy rights to "consumers" and enforcing requirements on the protection of their personal data allowing consumers the right to take back control of their personal information.
A "consumer" is defined as a "resident of California as defined by California's personal income tax regulations. "Personal information" pursuant to the Act is defined as "information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household." Personal information is generally recognized in California as information that can identify a specific individual. The Act also includes information that can be used to identify a household.
Provisions of the Act
Pursuant to the Act, consumers are given the right to know upon request if their personal information is disclosed, and to whom it is disclosed, the right to know what personal information has been collected about them by a business, the right to object to the sale of their personal information, the right to obtain data collected about them, the right to require businesses to obliterate their personal information, and the right to be given equal service and pricing from businesses, including equal prices and quality of goods or services. The Act forbids discrimination by businesses against consumers for exercising their privacy rights pursuant to the Act.
Businesses are, however, permitted to charge different prices or provide different quality of service to consumers if the difference is "reasonably related to the value provided to the consumer by the consumer’s data." Additionally, businesses must allow consumers to exercise their rights by providing to consumers toll-free telephone numbers and/or websites to request such information or privacy. If a consumer sends a verified request for information to a business, the business subsequently has 45 days to give the consumer the requested information from the preceding 12 months with no charge to the consumer.
Who Must Comply with the Act
The Act will apply to for-profit businesses that do business in the State of California, deal with personal information of California residents, and either·(1) have more than $25 million in annual gross revenues, or (2) receive or disclose more than 50,000 California residents' personal information, or(3) derive 50% or greater of California residents' annual revenues from selling their personal information.
Who is Exempted from Compliance with the Act
A for-profit company, a small company, and/or a company that does not derive large amounts of personal information and does not share a brand with an affiliate covered by the Act is exempted from complying with the Act. Additionally, a company is exempted from compliance with the Act "if every aspect of . . . commercial conduct takes place wholly outside of California," meaning: (1) the personal information was collected from the consumer while they were outside California, (2) no sale of their personal information took place in California, and (3) there was no sale of personal information that was collected while the consumer was in California.
Impact
According to 2017 estimates, California's population totaled approximately 39 million people. Clearly the Act will affect an incredibly large amount of people considering it concerns the most populous state in America. The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, which is being compared to the EU General Data Protection Regulation for its all-encompassing method and resilient privacy protections is also speculated to have an impact on businesses throughout the nation and around the world. While the costs will likely go up for companies to do business in California, the transparency and trust earned by business and gained by consumers in this new landscape could potential overcome the initial costs to provide these required services. Perhaps most importantly however, is if California consumers decide to take advantage of the new protections, they will no longer have to wonder what for-profit businesses are doing with their data.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
David A. Napper and
Lana Halavi
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Defining Constructive Acceleration
March 22, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to the definition of “constructive acceleration,” the case of Fraser Const. Co. v. U.S., 384 F.3d 1354 (Fed.Cir. 2004) is a cited case and contains an instructive definition, quoted below, for proving a constructive acceleration claim.
In a nutshell, a constructive acceleration claim is when the contractor incurs added costs for trying to complete the contract on time when it should be provided extensions of time to perform based on excusable delay (i.e., delay not caused by the contractor). These added costs could be bringing in additional supervision to manage the work, adding manpower to perform the work, working overtime, working weekends, adding more shift work, stacking trades, etc. However, just because a contractor claims they have been constructively accelerated does not make it so. The contractor has to actually ask for an extension of time based on an excusable delay and the owner either denied the extension or unreasonably sat on the request for an extension of time; thus, the contractor incurred significant costs to accelerate in order to finish the project on time because it was deprived of a requested time extension for excusable delay.
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
Resurgent Housing Seen Cushioning U.S. From World Woes: Economy
January 28, 2015 —
Steve Matthews – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Real estate developer Crescent Communities in Charlotte, North Carolina, expects to sell 1,000 new homes this year across the Southeast U.S. and Texas, double the number of two years ago.
“Demand is the strongest since the recession” that ended in June 2009 and stemmed from the collapse in housing, said Chief Executive Officer Todd Mansfield. “The economy is getting better and the labor market is getting better.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steve Matthews, BloombergMr. Matthews may be contacted at
smatthews@bloomberg.net
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
The Small Stuff: Small Claims Court and Limited Civil Court Jurisdictional Limits
June 10, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogSometimes the small stuff matters.
And when it comes to legal disputes this can pose a problem for clients as well as their attorneys because litigation and arbitration, the two most frequently utilized venues to resolve legal disputes in the United States, can be and usually are expensive.
Data on the cost of civil litigation is sparse. According to a 2013 survey of trial lawyers conducted by the National Center of State Courts, the median cost of litigating a contract dispute – which is the category that most construction disputes would fall under – is $90,575. And this is in 2013 dollars. With inflation, that number rises to nearly $120,000 in 2023, and based upon our experience litigating and arbitrating complex (and even not so complex) construction disputes, it can be many multiples over that.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Governmental Action Exclusion Bars Claim for Damage to Insured's Building
November 27, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe lower court's decision finding no coverage based upon the governmental action exclusion was affirmed by the Appellate Court of Illinois. McCann Plumbing, Heating & Cooling v. Pekin Ins. Co., 2023 Ill.App. LEXIS 300 (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 23, 2023).
McCann purchased a building to use for its heating, ventilation, and air conditioning business. The building was surrounded by two unihhabited properties which often flooded. The city determined that a building on the adjacent property had to be demolished. In the course of destruction, the McCann's building was damaged, leaving a portion of their building open to the elements.
McCann sought coverage from Pekin for damage incurred in the demolition. The policy provided coverage for "direct physical loss of or damage to" the covered property. Pekin denied coverage under the policy's governmental action exclusion, which provided,
We will not pay for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by any of the following:
. . .
c. Governmental Action
Seizure or destruction of property by order of governmental authority . . .
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
