City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
June 17, 2024 —
David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn June 17, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant opinion in the case of City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association (Case No. 22SC293). This decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and the economic loss rule in the context of construction defect claims.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a construction defect dispute between the City of Aspen, which served as the developer and declarant for the affordable housing condominiums at issue, and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, the HOA created by Aspen to manage the association after the period of declarant control. The Association alleged that Aspen breached various warranties related to the construction of affordable housing units, leading to structural deficiencies. Aspen argued that the CGIA barred these claims because they could lie in tort.
The Lower Court’s Decision
The district court initially agreed with Aspen, holding that the Association’s claims sounded in tort and were therefore barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the principle that governmental immunity protects public entities from liability for claims that ‘lie in tort or could lie in tort,’ as established by the CGIA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Compliance with Contractual and Jurisdictional Pre-Suit Requirements is Essential to Maximizing Recovery
November 27, 2023 —
Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogTimely notice is an important first step in a successful insurance recovery. But insurance policies are not always straightforward in identifying how, when, and to whom notice must be provided. Some states may also impose additional procedural hurdles, including requiring policyholders to contact their insurers before filing suit (the idea behind this requirement is that it may avoid litigation). Failing to comply with pre-suit requirements can hurt the policyholder’s recovery, as illustrated in a recent decision from the Northern District of Texas.
In NewcrestImage Holdings, LLC v. The Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company, No. 2:23-cv-039-BR (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2023), the court considered whether NewcrestImage had forfeited its right to recover attorneys’ fees by failing to give Travelers pre-suit notice. NewcrestImage had filed suit against Travelers to obtain coverage for damage to its hotel property arising out of Winter Storm Uri. In its answer, Travelers asserted that NewcrestImage failed to provide the insurer with pre-suit notice as required under the Texas Insurance Code, and that if NewcrestImage successfully proved it was entitled to coverage, NewcrestImage’s failure to provide pre-suit notice precluded it from recovering attorneys’ fees. Travelers later moved to strike the claim for attorneys’ fees on that basis.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Legislative Update on Bills of Note (Updated Post-Adjournment)
March 27, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn two prior posts, one specifically relating to a bill that was introduced to apply a statute of limitatons on state agencies for construction projects and one more general, I discussed some of the legislation pending in the Virginia General Assembly that could be of interest to construction professionals.
This post will update the status of these bills and add one that I neglected to highlight in the prior posts. I’ll begin with the oversight.
HB 2218 Makes the unlawful and unlicensed practice of contracting, real estate brokering, or real estate sales, in connection with a consumer transaction, unlawful under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. In short, it makes explicit what was implicit, namely that contractors that perform work without a license are in violation of the VCPA. This bill has passed the house by unanimous vote and is in committee at the Senate.
UPDATE– As of February 20, 2019, this bill has passed both houses, all that is left is the paperwork. Post Adjournment Update: This bill passed and awaits Governor’s signature.
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
Performance Bond Surety Takeover – Using Terminated Contractor To Complete The Work
January 06, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen a contractor is defaulted under a performance bond, can its surety hire the same defaulted contractor to complete the work? Stated differently, can the performance bond surety engage its defaulted bond-principal in taking over and completing the same work the contractor was defaulted under? The answer is “yes” if you are dealing with a standard form AIA A312 performance bond (and other bond forms that contain analogous language), as demonstrated by the recent decision in Seawatch at Marathon Condominium Association, Inc. v. The Guarantee Company of North America, 2019 WL 4850194 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
In this case, a condominium association hired a contractor in a multi-million dollar contract to renovate condominium buildings. The contractor provided the association, as the obligee, a performance bond written on an AIA A312 performance bond form. During construction, the association declared the contractor in default and terminated the contractor. In doing so, the association demanded that the performance bond surety make an election under paragraph 4 of the AIA A312 bond form that gave the surety the following options:
4.1 Arrange for the CONTRACTOR, with consent of the OWNER, to perform and complete the Contract; or
4.2 Undertake to perform and complete the Contract itself, through its agents or through independent contractors; or
4.3 Obtain bids or negotiated proposals from qualified contractors acceptable to the OWNER for a contract for performance and completion of the Contract, arrange for a contract to be prepared for execution by the OWNER and the contractor selected with the OWNER’S concurrence, to be secured with performance and payment bonds executed by a qualified surety equivalent to the Bonds Issued on the Contract, and pay to the OWNER the amount of damages as described in paragraph 6 in excess of the Balance of the Contract Price incurred by the OWNER resulting from the CONTRACTOR Default; or
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
Washington State Enacts Law Restricting Non-Compete Agreements
September 23, 2019 —
Ellie Perka - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCWashington State has enacted a new law that means big changes for employers. The new law, in effect on January 1, 2020, will dramatically limit the enforcement of non-compete agreements in our state and imposes tough penalties on employers found to be in violation.
While the new law does not take effect for many months, businesses should nonetheless act quickly and before year’s end to evaluate practices and, if necessary, revise existing and future non-compete agreements to ensure compliance. Under the new law, if an employee successfully proves a company’s non-compete agreement is unenforceable, then the employer will be required to pay the greater of $5,000 or an employee’s actual damages, plus the employee’s attorneys’ fees (and its own, in defending the non-compete), expenses and costs incurred in challenging the agreement.
Brief Summary of Changes
Washington Courts have typically disfavored restrictive covenants but usually enforced a non-competition agreement that protected an employer’s legitimate business interests and was reasonable in scope, geographic reach, and duration. The Legislature halted this trend through passage of Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ellie Perka, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Perka may be contacted at
ellie.perka@acslawyers.com
Things You Didn't Know About Your Homeowners Policy
July 02, 2014 —
Arthur Murray – BloombergThink you know everything about your home insurance policy? Is that because you understand the difference between dwelling coverage and personal liability protection? Because you know that floods aren’t covered by standard home insurance?
Think again. You might know more than most, but you probably don’t know everything about your policy — unless you’ve read the fine print and committed it to memory. And who’s got time for that? However you don’t want to find yourself stuck without coverage you thought you had. Here are some lesser known coverage nuances you likely weren’t aware of.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arthur Murray, Bloomberg
“A No-Lose Proposition?”
October 07, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause.
In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….”
The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:
“[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
COVID-19 Is Not Direct Physical Loss Or Damage
April 13, 2020 —
Joseph Blyskal, Dennis Brown & Michelle Bernard - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogIs a cash register that is not being used damaged property? When you need to wash a table, a chair, or a section of flooring with readily available cleaning products to make them safe and useable, are you repairing damaged property? Is a spilled cup of coffee waiting to be wiped up actual damage to the premises? If your customers stay home to help stop the spread of a virus, has there been a physical loss inside your shuttered store or restaurant?
The insuring agreements typically found in commercial property insurance policies require “direct physical loss of or damage to” covered property as the triggering event. Without establishing direct physical loss or damage a policyholder cannot meet its burden to trigger coverage for a purely economic loss of business income resulting from shuttering its business due to concerns over exposure to—or even the actual presence of—COVID-19. Despite this well-understood policy language, it is already beyond question that insurers will confront creative—albeit strained—arguments from policyholder firms attempting to trigger coverage for pure economic loss. The scope of the human and economic tragedy we all face will be matched by the scope of the effort to force the financial harm onto insurance companies.
The plaintiffs in what appears to be the first-filed case seeking a declaratory judgment in the context of first-party insurance coverage rely on the assertion that “contamination of the insured premises by the Coronavirus would be a direct physical loss needing remediation to clean the surfaces” of its establishment, a New Orleans restaurant, to trigger coverage for business interruption.[1] See Cajun Conti, LLC, et. al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et. al. Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana. The complaint alleges that the property is insured under an “all risk policy” defining “covered causes of loss” as “direct physical loss.” The plaintiffs rely on the alleged presence of the virus on “the surface of objects” in certain conditions and the need to clean those surfaces. They go so far as to claim that “[a]ny effort by [the insurer] to deny the reality that the virus causes physical damage and loss would constitute a false and potentially fraudulent misrepresentation. . . .”
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys
Joseph Blyskal,
Dennis Brown and
Michelle Bernard
Mr. Blyskal may be contacted at tblatchley@grsm.com
Mr. Brown may be contacted at dbrown@grsm.com
Ms. Bernard may be contacted at mbernard@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
