The Future of Pandemic Coverage for Real Estate Owners and Developers
November 09, 2020 —
Ashley McWilliams - Saxe Doernberger & VitaShutdowns resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have prompted an unprecedented number of business income and business interruption insurance claims. Many claims have resulted in litigation and require judicial intervention to determine whether private insurance carriers owe policyholders indemnification for pandemic related losses. Private insurance carriers that have denied the claims, in large part, argue that they did not underwrite coverage for the pandemic and assert that pandemic coverage is much too unpredictable to underwrite. Private carriers contend that a government-backed insurance program is necessary to mitigate the economic impact resulting from pandemic claims.
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted real estate owners and developers. Real estate owners and developers have sustained business income losses in the form of lost rents at commercial properties, service disruption, labor and/ or material shortages, to name a few. Questions about whether the virus caused “direct physical damage,” as well as whether specific “virus exclusions” on policies, have provided hurdles to coverage under existing schemes, click here.Those that have filed lawsuits against their insurers seeking coverage under current policy terms are having mixed results, at best. Click here to view SDV’s Litigation Tracker. A predictable source of indemnification for future pandemic-related losses would greatly relieve business disruption and, ultimately, the impact on the economy. However, the question remains, who will pay for such massive losses?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley McWilliams, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. McWilliams may be contacted at
AMcWilliams@sdvlaw.com
Connecticut Federal District Court Follows Majority Rule on Insurance Policy Anti-Assignment Clauses
March 20, 2023 —
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A recent decision by the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut further confirms that Connecticut courts follow the majority rule that contractual anti-assignment clauses do not bar assignment of an insured’s claim after the loss occurred.1
The September 2022 decision in
Am. Guarantee & Liability Ins. Co. v. 51 Roses Mill LLC arose out of a fire that destroyed a property under contract for sale. At the time of the fire, the property was owned by Bridge33 Capital LLC (“Bridge33”), insured by American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“American Guarantee”), and under contract for sale to 51 Roses Mill LLC (“51 Roses”). After the fire, Bridge33 assigned its insurance claim to 51 Roses. American Guarantee filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the assignment was invalid, or that, if it was valid, 51 Roses could only recover under the actual cash value, rather than the replacement cost value, of the lost property. 51 Roses brought counterclaims for breach of contract and bad faith and sought a declaratory judgment that it was entitled to replacement cost value under the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. may be contacted at
coverage@sdvlaw.com
Washington Court Tunnels Deeper Into the Discovery Rule
July 09, 2019 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistOften times, properly analyzing when a statute of limitations begins to run – not just how long it runs – is crucial to timely pleading. In Dep’t of Transp. v. Seattle Tunnel Partners, 2019 Wash.App. LEXIS 281 (Was. Ct. App. Feb. 5, 2019), Division Two of the Court of Appeals of Washington addressed when the discovery rule starts the statute of limitations clock on a negligence cause of action. The court held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows that the factual elements of the claim against the defendant exist. The clock starts to run even if the plaintiff wants to investigate the possibility of other contributing factors or the defendant identifies opposing viewpoints on the theory of the claim.
In this matter, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) contracted with an engineering firm, WSP USA, Inc. (WSP), for an evaluation of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in 2001. As part of this project, WSP retained the services of Shannon and Wilson (S&W), another engineering firm, to conduct geological profile logs, groundwater-pumping tests, and prepare technical memoranda. In 2002, WSP and S&W installed a pumping well with an eight-inch steel casing (TW-2). In 2009, apparently based on the work done by WSP and S&W, WSDOT determined that a bored underground tunnel was the best option for replacing the viaduct.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses
May 18, 2020 —
Richard W. Brown & Andres Avila - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The draft legislation, entitled the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 (“PRIA”), would establish a Federal Pandemic Risk Reinsurance Fund and Program (the “Program”), that is intended to provide a system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption (“BI”) losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease. PRIA, in its current draft form, is modeled after and in many ways mirrors the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act that was enacted to address catastrophic losses resulting from acts of terrorism.
PRIA effectively mandates that participating insurers provide coverage for any business interruption loss resulting from an outbreak of infectious disease or pandemic that is declared an emergency or major disaster by the President and certified by the Secretary of Treasury (the “Secretary”) as a public health emergency. PRIA would be triggered in the case of certified public health emergencies upon the aggregate industry insured losses exceed $250 million dollars, and include an annual aggregate limit capped at $500 billion dollars. The draft bill provides that the Secretary would administer the Program and pay the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, which would be 95% of losses in excess of an applicable insurer annual deductible, once the Program is triggered. The compensation would benefit those insurers that elect to participate in the Program in exchange for a premium paid by the participating insurer for reinsurance coverage under the Program.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere might have been a number of problems with San Francisco’s new Bay Bridge, but despite all that, the Contra-Costa Times says that the experts say that there is no reason for panic. And although the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, Mark DeSaulnier, has been a critic of the bridge, he says that he is “convinced the old bridge is unsafe.”
Although DeSaulnier wants an independent review, construction of the bridge has been investigated by what the Times refers to as “dozens of internationally renowned bridge engineers and other experts.” According to the experts, the problems with the bridge fall in to three categories, ranging from the fixable, through the fixed, to those that were never actual problems.
Of the last category, the Oakland Tribune reported in 2005 that construction workers claimed they were told to “conceal shoddy welds to speed up construction,” but the Federal Highway Administration outside experts found no evidence of bad welds. In another case, bad welds were discovered at the factory where a span was being constructed. The process was changed and the bad welds repaired.
Caltrans has delayed the opening of the Bay Bridge to December 10. Earlier plans were to open the bridge in September.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada Supreme Court Reverses Decision against Grader in Drainage Case
June 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nevada Supreme Court has issued an opinion in the case of Rayburn Lawn & Landscape Designers v. Plaster Development Corporation, reversing the decision of the lower court and remanding the case for a new trial.
The case originated in a construction defect suit in which Plaster Development Corporation was sued by homeowners. Plaster filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractor, Reyburn. The testimony of Reyburn’s owner was considered to be admission of liability and so the court limited the scope of Reyburn’s closing argument and did not allow the jury to determine the extent of Reyburn’s liability. Reyburn appealed.
Plaster, in their case, cited California’s Crawford v. Weather Sheild MFG, Inc. The court held the application of these standards, but noted that the “an indemnitor’s duty to defend an indemnitee is limited to those claims directly attributed to the indemnitor’s scope of work and does not include defending against claims arising from the negligence of other subcontractors and the indemnittee’s own negligence.”
On the matter of law against Reyburn, the court concluded, “Given the conflicting evidence at trial as to whether Reyburn’s work was implicated in the defective retaining walls and sidewalls, and viewing the evidence and inferences in Reyburn’s favor, we conclude that a reasonable jury could have granted relief in favor of Reyburn.” The Nevada Supreme Court conduced that the district court should not have granted Plaster’s motion for judgement.
Further, the Nevada Supreme Court found that the district court should have apportioned the fees and costs to those claims directly attributed to Reyburn’s scope of work, “if any,” and should not have assigned all attorney costs and court fees to Reyburn.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Rejects Bill to Shorten Statute of Repose
May 07, 2015 —
Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic WittThe House State, Veterans, and Military Affairs committee voted today to postpone Senate Bill 15-091 indefinitely, effectively killing the bill for the 2015 session.
As originally drafted, the bill would have given Colorado the shortest statute of repose in the United States. Senate amendments softened the impact of the bill somewhat, but it still would have reduced the amount of time that the owners of single-family homes would have to discover construction defects. Proponents argued that this was necessary because Colorado’s harsh weather conditions make it difficult for construction to last longer than five years. Opponents countered that construction defect laws only provide relief when a builder has violated a code or standard, which is unrelated to the expected lifespan of a product.
One of the Representatives noted that states like Alaska have much harsher weather patterns yet allow homeowners to bring claims up to ten years after construction is complete. Another questioned whether the bill would do anything to encourage affordable housing, a topic that has generated substantial media attention in recent months.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic WittMr. Witt welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net
Disgruntled Online Reviews of Attorney by Disgruntled Former Client Ordered Removed from Yelp.com
June 30, 2016 —
Renata L. Hoddinott & David W. Evans – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe Court of Appeal of the State of California – First Appellate District in Hassell v. Bird (6/7/16 – Case No. A143233) affirmed an order from a judgment in favor of an attorney and her firm and against a disgruntled former client directing non-party Yelp.com to remove defamatory reviews posted to its site.
Attorney Dawn Hassell (“Hassell”) filed suit against Ava Bird (“Bird”) arising out of Hassell’s brief legal representation. The attorney/client relationship lasted a total of 25 days after which Hassell withdrew from the representation because of difficulties communicating with Bird and Bird expressed dissatisfaction with Hassell. When legal representation terminated, Bird had 21 months before the expiration of the statute of limitations on her personal injury claim.
Reprinted courtesy of
Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
