Ambush Elections are Here—Are You Ready?
May 07, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorOn April 14, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board’s new election rule went into effect. The new rule, which shortens the time frame for union elections, will make it easier for unions to organize. Employers must get prepared now, not when they hear about an election. As the NLRB Members who dissented from the final rule noted:
"The Final Rule has become the Mount Everest of regulations: Massive in scale and unforgiving in its effect. Very few people will have the endurance to read the Final Rule in its entirety."
Here are some highlights of the new rule:
- Within 2 business days after service of the Notice of the Pre-Election Hearing, the employer must post a Notice of Petition for Election. The employer must also distribute the notice via e-mail if the employer customarily communicates with employees via e-mail.
- A Pre-Election hearing will be scheduled within 8 days from the Notice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals
December 11, 2023 —
Jason Taylor & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub LiebermanIn this appeal brought before the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurance carrier client (the “Carrier” or “Client”), affirming an award of summary disposition in favor of the Carrier in a coverage lawsuit. The coverage lawsuit involved a priority dispute between the Carrier and another insurer over which company’s policy had responsibility to cover the defense of their mutual insured, a heating and cooling contractor (the “Insured”) in an underlying lawsuit alleging carbon monoxide poisoning. The Carrier issued a contractor’s pollution liability policy and the other insurer issued a commercial general liability policy to the Insurer. Both the Carrier and the other insurer filed cross-motions for summary disposition in the trial court on the priority of coverage issue. The trial court granted the Client’s motion, holding that the CGL carrier was the primary insurer based on the language in the policies’ “other insurance” clauses. The trial court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument to apply the “total policy insuring intent” or “closest to the risk” tests—tests which Michigan courts have not adopted. Specifically, the court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument that the Client’s contractor’s pollution liability policy was more specifically tailored to the loss in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court also rejected CGL carrier’s alternative argument that the “other insurance” clauses in the policies were irreconcilable, requiring a pro rata allocation based on the respective limits of the policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman and
Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California’s Fifth Appellate District Declares the “Right to Repair Act” the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
September 03, 2015 —
Stephen A. Sunseri – Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLPAugust 26, 2015 - The Fifth Appellate District ruled SB800 (California's "Right to Repair Act" [the "Act"]) provides the sole remedy for homeowners in construction defect actions. The court found "no other cause of action is allowed to recover for repair of the defect itself or for repair of any damage caused by the defect." (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court of California (Aug. 26, 2015, No. F069370) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2015 WL 5029324].) The court issued a blistering criticism of the Fourth Appellate District's prior opinion in Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which severely limited the reach of the Act to actions not involving property damage and allowing property damage claims to proceed freely under common law without any constraints posed by the Act.
In McMillin, the court reviewed whether a homeowner was required to follow the Act's prelitigation procedures even after dismissing a cause of action arising under the Act. In deciding the issue, the court quoted directly from the first line of the Act (Civ. Code § 896) and found "[i]n any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction … , the claimant's claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of" the standards set out in the Act. The court recognized the statutory exceptions to this rule, such as for claims arising under contract, or any action for fraud, personal injuries, or statutory violations. (Civ. Code., § 943.) However, this result directly conflicts with the Fourth Appellate District's decision in Liberty Mutual, which found homeowners can circumvent the entire Act by simply alleging property damage claims. McMillin rejects Liberty Mutual's "reasoning and outcome" as being inconsistent with the express language of the Act.
McMillin found that Liberty Mutual failed to fully analyze the statutory language of the Act, which (on its face) limits any action for construction deficiencies to the requirements of the Act. McMillin concludes the Legislature intended that all construction defect actions (for new residences sold on or after January 1, 2003), are subject to the requirements of the Act, including the prelitigation procedures, regardless of whether a complaint expressly alleges a cause of action under the Act or not.
McMillin is a great victory for homebuilders, but battle lines are now clearly drawn between the two appellate districts. McMillin directly conflicts with Liberty Mutual, and because of this conflict, the issue will need to be resolved by the California Supreme Court. Until such review is granted, the conflict will remain and trial courts will likely continue to conflate the issue.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Balance LLPMr. Sunseri may be contacted at
ssunseri@gdandb.com
Supreme Court of Kentucky Holds Plaintiff Can Recover for Stigma Damages in Addition to Repair Costs Resulting From Property Damage
August 15, 2018 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Muncie v. Wiesemann, 2018 K.Y. LEXIS 257, the Supreme Court of Kentucky considered whether stigma damages[1] in a property casualty case are recoverable in addition to the costs incurred to remediate the actual damage. The court held that stigma damages are recoverable in addition to repair costs, but the total of the stigma damages and repair costs cannot exceed the diminution in the fair market value of the property. The court’s decision establishes that if the repair costs are insufficient to make the plaintiff whole, a recovery for stigma damages up to the amount of the diminution in the market value of the home is appropriate.
Appellants Cindy and Jim Muncie incurred significant property damage to their home as a result of an oil leak originating from a neighboring property owned by the Estate of Martha Magel. In 2011, Auto Owners Insurance Company (Auto Owners), the liability carrier for the Estate’s testatrix, Patricia Weisman, filed an impleader complaint in federal court to discharge its obligation to settle the third-party liability claims on behalf of Ms. Weisman. Auto Owners reached a settlement with the Muncies for $60,000 which represented the remediation costs for the actual damage to the property. The settlement release reserved the Muncies’ right to pursue a claim for stigma damages associated with the oil leak.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
The Hunton Policyholder’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence: SEC’s Recent AI-Washing Claims Present D&O Risks, Potential Coverage Challenges
July 08, 2024 —
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Michael S. Levine & Alex D. Pappas - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogWe have previewed in prior posts the ways artificial intelligence is rapidly changing the way business operate, including the many ways AI has influenced the insurance market, creating both opportunities and risks for policyholders. We later highlighted, based on a recent securities lawsuit, how corporate management may be at risk for the alleged use or misuse of AI and how companies should evaluate their directors and officers (D&O) and management liability policies to ensure that they are prepared to respond to and mitigate AI-driven risks, including claims alleging that a company or its officers and directors made misrepresentations about AI.
That potential risk now has regulatory teeth, as the US Securities and Exchange Commission recently charged the founder of an AI hiring startup with fraud based on claims about using AI to help clients find diverse and underrepresented candidates to fulfill diversity, equity, and inclusion hiring goals.
Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Alex D. Pappas, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Pappas may be contacted at apappas@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homebuyers Get Break as Loan Rates Defy Fed Tapering: Mortgages
February 14, 2014 —
Kathleen M. Howley – BloombergAshley Underwood is taking advantage of the unexpected drop in mortgage rates by rushing to buy her first home before they go up again.
“I’m ready to cancel plans at a moment’s notice to go look at a house,” said Underwood, 27, who lives in Indianapolis, Indiana. “I didn’t expect to see rates falling again, and I want to lock in something before I lose out.”
The drop in the last month proved forecasters wrong, said Douglas Duncan, chief economist of Fannie Mae in Washington. After the Federal Reserve announced in December that it would begin tapering purchases of mortgage-backed securities, all the major housing forecasters said rates would jump this quarter. Economists didn’t foresee that investors would react to the Fed’s retreat by moving money from emerging markets into U.S. Treasuries, driving down home-loan rates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kathleen M. Howley, BloombergMs. Howley may be contacted at
kmhowley@bloomberg.net
Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court
January 27, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated that the duty to defend broadly requires a liability insurer to defend an entire lawsuit against its insured, even where only some of the allegations are potentially covered. The court further held that the insured has no obligation to apportion defense costs among multiple implicated policies. The decision, Selective Way Insurance Company v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., can be found here.
The coverage litigation arose out of a construction defect case against a general contractor. The general contractor tendered the action to its insurer, Nationwide, which, in turn, filed a declaratory judgment action against the various insurers of construction project subcontractors that had named the general contractor as an additional insured. Ultimately, the court granted a summary judgment motion declaring that all of the subcontractors’ insurers had a duty to defend the general contractor “because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit raised claims that potentially arose from the [s]ubcontractors’ work at the [construction site].” All of the subcontractors’ insurers settled with Nationwide except for one, Selective Way; and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on various issues. The jury found for Nationwide on all issues. Selective Way appealed.
Selective Way argued on appeal that even if some of the allegations were covered under its policy, it had no obligation to defend the general contractor because its insureds, the subcontractors, could not have been responsible for all of the losses given the nature of their work. Further, Selective Way contended that if it was responsible for defending the general contractor, it was not responsible for the entire defense, and the general contractor was responsible for apportioning the costs among the various subcontractors. The panel disagreed on both points.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania
June 03, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Morse v. Fisher Asset Management, LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. 78, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the plaintiff’s action was stayed when the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint after sustaining the defendants’ preliminary objections seeking enforcement of an arbitration clause in the contract at issue. The Superior Court—distinguishing between a defendant who files a motion to compel arbitration and a defendant who files preliminary objections based on an arbitration clause—held that, in the latter scenario, if the defendant’s preliminary objections are sustained, the statute of limitations is not tolled. This case establishes that, in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs seeking to defeat a challenge to a lawsuit based on a purported agreement to arbitrate need to pay close attention to the type of motion the defendant files to defeat the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
In Morse, the plaintiff entered into a contract with Fisher Asset Management (Fisher) in 2008 for investment-advisor services. The contract included a provision stating that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of the agreement between the parties shall be determined by arbitration. In June 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Fisher and two of its employees in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. The defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint seeking dismissal on grounds that the contract between the plaintiff and Fisher required that the dispute be determined by arbitration. The court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not appeal the court’s ruling.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
