California Appellate Court Rules That Mistakenly Grading the Wrong Land Is Not an Accident
June 27, 2022 —
Jared De Jong & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsIn a decision that further muddies the already murky waters of “occurrence” jurisprudence, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that a general liability policy does not cover a homeowner who mistakenly grades the wrong piece of land because the act of grading land is not “accidental.”
In Ghukasian v. Aegis Security Insurance Company, ___ Cal. App. 5th ___, 2022 WL 1421511 (2022), a homeowner instructed her contractor to clear and level a piece of land that the homeowner believed was part of her property. Unfortunately, the land was owned by a neighbor, who sued the homeowner and the contractor for trespass and negligence. The homeowner tendered to her insurer, Aegis. The homeowner’s policy contained a standard insuring agreement creating coverage for property damage caused by an “occurrence,” defined by the policy as an “accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The insurer denied coverage, arguing that intentionally grading land is not an accident. Coverage litigation ensued.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?
October 20, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere is an argument that a performance bond is not liable for delay damages UNLESS the bond specifically allows for the recovery of such damages. Keep this in mind when requiring a performance bond so that the bond covers the associated risks (and damages) you contemplate when requiring the bond. This argument is supported by the Florida Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin General Hosp., Ltd., 593 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla. 1992):
The language in the performance bond, construed together with the purpose of the bond, clearly explains that the performance bond merely guaranteed the completion of the construction contract and nothing more. Upon default, the terms of the performance bond required American [performance bond surety] to step in and either complete construction or pay Larkin [obligee] the reasonable costs of completion. Because the terms of the performance bond control the liability of the surety, American’s liability will not be extended beyond the terms of the performance bond. Therefore, American cannot be held liable for delay damages.
However, the Eleventh Circuit in National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Const. Co., 320 F.3d 1260(11th Cir. 2003), also analyzing an issue relating to the recoverability of delay-type damages against a performance bond, did not narrowly interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Larkin General Hospital.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Preservationists Want to Save Penn Station. Yes, That Penn Station.
December 20, 2021 —
Kriston Capps - BloombergIn November, as one of her first major acts since taking office, New York Governor Kathy Hochul pared back development plans for New York City’s Pennsylvania Station set in place by her predecessor, disgraced former governor Andrew Cuomo.
The Cuomo plan would have greatly expanded Penn Station and upscaled the neighborhood; Hochul’s vision narrows the scope of work, but it still stands to dramatically transform the subterranean transportation hub, which has been the focus of various unrealized redesign dreams for decades. On Dec. 8, critics and supporters sounded off on the Penn Station scheme in a public hearing. More than 200 people registered to weigh in on how the 10 new skyscrapers coming to the area (shrunk down a bit under Hochul) would affect the scale and character of the community, and the historic buildings that would need to be razed to make way for new development.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kriston Capps, Bloomberg
What If Your CCP 998 Offer is Silent on Costs?
March 18, 2019 —
Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn California, the “prevailing party” in litigation is generally entitled to recover its costs as a matter of law. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1032. But under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, a party may make a so-called “offer to compromise,” which can reverse the parties’ entitlement to costs after the date of the offer, depending on the outcome of the litigation. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The potential payoff of a 998 offer is that “If an offer made by a defendant is not accepted and the plaintiff fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award, the plaintiff shall not recover his or her postoffer costs and shall pay the defendant’s costs from the time of the offer.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1) (emphasis added).
But how do you determine whether a plaintiff obtained a more favorable judgment when the 998 offer is silent with respect to whether it includes costs?
In Martinez v. Eatlite One, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1181, 1182–83, the defendant made a 998 offer of $12,001 that was silent regarding the treatment of attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer, and the jury ultimately awarded plaintiff damages of $11,490. Id. In resolving the parties’ competing memoranda of costs and plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees, the trial court awarded plaintiff her costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 1182. The trial court reasoned that plaintiff had obtained a more favorable judgment than the 998 offer because she was entitled to pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees under the statute, which meant plaintiff’s ultimate recovery exceeded the 998 offer when added to the judgment. Id. at 1183. In other words, the court added plaintiff’s pre-offer costs and attorneys’ fees to the $11,490 verdict for the purposes of determining whether the “judgment” was greater than the 998 offer of $12,001. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Saved By The Statute: The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Bar Claims Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
May 10, 2021 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Earl v. NVR, Inc., No. 20-2109, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6451, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) considered whether, under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiff’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims against the builder of her home were barred by the economic loss doctrine. The UTPCPL is a Pennsylvania statute that prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201-3. The Third Circuit previously addressed the impact of the economic loss doctrine on UTPCPL claims in Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002). In Werwinski, the court held that the plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine. The Court of Appeals overturned its decision in Werwinski and held that the economic loss doctrine does not bar UTPCPL claims since such claims are statutory, and not based in tort.
In Earl, the plaintiff, Lisa Earl, entered into an agreement with defendant NVR, Inc. (NVR) for the construction and sale of a home in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Earl learned of the home through NVR’s marketing, which described the home as containing “quality architecture, timeless design, and beautiful finishes.” Ms. Earl alleged that during the construction of the home, she had further discussions with agents of NVR, who made representations that the home would be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and that any deficiencies noted by Ms. Earl would be remedied. The defendant also assured Ms. Earl that the home would be constructed in accordance with relevant building codes and industry standards. After moving into the home, Ms. Earl discovered several material defects in the construction. She provided notice of these defects to NVR, but NVR’s attempts to repair some of the defects were inadequate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown
October 21, 2015 —
Alan Levin – BloombergThe U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is proposing the largest fine to date against a drone operator as the agency cracks down on the booming use of unmanned aircraft in congested skies over populated areas.
The FAA said Tuesday it was recommending a $1.9 million penalty against SkyPan International Inc., which made 65 drone flights from 2012 to 2014 in airspace above cities including New York. The company uses drones to photograph the prospective views from Manhattan high rises under construction, according to its website.
The action comes as the FAA has struggled to enforce existing rules on drones and attempts to finalize the first regulations allowing small unmanned vehicles to operate commercially. Drone sightings by pilots, including close-calls with airliners, have surged from only a handful a month last year to over 100 per month.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alan Levin, Bloomberg
New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing
May 07, 2014 —
Henry Goldman – BloombergNew York Mayor Bill de Blasio presented plans to build and preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing in the next decade by increasing rent protections for the poor and requiring developers to include below-market apartments in newly zoned areas.
The $41.1 billion program, paid for with city, state, federal and private funds, would focus 60 percent on preservation and 40 percent on new construction. About $8.2 billion of the cost would be borne by the city, according to a 116-page report detailing the plan, which de Blasio called the “largest, fastest” affordable-housing program ever attempted at the local level.
De Blasio, 52, a self-described progressive and the city’s first Democratic mayor in 20 years, took office in January after describing income inequality as the most serious issue facing the most populous U.S. city. He turned his attention to housing today after pushing the state legislature in March to grant the city $300 million to institute universal all-day pre-kindergarten.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Henry Goldman, BloombergMr. Goldman may be contacted at
hgoldman@bloomberg.net
