Hunton Insurance Recovery Lawyers Ranked by Chambers as Top Insurance Practitioners
May 27, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews KurthHunton Andrews Kurth insurance recovery partner,
Lorie Masters, received a top “Band 1” ranking by Chambers and Partners in the Insurance: Policyholder category for the District of Columbia, and a “Band 2” ranking in the Insurance: Dispute Resolution: Policyholder – USA – Nationwide category.
Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance recovery associate,
Andrea DeField, also was recognized by Chambers in the Associate to Watch: Insurance: Florida category.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews KurthMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@HuntonAK.com
OPINION: Stop Requiring Exhibit Lists!
September 18, 2023 —
Todd Heffner - The Dispute ResolverYou are conducting the final hearing of a high-dollar construction arbitration. Opposing counsel hands you the next document that counsel plans to use in questioning the witness on the stand. You notice that the document is bates stamped but has no exhibit number. So, you quickly consult opposing counsel’s exhibit list and – gasp – you find that the document is not on the list. What do you do? Do you object?
Assuming this is not your first construction arbitration hearing, you do not object. Why? Because your objection would be futile. Construction arbitrators simply do not exclude evidence on the basis that it does not appear on an exhibit list. (Evidence not produced in discovery or otherwise previously provided might be a different case.) In an informal poll of a dozen construction lawyers conducted by this author, not one reported evidence being excluded solely because it did not appear on an exhibit list. This remained true even when the applicable case management order purported to prohibit the introduction of evidence not on an exhibit list. Thus, to be used in an arbitration hearing, documents must appear on an exhibit list, unless they don’t, in which case you can use them anyway. So far, so pointless.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd Heffner, Troutman PepperMr. Heffner may be contacted at
todd.heffner@troutman.com
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (5/29/24) – Megaprojects on the Rise, Agency Guidance for CRE, and an Upbeat Forecast for Commercial Real Estate Investment
June 21, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, summer travelers seek alternative lodging options, purpose-built wellness real estate investments grow, bonds backed by CRE debt hit are hit with losses, and more!
- Across all property types, purpose-built wellness real estate investment has grown dramatically in recent years, including properties with wellness features as a focus. (Mary Salmonsen, Multifamily Dive)
- The travelers on the road this summer will have different demographics, budgets and reasons for travel and different preferences on accommodations, with more travelers opting for alternative housing options. (Noelle Mateer, Hotel Dive)
- Megaprojects are on the rise, with massive projects, from rail tunnels to computer chip factories, having myriad stakeholders and lengthy timelines that span political administrations. (Julie Strupp, Construction Dive)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling
October 22, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Nebraska Supreme Court found the insurer properly denied coverage to the general contractor for damage to a home caused by settlement. Cizek Homes, Inc. v. Columbia Nat. Ins. Co., 2014 Neb. LEXIS 152 (Neb. Sept. 9, 2014).
The general contractor built and then sold the residence. Subsequently, the homeowners complained that the soil beneath their residence was settling and causing damage to their home. The homeowners presented a draft complaint to the general contractor, alleging that negligence and faulty workmanship had caused damage to the home.
The general contractor notified its carrier, Columbia. Coverage was denied.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New Jersey Firm’s Fee Action Tossed for not Filing Substitution of Counsel
August 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFEven though their client had terminated their services by email, a “New Jersey appeals court has tossed out a firm’s fee action” finding that the firm had “remained counsel of record because it did not file a substitution of counsel until almost a year later,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported.
In Arturi, D’Argenio, Guagliardi & Meliti v. Sadej, Jesse and Carla Sadej had retained the firm, Arturi, D’Argenio, Guagliardi & Meliti, “to defend them in the underlying land use litigation brought in 2002 by the borough of Seaside Park, N.J.” The case had been dismissed, but was reinstated in 2009 by an appeals court.
At that time, Arturi D’Argenio told the Sadejs that they would need to sign a new retainer agreement in order to continue representation. On July 18, 2010, the Sadejs emailed the firm stating that they were “officially terminated,” according to the opinion as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal.
The firm sued the Sadejs “for about $100,000 in fees it was allegedly owed from the Seaside Park case and other matters on behalf of Jesse Sadej.” However, a substitution of attorney wasn’t filed until months later.
The case went to the appeals court, which stated that the firm should have withdrawn immediately after receiving the email notification from their client: “Because it failed to do so, it remained counsel of record and therefore was precluded from initiating the collection action at that point,” the judges said, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 2017 WL 1488711 Rejects Liberty Mutual, Holding Once Again that the Right to Repair Act is the Exclusive Remedy for Construction Defect Claims
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinBackground
In Gillotti v. Stewart (April 26, 2017) 2017 WL 1488711, which was ordered to be published on May 18, 2017, the defendant grading subcontractor added soil over tree roots to level the driveway on the plaintiff homeowner’s sloped lot. The homeowner sued the grading subcontractor under the California Right to Repair Act (Civil Code §§ 895, et seq.) claiming that the subcontractor’s work damaged the trees.
After the jury found the subcontractor was not negligent, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the subcontractor. The homeowner appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly construed the Right to Repair Act as barring a common law negligence theory against the subcontractor and erred in failing to follow Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. The Third District Court of Appeal disagreed and affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the subcontractor.
Impact
This is the second time the Third District Court of Appeal has held that Liberty Mutual (discussed below) was wrongly decided and held that the Right to Repair Act is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims. The decision follows its holding in Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Hicks) (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 333, in which the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act’s pre-litigation procedures apply when homeowners plead construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Right to Repair Act. Elliott is currently on hold at the California Supreme Court, pending the decision in McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, wherein Liberty Mutual was rejected for the first time by the Fifth District. CGDRB continues to follow developments regarding the much anticipated McMillin decision closely, as well as all related matters.
Discussion
The Right to Repair Act makes contractors and subcontractors not involved in home sales liable for construction defects only if the homeowner proves they negligently cause the violation in whole or part (Civil Code §§ 911(b), 936). As such, the trial court in Gillotti instructed the jury on negligence with respect to the grading subcontractor. The jury found that while the construction did violate some of the Right to Repair’s building standards alleged by the homeowner, the subcontractor was not negligent in anyway. After the jury verdict, the trial court found in favor of the grading subcontractor.
The homeowner moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial on the grounds that the trial court improperly barred a common law negligence theory against the grading subcontractor. The trial court denied the motions on the grounds that “[t]he Right to Repair Act specifically provides that no other causes of action are allowed. See Civil Code § 943.” The trial court specifically noted that its decision conflicted with Liberty Mutual, in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act does not eliminate common law rights and remedies where actual damage has occurred, stating that Liberty Mutual was wrongly decided and that the Liberty Mutual court was naïve in its assumptions regarding the legislative history of the Right to Repair Act.
In Gillotti, the Third District Court of Appeal stated that the Liberty Mutual court failed to analyze the language of Civil Code § 896, which “clearly and unequivocally expresses the legislative intent that the Act apply to all action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, residential construction, except as specifically set forth in the Act. The Act does not specifically except actions arising from actual damages. To the contrary, it authorizes recovery of damages, e.g., for ‘the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards....’ ([Civil Code] § 944).”
The Court also disagreed with Liberty Mutual’s view that because Civil Code §§ 931 and 943 acknowledge exceptions to the Right to Repair Act’s statutory remedies, the Act does not preclude common law claims for damages due to defects identified in the Act. The Court stated: “Neither list of exceptions, in section 943 or in section 931, includes common law causes of action such as negligence. If the Legislature had intended to make such a wide-ranging exception to the restrictive language of the first sentence of section 943, we would have expected it to do so expressly.”
Additionally, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that Civil Code § 897 preserves a common law negligence claims for violation of standards not listed in Civil Code § 986. It explained that the section of Civil Code § 897, which provides, “The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure,” expresses the legislative intent that the Right to Repair Act be all-encompassing. Anything inadvertently omitted is actionable under the Act if it causes damage. Any exceptions to the Act are made expressly through Civil Code §§ 931 and 934. The Court concluded in no uncertain terms that the Right to Repair Act precludes common law claims in cases for damages covered by the Act.
The homeowner further argued that she was not precluded from bringing a common law claim because a tree is not a “structure,” and therefore the alleged tree damage did not fall within the realm of the Right to Repair. The Court of Appeal also rejected this argument, holding that while the tree damage itself was not expressly covered, the act of adding soil to make the driveway level (which caused the damage) implicated the standards covered by the Right to Repair Act. The Court explained that since under the Act a “structure” includes “improvement located upon a lot or within a common area” (Civil Code § 895(a)), as the driveway was an improvement upon the lot, the claim was within the purview of the Right to Repair Act. As the soil, a component of the driveway, caused damage (to the trees), it was actionable under the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clean Energy and Conservation Collide in California Coastal Waters
March 19, 2024 —
Nadia Lopez & Josh Saul - BloombergTwo of President Joe Biden’s biggest priorities — conservation and the switch to clean energy — are colliding in the ocean off California’s quiet Central Coast.
Located halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles, Morro Bay boasts a rich ecosystem of fish, otters and migrating whales that the Indigenous Chumash people want to protect with a
new marine sanctuary. But 20 miles (32 kilometers) out, developers plan some of the West Coast’s
first offshore wind farms, where 1,100-foot-tall turbines (335 meters) tethered to the seabed will help California cut its carbon emissions.
One US government agency appears poised to approve the sanctuary. Another
already leased 376 square miles of ocean for wind development, just outside the sanctuary’s boundaries. Now, a fight is brewing over whether the scenic bay itself should be left out of the sanctuary, to give undersea power cables from the wind farms a place to come onshore.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nadia Lopez, Bloomberg and
Josh Saul, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
South Caroline Holds Actual Cash Value Can Include Depreciation of Labor Costs
July 05, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAnswering a certified question, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the insurer could calculate actual cash value (ACV) by including an estimate of the depreciation of embedded labor costs. Butler v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 2021 S. C. LEXIS 51 (S.C. May 12, 2021).
Two insureds had their homes damaged in separate fires. Each held homeowners' policies with Travelers. The policies provided replacement cost value coverage to repair or replace damaged portions of homes. In the event that the insures chose not to immediately repair or replace the damaged home, the policies afforded payment to the insured for the actual cash value instead of replacement cost value. Both insured elected not to immediately repair or replace their homes, thereby deciding to accept a cash payment for the ACV of the damaged property. Neither was satisfied with the payment and both filed suit in federal district court.
Travelers determined the ACV payment by estimating the replacement cost value (RCV) of the damage and then subtracting depreciation. The certified question presented by the federal district court was whether Travelers could depreciate the labor component of the costs of repair or replacement when determining the ACV.
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
