Subcontract Requiring Arbitration Outside of Florida
August 07, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHave you entered into a subcontract that requires you to arbitrate disputes? If so, does the arbitration provision require you to arbitrate your dispute outside of Florida? If so, the case of Sachse Construction and Development Corp. v. Affirmed Drywall, Corp., 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1622e (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) applies and reinforces the notion: Read and consider what you sign!
In Sachse Construction, a drywall subcontractor entered into a subcontract for a construction project in Miami with an arbitration provision. The subcontract provided that it shall be construed in accordance with Michigan law and required that arbitration shall take pace in Michigan per the Construction Industry Rules of the American Arbitration Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Eleventh Circuit Affirms Jury Verdict on Covered Property Loss
September 06, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial after the jury determined the insurer owed policy benefits for hurricane damage to the insured's property. AM Grand Court Lakes LLC v. Rockhill Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. App. 13902 (11th Cir. June 5, 2023).
AM Grand owned a group of buildings that were operated as an assisted living facility. The facility comprised five buildings, each of which was five stories tall. Hurricane Irma caused damage to the property. AM Grand hired a public aduster, Five Star Claims Adjustoing, to assist with its claim. Five Star concluded that the roofs of all five buildings had been damaged in the hurricane and needed to be replaced. The estimated cost was approximately $1,200,000 to replace all the roofs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Traub may be contacted at
rtraub@tlsslaw.com
Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events
September 04, 2019 —
Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. & Ravi R. Mehta, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinSenator Bill Dodd, who represents Napa County and surrounding areas in the California Senate, has recently introduced Senate Bill 240, known colloquially as The Insurance Adjuster Act of 2019. S.B. 240 would amend the California Insurance Code to streamline and organize claim processing, particularly during a state of emergency / catastrophic events. The proposal is in response to a series of devastating wildfires which ravaged the Sonoma County and Napa Valley wine country during the 2017 fire season (Atlas, Tubbs, and Nun fires). Many of Senator Dodd’s constituents reported difficulty in navigating the claim process due to multiple claim professionals handling a single claim, many of whom were outside of California, and many of whose capabilities were challenged.
S.B. 240 would direct the Department of Insurance to issue annual notices setting forth legal developments as they relate to property insurance policies, including best practices for evaluating damage caused by an emergency, and requires out-of-state claims professionals to certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have read these notices along with claim adjusting literature also prepared by the Department of Insurance.
S.B. 240 would also require insurers to designate a primary point of contact for their customers during a state of emergency until the claim is closed or litigation is initiated. While the proposed legislation would not prohibit multiple claims professionals handling a single claim, it would provide for training standards issued by the Department of Insurance on how best to handle claims in a state of emergency.
Further, S.B. 240 would require claims professionals who are not licensed in California (1) to be supervised by a licensed California claims professional, and (2) to read and understand the annual emergency claim adjusting literature issued by the Department of Insurance within 15 calendar days of beginning adjusting of claims in California.
The bill passed the Senate by unanimous vote and is pending in the Assembly. The bill is also supported by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Accordingly, the bill is expected to pass the Legislature. Once enacted, S.B. 240 would significantly elevate claim adjusting requirements related to emergencies, such as natural disasters, by placing greater oversight in the Department of Insurance, and greater responsibility on claims professional within and outside of California. How pragmatic these requirements are and what practical impact they will have on the industry are developments which we will follow and provide further commentary as this bill makes its way through the California legislature and into the California Insurance Code.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jon A.Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. A.Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sometimes You Get Away with Unwritten Contracts. . .
January 20, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have spoken often regarding the need for a well written construction contract that sets out the “terms of engagement” for your construction project. A written construction contract sets expectations and allows the parties to the contract to determine the “law” of their project. An unwritten “gentleman’s agreement” can lead to confusion, faulty memories, and more money paid to construction counsel than you would like as we lawyers play around in the grey areas.
One other area where the written versus unwritten distinction makes a difference is in the calculation of the statute of limitations. In Virginia, a 5 year statute of limitations applies to written contracts while a 3 year statute of limitations applies to unwritten contracts. This distinction came into stark relief in the case of M&C Hauling & Constr. Inc. v. Wilbur Hale in the Fairfax, Virginia Circuit Court. In M&C Hauling, M&C provided hauling services to the defendant through a subcontract with Hauling Unlimited in 2014, the last of which was in July. M&C provided over 2000 hours of hauling and provided time tickets (that were passed to Mr. Hale on Hauling Unlimited letterhead and signed by Mr. Hale or his agent) and an invoice stating the price term of $75.00 per hour. No separate written contract between M&C and Hauling Unlimited or Mr. Hale existed.
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
No Bad Faith in Insurer's Denial of Collapse Claim
July 15, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on the insured's claims for collapse and bad faith. Christopher M. Wolpert Saddletree Holding, LLC v. Evanston Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10377 (10th Cir. April 30, 2024).
On May 7, 2019, Saddletree filed a claim with Evanston for damages sustained to its building which was used as a community events center. After a winter of heavy snowfall, Saddletree discovered that the building's steel support columns had buckled two or more inches and the roof had deflected downward approximately six inches.
Evanston retained an engineer to inspect the building. The engineer determined that the damage was the result of the building's inadequate "design and/or construction." Evanston disclaimed coverage under the policy's exclusion for damage caused by "hidden or latent defects" or "any quality in property that causes it to damage or destroy itself."
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
Vinny Testaverde Alleges $5 Million Mansion Riddled with Defects
January 15, 2014 —
Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFFFormer Tampa Bay Buccaneers quarterback Vinny Testaverde and his wife Mitzi filed suit December 20, 2013 claiming breach of contract and building code violations on their $5 million, Odessa, Florida mansion, according to the Tampa Tribune. The Testaverdes allege that their six-year old, 6,700 square foot home has multiple defects, including “wet floors and walls when it rains and a grand staircase leading to the front door that is sinking, taking with it two columns that support the porch roof,” The Tampa Tribune reports.
Gray Homes of Tampa Bay were contracted by the couple to build their mansion on Lake Keystone. The Tampa Tribune stated that several months before filing suit, the Testaverdes sent a certified letter to Gray Homes stating they had uncovered “a series of defects.” According to the article, Gray Homes had not yet responded to the Tampa Tribune’s message asking for a comment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
North Carolina Appeals Court Threatens Long-Term Express Warranties
April 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJonathan Massell of the firm Nexsen Pruet explained how a “recent holding by the North Carolina Court of Appeals is threatening to render many long-term express warranties ineffective,” in the online publication Lexology.
In Christie v. Hartley Construction, Inc., “the court held that the six-year North Carolina statute of repose for improvements to real property trumps the bargained-for duration terms of an express warranty.” In the Christie case, this meant that even though the homeowners had a twenty year warranty, because of the statute of repose, the warranty effectively expired after six years.
Massell stated to “be mindful of jurisdiction.” If the express warranty is in a state other than North Carolina, it’s possible that the claim could be filed in that state instead of North Carolina. For instance, according to Massell, South Carolina’s “statue of repose does not expire until eight years after the date of substantial completion for an improvement to real property.” Furthermore, “long-term warranties are not trumped by the South Carolina statute of repose.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
TLSS Partner Burks Smith and Associate Katie Keller Win Summary Judgment on Late Reported Water Seepage Case in South Florida
November 18, 2019 —
Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub LiebermanOn July 9, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP Partner, Burks A. Smith, III and Associate, Kathryn A. Keller, secured Summary Judgment on behalf of a major homeowners’ insurer in a breach of contract action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See Lehrfield v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2019 WL2994270 (S.D. Fla. 2019). The underlying claim involved a water loss at the Plaintiffs’ residence allegedly resulting in $91,147.32 worth of damage to their home. The claim was reported eight (8) months after the alleged date of loss, and during the inspection, the adjuster observed rot, decay, mold, and warping wood, prompting the carrier to deny the claim based on the Seepage Endorsement. The Plaintiffs filed a breach of contract action alleging that the insurer breached the Policy by denying the claim.
Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that Plaintiffs’ Policy with the insurer imposes a duty on the Plaintiffs to comply with the Duties After Loss conditions of the Policy, including the requirement to provide prompt notice of the loss and show the damaged property. As mentioned above, the Plaintiffs provided notice of the claim eight (8) months late, and performed various repairs prior to notifying the insurer of the claim. After the close of discovery, Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of the insurer based on the late reporting, and further argued that the Plaintiffs had the burden of proving direct physical loss to property within the first 13 days of the loss, given the recent decision of Hicks v. American Integrity Insurance Company of Florida, 241 So.3d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1018). In Florida, when an insured fails to comply with their Duties After Loss, a presumption of prejudice to the insurer arises. Bankers Ins. Co. v. Macias, 475 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 1985)). In order to recover, the Plaintiffs bear the burden of overcoming the presumption, and must prove that no prejudice existed. Id. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller’s comprehensive arguments successfully proved to the Court that the Plaintiffs’ failure to timely report the claim prejudiced the insurer by prohibiting the insurer from being able to independently validate the loss, or distinguish between multiple causes of loss. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller further argued that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to prove that the insurer was not prejudiced by the Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the Duties After Loss provision of the Policy. The Motion cited numerous cases and extensive analysis supporting the insurer’s position.
Reprinted courtesy of
Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and
Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Smith, may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
