Bremer Whyte Sets New Precedent in Palos Verdes Landslide Litigation
August 26, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPIn what is believed to be a groundbreaking new precedent, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara’s Los Angeles litigation team has obtained a landmark ruling on behalf of residents in the “Portuguese Bend” neighborhood of Palos Verdes, California. Congratulations to Partner
Michael D’Andrea and Senior Associate Shelly Mosallaei in receiving this result for our clients.
Plaintiff, a real estate developer, sued a number of local residents and property owners, including our client, alleging that their failure to address landslides and geological disturbances around Plaintiff’s property constituted a legal trespass and nuisance. Plaintiff alleged that its plans to develop multiple lots in Palos Verdes was thwarted because Defendant’s soil and land encroached onto Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiff’s suit against multiple residents created an uproar in the community regarding who was ultimately responsible (if anyone) for natural soils movement that has plagued this neighborhood for years.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW
March 22, 2021 —
Michael Krueger - Newmeyer DillionThe American Rescue Plan Act (“Act”) was passed by the Senate over the weekend and passed by the House today. President Biden is set to sign the Act into law on Friday, March 12th. The Act has $1.9 Trillion in relief funds with $28.6 Billion set aside for the restaurant industry in the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“Fund”). The Fund has apportioned funds into two funding groups; $5 Billion for restaurants with annual gross revenue under $500,000 and $23.6 Billion for restaurants over $500,000 in annual gross revenue.
Differences from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”)
This is a grant program with no loan documents or forgiveness applications. Instead, each restaurant entity can apply for and receive up to $10M in grant funds through the Act. The amount a restaurant receives is based on the sum of the restaurant’s gross revenue in 2019 minus the gross revenue in 2020 minus PPP and EIDL money received. For example, Restaurant A made $7M gross revenue in 2019, made $3M gross revenue in 2020 and received $1M in PPP and EIDL combined. ($7M - $3M -$1M =$3M) The restaurant will receive $3M in grant funds directly from the SBA (as long as funds are available).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Krueger, Newmeyer DillionMr. Krueger may be contacted at
michael.krueger@ndlf.com
Washington School District Sues Construction Company Over Water Pipe Damage
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Yakima Herald reported that “[t]he Toppenish School District is suing a local construction company over a breach of contract that allegedly led to defective water pipes at one of its elementary schools, according to a complaint filed with the Yakima County Superior Court earlier this week.”
According to the complaint (as reported by the Yakima Herald), Toppenish officials alleged that the Huylar Construction Co. failed to install calcium silicate seals during the pipe installation. Furthermore, the complaint stated that last November, the school district discovered “’[e]xtensive corrosion and deterioration’ of the pipes.” Toppenish argued that failure to install the seals is a breach of contract.
Toppenish is suing for about $120,000. The Yakima Herald stated that a Huylar representative “could not be reached for comment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NJ Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision that Exxon Has No Duty to Indemnify Insurers for Environmental Liability Under Prior Settlement Agreement
November 29, 2021 —
Patricia B. Santelle & Laura Rossi - White and WilliamsOn November 1, 2021, in a single-sentence Order, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied a request for review of a decision that ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon) did not have to indemnify certain of its insurers over environmental liabilities as required by a previous settlement agreement. The case, entitled Home Insurance Company v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Incorporated, et al., has a unique and convoluted procedural history but, in short, the denial of review leaves standing a holding by the intermediate appellate court that the insurers’ “untimely notice actually prejudiced Exxon, violated the no-prejudice rule, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” The court declined to consider the question framed by the insurers: whether the importance of enforcing settlement agreements outweighs New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine.
The matter dated back almost thirty years, when the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection notified the Appearing London Market Insurers (ALMI) of the potential liability of Cornell-Dublier Electronics (CDE), a former indirect subsidiary of Exxon, for pollution at a site in New Jersey. Coverage litigation followed in New Jersey, which ALMI defended under policies issued to CDE. Exxon was not named in the CDE suit nor were the policies which ALMI issued to Exxon at issue in that case; Exxon instead had its own pollution coverage case pending in New York. In June 2000, Exxon and its insurers, including ALMI, entered into a settlement agreement which (a) required Exxon to indemnify the insurers for any environmental liability claims involving its subsidiaries, and (b) provided for application of New York substantive law and litigation in New York City court for any dispute between the parties under it.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and
Laura Rossi, White and Williams
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Mexico Architect Is Tuned Into His State
February 08, 2021 —
David M. Brown - Engineering News-RecordFor 40-plus years, Van Gilbert has combined his love for the topography, history and culture of New Mexico with an equally passionate dedication to designing not just structures, but buildings that help create communities.
Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Brown, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Understanding the California Consumer Privacy Act
March 02, 2020 —
Kevin Bonsignore - Wilke FleuryThe recently enacted California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA” or the “Act”) goes into effect on January 1, 2020 and with it comes enhanced consumer protections for California residents against businesses that collect their personal information. Generally speaking, the CCPA requires that businesses provide consumers with information relating to the business’ access to and sharing of personal information. Accordingly, businesses should determine whether the CCPA will apply to them and, if so, what policies and procedures they should implement to comply with this new law.
Application of the CCPA
Importantly, the CCPA does not apply to all California business. The requirements of the CCPA only apply where a for-profit entity collects Consumers’ Personal Information, does business in the State of California, and satisfies one or more of the following: (1) has annual gross revenues in excess of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000); (2) receives for the business’s commercial purposes, sells, or shares for commercial purposes the personal information of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices; or (3) derives 50 percent or more of its annual revenues from selling consumers’ personal information. (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(c)(1)(A)-(C).) Thus, as a practical matter, small “mom and pop” operations will likely not be subject to the CCPA, but most mid-size and large companies should review their own books or consult with an accountant to determine whether the CCPA applies to their business.
Rights Granted to Consumers
“Consumers,” as the term is used in the CCPA, means “any natural person who is a California resident…” (California Code of Civil Procedure § 1798.140(g).) This broad definition makes no carve-outs or exclusions for a business’s employees and, despite the traditional definition of the term “consumer,” does not seem to require that the resident purchase any goods or services. This definition seems intentional and was likely designed to prevent businesses from attempting to circumvent the requirements of the CCPA by arguing that the personal information they collect does not belong to “consumers” under the traditional meaning of the word.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Bonsignore, Wilke FleuryMr. Bonsignore may be contacted at
kbonsignore@wilkefleury.com
To Catch a Thief
March 06, 2023 —
Christopher Durso - Construction ExecutiveTony Rader calls it “peeling back the onion”—the slow, methodical process of uncovering the full extent of an embezzlement scam that eventually totaled more than $1 million. What National Roofing Partners (NRP) first discovered was bad enough. The Coppell, Texas–headquartered company, which oversees a nationwide network of nearly 250 commercial roofing contractors, learned in 2018 that a South Texas firm called Statewide Texas Roofing was billing clients for work on behalf of NRP and pocketing all the money. It turned out to be a scheme masterminded by NRP’s then-president, who created Statewide, staffed the company with his kids and used phony work orders to steal hundreds of thousands of dollars in client fees from NRP. He’d been president for six years and with the company since it was created in 2007. It was a huge betrayal—and still just the tip of the iceberg.
“Initially, we thought it was only half a million [dollars] or so,” says Tony Rader, NRP’s chief operating officer. “But I’ll never forget, [Chief Executive Officer] Steve [Little] and I were talking over a bourbon one night, and that’s when I told him, ‘I’ve seen this once before, and this is like an onion. You’ve only peeled off the outer layers. We’re going to be finding stuff for a year, and it’s just going to get bigger and bigger and bigger.’ He said, ‘You think?’ And I said, ‘Oh, I’m pretty sure.’” Rader was all too correct. Working with a third-party forensic accountant, NRP found that not only were its then-chief financial officer and several other employees involved in the scheme, but the president had also abused his corporate credit card, racking up personal charges going back to 2013—on luxury vacations, expensive dinners, clothes, jewelry, even his daughter’s destination wedding in Jamaica. The final tally on his scams: $1.4 million.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Durso, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
