As Trump Visits Border, Texas Landowners Prepare to Fight the Wall
February 11, 2019 —
Associated Press - Engineering News-RecordHIDALGO, Texas (AP) — As President Donald Trump traveled to the border in Texas to make the case for his $5.7 billion wall , landowner Eloisa Cavazos says she knows firsthand how the project will play out if the White House gets its way.
The federal government has started surveying land along the border in Texas and announced plans to start construction next month. Rather than surrender their land, some property owners are digging in, vowing to reject buyout offers and preparing to fight the administration in court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
New York Appellate Division Reverses Denial of Landlord’s Additional Insured Tender
December 07, 2020 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanIn Wesco Insurance Co. v. Travelers Property & Cas. Co. of America, 2020 WL 6572489 (1st Dep’t Nov. 10, 2020), the New York Appellate Division found that a commercial landlord was owed additional insured coverage in connection with an incident in which a plaintiff slipped and fell on the sidewalk while exiting the leased premises.
The tenant, Capital One, was the named insured in a CGL policy issued by Travelers. The policy added the landlord as an additional insured, but “only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to [Capital One] and shown in the Schedule.” The lease defined the demised premises to include the building and “all appurtenances.”
Travelers denied the landlord’s tender on the basis that the sidewalk did not constitute “that part of the premises leased to” Capital One. In the ensuing declaratory judgment action brought by Wesco (the landlord’s insurer), the court granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment on this ground.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ninth Circuit Resolves Federal-State Court Split Regarding Whether 'Latent' Defects Discovered After Duration of Warranty Period are Actionable under California's Lemon Law Statute
December 17, 2015 —
Laura C. Williams & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Daniel v. Ford Motor Company (filed 12/02/15), the Ninth Circuit resolved a federal and state court split on the issue of whether consumers can sustain a breach of implied warranty claim under California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (aka the “lemon law” statute) for “latent” defects discovered after the warranty period has expired. Answering this question in the affirmative, the Ninth Circuit followed the holding in the California state appellate decision of Mexia v. Rinker Boat Co. 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 285 (2009), which definitively determined there is nothing in California’s lemon law that requires a consumer to discover a latent defect during the duration of the warranty.
The underlying class action lawsuit was brought in federal district court by purchasers of Ford Focus vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged Ford was aware of, but failed to disclose, a rear suspension defect in the Focus that resulted in premature tire wear which can cause decreased vehicle control, catastrophic tire failure and drifting on wet or snowy roads. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims including violations of California’s Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and Magnuson Moss Warranty Act. Ford successfully moved for summary judgment on all claims prompting an appeal.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year
August 15, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – JULY 23, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is proud to be selected as one of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County in the category of medium sized companies. This marks the seventh consecutive year Newmeyer & Dillion LLP has made the list, affirming that its profound commitment to professionalism and client service is shared among its workforce. The ranking was released in a special section of the Orange County Business Journal's July 23 issue.
Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion's Managing Partner, commends the effort of each employee in achieving this result. "Together, we strive to maintain an innovative, collaborative and creative culture that cannot be matched anywhere else, and we are sincerely grateful for each of our employees' ongoing commitment to the firm's values."
The awards program was created in 2009 and is a project of the Orange County Business Journal and Best Companies Group. This county-wide survey and awards program was designed to identify, recognize and honor the best places of employment in Orange County, California, benefiting the county's economy, its workforce and businesses.
For more information on the survey process for the Best Places to Work in Orange County program, visit www.BestPlacestoWorkOC.com or contact Jackie Miller at 877-455-2159.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hoboken Mayor Admits Defeat as Voters Reject $241 Million School
February 21, 2022 —
Nic Querolo - BloombergHoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla said late Tuesday that the city’s $241 million bond referendum to build a new high school won’t pass.
“While the will of the voters has made it clear that the Board of Education’s current proposal for the new high school will not move forward, I sincerely believe that the effort to improve our public schools will continue,” Bhalla said in a statement. While the board of education put forth the proposal, the mayor was a big proponent.
The vote in a special election Tuesday was one of the costliest school construction referendums in New Jersey history. The bond was failing 66% to 34%, with 35 out of 42 precincts reporting, according to unofficial results posted by Hudson County as of Wednesday morning. About 7,500 ballots had been cast, translating to a roughly 17% turnout, which is strong for a school bond vote.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nic Querolo, Bloomberg
Draft Federal Legislation Reinforces Advice to Promptly Notify Insurers of COVID-19 Losses
April 20, 2020 —
James Hultz - Newmeyer DillionInsurers across the country are nearly universally denying claims for business interruption stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Those denials have in turn been met with swift litigation and potential legislative action. The first business interruption coverage lawsuit related to COVID-19 was filed in New Orleans on March 16. There are now no less than 13 such cases nationwide and many more are likely to follow. Further, legislatures in at least seven states are considering legislation that would, to varying degrees, mandate business interruption coverage for COVID-19 losses, notwithstanding any seemingly contrary policy provisions.
From the early stages of the pandemic, we have consistently advised our clients to promptly notify their insurers of all COVID-19 related losses, even where coverage appeared uncertain. The deluge of coverage litigation and contemplated legislation could drastically alter how insurers handle COVID-19 claims. But policyholders who have failed to satisfy policy notice requirements could miss out on the benefits of those changes. Therefore, policyholders would be ill-advised to sit on the sidelines and wait it out.
Now, draft Federal legislation appears to add further impetus to instructions to “tender early.” The contemplated “Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020” would reportedly devote billions of dollars of federal funds through a Department of Treasury administered reinsurance program designed to offset losses sustained by insurers who actually pay business interruption losses. The legislation is still taking shape but would reportedly create “a Federal program that provides for a transparent system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease.” President Trump is also reportedly pressuring insurers to provide business interruption coverage. The massive influx of federal funds and pressure from the White House could encourage insurers to reconsider denials of COVID-19 business interruption claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Hultz, Newmeyer DillionMr. Hultz may be contacted at
james.hultz@ndlf.com
Construction Defect Risks Shifted to Insurers in 2013
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFRecent court decisions have tended to view construction defects as covered under insurance policies, “allowing construction companies to shift the costs of their faulty workmanship to their insurers, thereby reversing the previous public policy trend against coverage for such claims.” John Husmann and Adam Fleischer of Bates Carey Nicolaides review some of the 2013 decisions that reversed “the previous public policy trend against coverage for such claims.”
They note that “for some time, courts have recognized that there is a public policy against allowing construction companies to get paid to perform faulty workmanship, and then force their insurers to be the financers for the repair and replacement costs.” But in 2013, the courts “strayed from those public policy considerations upon which previous decisions relied.”
With reference to specific cases and decisions, they discuss three ways in which the courts have change course. The first is whether faulty workmanship is an “occurrence.” The next is if faulty workmanship is covered when it damages non-faulty work of the same project. And finally, whether exclusions for particular parts of the property extend to the work done in that area.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
