Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial
September 03, 2019 —
Michael Francis Lenhardt & Burks A. Smith, III - Traub LiebermanOn Tuesday, July 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman Partners Michael Lenhardt and Burks Smith won a Directed Verdict at trial in a dispute over Sinkhole Loss coverage in Broward County Circuit Court. The lawsuit arose out of a claim for Breach of Contract involving an alleged “failed repair” of a 2005 sinkhole at the insureds’ property. The Plaintiffs argued that their Policy Limits did not apply because the carrier allegedly undertook the subsurface repairs, relying on Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4thDCA 2006). The Plaintiffs asserted that because the insurance company allegedly hired the below ground repair company, a “new contract” was formed, and the Plaintiffs should be entitled to limitless repairs to their home, notwithstanding the Policy Limits. This argument obviously presented the carrier with very significant exposure.
Attorneys Lenhardt and Smith provided a vigorous defense for the insurance company at trial, during which they presented the jury with evidence that the carrier did not, in fact, hire the subsurface repair company. They further established to the jury that the insureds actually signed a contract with the repair company directly, and that the defendant did not invoke the Our Option repair clause of the Policy. After the Plaintiffs rested their case, Mr. Lenhardt and Mr. Smith moved the Court for entry of a directed verdict. The defense argued to the Court that the Plaintiffs could not prove their case to the jury based upon the facts presented as a matter of law, thus entitling the insurance company to a defense verdict.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Francis Lenhardt, Traub Lieberman and
Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Lenhardt may be contacted at mlenhardt@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
June 17, 2024 —
David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn June 17, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant opinion in the case of City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association (Case No. 22SC293). This decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and the economic loss rule in the context of construction defect claims.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a construction defect dispute between the City of Aspen, which served as the developer and declarant for the affordable housing condominiums at issue, and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, the HOA created by Aspen to manage the association after the period of declarant control. The Association alleged that Aspen breached various warranties related to the construction of affordable housing units, leading to structural deficiencies. Aspen argued that the CGIA barred these claims because they could lie in tort.
The Lower Court’s Decision
The district court initially agreed with Aspen, holding that the Association’s claims sounded in tort and were therefore barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the principle that governmental immunity protects public entities from liability for claims that ‘lie in tort or could lie in tort,’ as established by the CGIA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Big Data Meets Big Green: Data Centers and Carbon Removal Compete for Zero-Emission Energy
October 15, 2024 —
Robert A. James, Sidney L. Fowler & Ashleigh Myers - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogArtificial intelligence, data centers, carbon removal and zero-emission power may sound like a winning line (plus the Free Space) on a 2024 Buzzword Bingo card. But the concepts have come into dramatic real-world tension as private and public actors seek to accommodate the digital and environmental imperatives for green energy.
After years of fairly stable demand, punctuated by declines during the pandemic and economic slumps, electricity demand is projected to double by 2050. A principal cause is the rapid expansion in the power needed to energize and cool servers amid explosive growth in the number and size of data centers, crypto miners, and other point sources of computation. Data centers were 3% of U.S. demand and are projected to be up to 9% or more by 2030; AI will drive a 160% surge in data center demand by 2030. A commentator notes, “We haven’t seen [growth like] this in a generation.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury,
Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and
Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Defense Owed to Directors and Officers Despite Insured vs. Insured Exclusion
May 13, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found there the duty to defend a suit filed by the FDIC against officers and directors was not excluded by the insured versus insured provision in the policy. W Holding Co., Inc. v. AIG Ins. Co. - Puerto Rico, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5943 (1st Cir. March 31, 2014).
Regulators ordered the closure of the insured bank and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as receiver. FDIC concluded certain bank directors and officers had breached their fiduciary duty by jeopardizing the bank's financial soundness. The FDIC concluded these breaches had caused more than $367 million in losses and demanded reimbursement by the directors and officers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Haight Expands California Reach – Opens Office in Sacramento
October 21, 2015 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPHaight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is excited to announce that the firm has opened an office in Sacramento with the addition of two new attorneys – Elizabeth W. Lawley has joined as Managing Partner for the Sacramento office and Gino Cano as Senior Counsel. Lawley and Cano bring their thriving practices to Haight with expertise in construction law and general liability matters. With the addition of Sacramento, Haight now has six offices throughout the State of California. Our footprint and ability to provide exceptional service is greatly expanded.
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
2485 Natomas Park Drive
Suite 450
Sacramento, CA 95833
www.hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster
February 06, 2023 —
Jason Daniel Feld - Kahana FeldIn the beautiful coastline region along the famous Pacific Coast Highway between Ventura and Santa Barbara rests the small cottage town of La Conchita. With unobstructed ocean views, this community is only 820 feet wide on a narrow strip of land abutting a 590 feet high cliffside bluff. The bluff has a slope of approximately 35 degrees and consists of poorly cemented marine sediments. This is the perfect recipe for constant disaster from a geological perspective and the site of several major landslides that have devastated this community. Geologic evidence indicates that landslides, which are part of the larger Rincon Mountain slides, have been occurring at and near La Conchita for many thousands of years up to the present with reported landslides beginning as early as 1865. In both 1889 and 1909, the
Southern Pacific Rail Line
running along the coast was inundated. In the 1909 slide, a train was buried. Since that time, other slides have occurred, covering at times cultivated land, roadways, and the community itself. The two most devastating landslides occurred in 1995 and 2005.
1995 Landslide
From October 1994-March 1995, there was double the amount of seasonal rainfall for the area – in excess of 30 inches. The slide occurred on March 3, 1995, when surface cracks in the upper part of the slope opened on the hillside, and
surface runoff was infiltrating into the subsurface. The heavy rains essentially saturated the slope causing a massive slide. On March 4, 1995, the hill behind La Conchita failed, moving tens of meters in minutes, and buried nine homes with no loss of life. The
County of Ventura immediately declared the whole community a
Geological Hazard Area, imposing building restrictions on the community to restrict new construction. On March 10, 1995, a subsequent debris flow from a canyon to the northwest damaged five additional houses in the northwestern part of La Conchita. In total, the slide measured approximately 390 feet wide, 1080 feet long and 98 feet deep. The deposit covered approximately 9.9 acres, and the volume was estimated to be approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of sediment. The devastation was immeasurable and the damage to homes, property and infrastructure was in the millions of dollars to repair. Litigation quickly arose following the 1995 slide with seventy-one homeowners suing the La Conchita Ranch Co. in Bateman v. La Conchita Ranch Co. The judge ruled that irrigation was not the major cause of the slide and that the ranch owners were not responsible.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana FeldMr. Feld may be contacted at
jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied
April 08, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's claim for contingent business interruption ("CBI") coverage was denied in Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh Pa., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3096 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2014).
Millenium processed titanium dioxide, a compound used for its white pigmentation, at its plant in Western Australia. Millennium purchased natural gas to process the titanium dioxide from Alinta Sales Pty Ltd., a natural gas supplier. Alinta purchased gas from Apache Corporation. Once Apache processed the natural gas, it was injected into a pipeline. The gas from Apache's facility was commingled with that obtained from other producers, resulting in a mix of gas in a single pipeline.
Alinta had sole ownership of the gas once it entered the pipeline. Under Alinta's contract with Millennium, title to the gas passed to Millenium only at the time of delivery, i.e., when the gas left the pipeline and was delivered to Millennium's facility through a separate delivery line. Millennium had no contract or business relationship with Apache, and the contract it had with Alinta made no reference to Apache.
An explosion occurred at Apache's facility causing its natural gas production to cease. As a result, Millennium's gas supply was curtailed, and it was force to shut down its operations for a number of months.
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 York Instructs Property Carriers to Advise Insureds on Business Interruption Coverage
April 13, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) took the unusual step last week of instructing all property/casualty insurers to provide information on commercial property insurance and details on business interruption coverage in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. The notice is
here.
The notice recognizes that policyholders have urgent questions about the business interruption coverage under their policies. Insurers must explain to policyholders the benefits under their policies and the protections provided in connection with COVID-19.
The explanation to policyholders is to include the following relevant information.
What type of commercial property insurance or otherwise related insurance policy does
the insured hold?
Does the insured's policy provide "business interruption" coverage? If so, provide the
"covered perils" under such policy. Please also indicate whether the policy contains a
requirement for "physical damage or loss" and explain whether contamination related
to a pandemic may constitute "physical damage or loss." Please describe what type of
damage or loss is sufficient for coverage under the policy.
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
