The Looming Housing Crisis and Limited Government Relief—An Examination of the CDC Eviction Moratorium Two Months In
December 14, 2020 —
Zachary Kessler - Gravel2GavelMonths after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a nationwide eviction moratorium using its emergency pandemic powers under the Public Health Service Act, the efficacy of this unprecedented measure remains unclear. While the Order ostensibly protects tenants facing homelessness or housing insecurity due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic through the end of 2020, legal challenges have been initiated in Ohio and Georgia, with additional lawsuits appearing likely. Further, even barring legal challenges, courts have not handled these cases in a uniform manner. With lawmakers unable to reach any stimulus or COVID-19 relief agreement before the election, the CDC Order appears likely to remain the only federal eviction moratorium through its expiration on December 31, 2020.
Since the Order’s enactment, the CDC has since released new guidance, answering some of the open questions not covered by the initial Order. This guidance, while non-binding, is largely more favorable to landlords and property management companies than the initial text of the Order, as it provides that landlords are not required to make tenants aware of the Order’s protections and may challenge the truthfulness of the tenants’ declarations in any state or municipal court. The guidance also clarified the potential criminal penalties for violating the Order and the criminal penalties for perjury for bad faith submissions of the requisite declaration by tenants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, PillsburyMr. Kessler may be contacted at
zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
Home Building on the Upswing in Bakersfield
May 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFLow inventories and low mortgage rates are leading developers to build new homes in Bakersfield, California. According to KGET, home permits are up forty-five percent over last April. In one development, a street of six homes all sold on the same day. Indications are also that people who lost their homes during the bust are entering homeownership again.
Prices are also up. A year ago, the average home sale price was $145,000. Now it’s $250,000. Oh, and that development where they sold six homes in a day? The next phase of development goes on sale in May.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Must Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims
May 02, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the insurer improperly denied a defense for construction defect claims made against the insured. Amerisure Mut. Ins. Co. v. McMillin Tex. Homes, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEIS 40363 (W.D. Texas March 8, 2022).
McMillin was a developer, general contractor and home seller. It constructed multiple homes in various communities in the San Antonio area. After the homes were completed, homeowners observed defects in the artificial stucco exterior finish. After claims were lodged against McMillin, the various claims were tendered to Amerisure. Amerisure filed for declaratory judgment that it had to duty to defend or indemnify and moved for summary judgment.
Amerisure first argued the homeowners' faulty workmanship claims did not allege "property damage" under the policies. It argued there were no allegations that any property damage existed, but merely that the stucco suffered from construction defects. The court disagreed. Among the allegations was the statement that due to the construction defects, the homes suffered damage "not only to the exterior stucco, but also to the underlying wire lath, paper backing, house wrap, flashing, water resistive barriers, sheathing, interior walls, interior floors and/ or other property." Consequently, the underlying claims amounted to property damage.
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
Additional Insured is Loss Payee after Hurricane Damage
October 01, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiConstruing the policy language, the federal district court found that the policy's additional insured was the loss payee for damage caused by Hurricanes Laura and Delta. TCP Ryan St. LLC v. Weschester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125529 (W.D. La. July 16, 2024).
Hurricanes Laura and Delta caused damage to TCP Ryan Street, LLC's (TCP) property. Westchester had issued a policy to MRI Heritage Brand, Inc. (MRI). MRI, as lessee, was obligated pursuant to the lease terms to "purchase and maintain . . . a policy of fire, extended coverage, vandalism and malicious mischief (or 'all risk') insurance coverage on all real property situated at the Lease Premises." The lease also required MRI to obtain coverage under a policy naming only the landlord as the sole insured and provided that the proceeds would be payable to the landlord.
The policy provided that no entity was covered unless Westchester had received identifying information for the entity during the application process or the entity was added by endorsement.
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
BWB&O Partner Jack Briscoe and Associate Anoushe Marandjian Win Summary Judgment Motion on Behalf of Homeowner Client!
March 13, 2023 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Partner, Jack Briscoe and Associate, Anoushe Marandjian obtained an order for summary judgment in a multi-theory liability action in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Plaintiff suffered severe injuries when he fell off a ladder while performing finish carpentry work at the home of BWB&O’s client. Plaintiff alleged various theories of liability against our client, the homeowner, including that: our client supplied a dangerous and defective ladder that, among other things, was unstable and not tall enough for the job; that the floor was covered with a slippery plastic sheeting hidden underneath construction paper which constituted a dangerous condition; that our client was his “employer” under the Labor Code; and that our client was civilly liable on the basis that he had directly hired Plaintiff, who was an unlicensed contractor. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleged that our client was vicariously liable for the conduct of his general contractor, who failed to maintain worker’s compensation insurance covering Plaintiff.
After several rounds of written discovery, which required extensive attempts to “meet and confer” over Plaintiff’s deficient responses, as well as the parties’ depositions, Mr. Briscoe and Ms. Marandjian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of our client on various grounds, including that the Privette Doctrine precluded Plaintiff from recovery against our client and that our client was not negligent (there was no dangerous condition and if there was, our client did not create it or that it existed for a long enough time for our client to have discovered it and remedied it). Plaintiff’s Opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment included a Declaration from an expert witness alleging various grounds upon which our client was liable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim
November 23, 2020 —
Christopher P. Leise & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLPAfter an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier.
USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.”
Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and
Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Intricacies of Business Interruption Claim Considered
January 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiReaching into the weeds to analyze a business interruption claim, the Massachusetts Court of Appeals determined the cost of ordinary payroll could be included in the calculation of net profit or loss in determining business loss income when business is resumed quickly after a fire. Verrill Farms, LLC v. Farm Family Cas. Ins. Co., 2014 Mass. App. LEXIS 145 (Mass. App. Ct. Nov. 4, 2014).
The insured suffered a fire loss at its farm store. Within two days, the business was reopened at alternate locations at reduced capacity. Within a month, the business had resumed nearly full capacity in temporary locations. No employees were laid off. This allowed the insured to maintain its business and generate income.
The insured submitted a claim for loss of business income, based on its loss of net income in the year after the fire. The insurer paid a sum considerably less than the claim based upon its interpretation of what expenses could be included in a calculation of net profit or loss in order to determine loss of business income. The trial court held that the insurer did not have to pay the cost of ordinary payroll beyond the sixty-day limit, and granted summary judgment in the insurer's favor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court
June 21, 2021 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn the recent case of Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a court can consider extrinsic evidence when determining an insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying lawsuit stems from a construction contract in which J&B Farms of Texas hired 5D, a construction company, to drill a commercial irrigation well through the Edwards Aquifer. Two years after beginning the project, J&B Farms sued 5D and its President for breach of contract and negligence. J&B Farms alleged that while drilling, 5D “stuck the drilling bit in the bore hole, rendering the well practically useless for its intended/contracted for purpose.” 5D then “failed and refused to plug the well, retrieve the drill bit, and drill a new well.” J&B Farms asserted that 5D drilled the well “with unacceptable deviation” and then “abandon[ed] the well.”
5D notified its insurers, BITCO and Monroe, of the lawsuit and demanded a defense from both. BITCO agreed to provide a defense to 5D, but Monroe refused arguing that the alleged property damage fell outside the relevant policy period, and therefore, it had no duty to defend 5D. BITCO then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that Monroe owed 5D a duty to defend.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
