Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Vexed by Low Demand for Mortgages
April 15, 2014 —
Zachary Tracer – BloombergSlack demand for home loans continued to drag on earnings at Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) as the two largest U.S. mortgage lenders grappled for pieces of a shrunken market.
Even as interest rates hovered near historically low levels, new home loans tumbled 67 percent to $36 billion in the first quarter at San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, the biggest originator. JPMorgan posted a 68 percent drop to $17 billion, and the bank predicted it would lose money on mortgage production for the full year.
Both lenders are paring staff to keep expenses in line with demand for loans, which has waned as investors and cash buyers dominate some sales. New York-based JPMorgan said jobs at its mortgage business declined 14,000, or 30 percent, since the start of last year. Wells Fargo set plans to cut 1,100 positions in the most recent three months, which ranked as its worst first quarter for mortgage revenue since 2008.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Tracer, BloombergMr. Tracer may be contacted at
ztracer1@bloomberg.net
Choice of Laws Test Mandates Application of California’s Continuous and Progressive Trigger of Coverage to Asbestos Claims
June 01, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Textron v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. (No. B262933, filed 2/25/20), a California appeals court held that the Restatement’s choice of laws factors mandated application of California’s continuous and progressive trigger of coverage to asbestos claims, overcoming an argument that a manifestation trigger should apply under Rhode Island law.
Travelers insured Textron from 1966 to 1987. In 2011, Textron was sued by a California resident, Esters, for damages caused by mesothelioma resulting from asbestos exposure in California. The action was defended and settled by Travelers and other insurers under reservations of rights. Textron sued Travelers in California for a declaration that Travelers owed duties to defend and indemnify the Esters action. Travelers cross-complained, seeking reimbursement.
The case turned on choice of law for trigger of coverage as between California and Rhode Island. Citing Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645 and Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1, the Textron court noted that California applies a continuous trigger to continuous or progressively deteriorating injury. By contrast, in Rhode Island a covered occurrence exists “when the damage … manifests itself, … is discovered or, … in the exercise of reasonable diligence is discoverable.” (Citing Textron, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. and Sur. Co. (R.I. 2002) 754 A.2d 742.) According to Travelers, the Esters action was not covered under Rhode Island law because the plaintiff’s mesothelioma was not diagnosed until 2010, after Travelers was off the risk.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Design Firm Settles over Construction Defect Claim
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Pennsylvania township has announced that it has reached a settlement with the architectural firm that designed its administration building. Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying than $1.05 million to settle claims of defects in the design of the building.
West Whiteland’s administration building was completed in July 2007. The first leaks were noticed in November and December 2008. In response, the township stopped payments to the contractor, Magnum, Inc. Magnum sued, claiming that their work was not to blame for the leaks. Magnum joined the township in suing the design firm.
Although Cee Jay Frederick Associates will be paying the township to settle the claim, West Whiteland will be paying $75,000 of that back to the firm to settle outstanding bills that had been withheld during litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer
December 20, 2012 —
BRADY IANDIORIO, HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELLWith the aftermath of Sandy still being felt up and down the Eastern seaboard, the question of many victims turns to how they can rebuild their lives and homes. One of the first things many people do is call on their insurance carriers to help rebuild whatever damaged property they have. In a recent case here in Colorado, those rebuilding efforts got reaffirmed by a Court of Appeals case, Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts, d/b/a The Roofing Experts v. Allstate Insurance Company, --- P.3d ----, 2012 WL 4459112 (Colo. App. September 27, 2012).
The facts of the case are pretty straightforward and could describe many repair vendors in numerous situations. Roofing Experts contracted with four homeowners insured by Allstate to repair their damaged roofs. The contracts provided that repair costs would be paid from insurance proceeds. The contracts also allowed Roofing Experts full authority to communicate with Allstate regarding all aspects of the insurance claims. Before work began, Roofing Experts met with adjusters from Allstate to discuss the four homes and the amount of each claim. After receiving approval for the claims, Roofing Experts began the repairs. During construction, Roofing Experts discovered additional repairs were necessary to maintain certain manufacturer’s warranties and to conform to applicable building codes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady Iandorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Iandorio can be contacted at
iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
The Future of High-Rise is Localized and Responsive
August 26, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessBy 2050, 70 percent of world’s population of almost 10 billion people will live in urban areas. The presenters at the High Rise – Northern Exposure seminar envisioned how high-rise construction will meet the requirements of urbanization, and what technologies have to offer to builders and users today.
A line-up of high-rise specialists shared their insights with a keen audience in Otaniemi, Finland, on June 25, 2019. The conference was a co-operation between The Glass Performance Days (GPD) 2019, Aalto University, and the Glass Innovation Institute.
Peter Smithson of BG&E Facades and Kimmo Lintula of Aalto University co-hosted the event.
After welcoming words from Jorma Vitkala, the chairman of GDP, the first four presentations were by architects; one from the USA, two from Finland, and one from Australia.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Insurer Wrongfully Denies Coverage When Household Member Fails to Submit to EUO
May 06, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that coverage for a loss by fire could not be denied when the insured's son failed to appear for a examination under oath (EUO). Adekola v. Allstate Vehicle & Prop. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27125 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 16, 2024).
Plaintiff had a homeowners policy with Allstate. Plaintiff - Michele Adekola - was the named insured under the policy. After the fire, Allstate provided payments for temporary housing. Allstate requested examinations under oath of Plaintiff and her son, Nico. Plaintiff and her son were examined by Zoom. Allstate then sought to examine Plaintiff's other son, Lemmeco, but these efforts were unsuccessful.
Allstate then stopped paying for Plaintiff's temporary housing and informed Plaintiff that Lemmeco's failure to participate in an EUO was a material breach of duties under the policy and the breach was prejudicial to Allstate. Allstate further contended that Lemmeco had a duty to submit to an EUO.
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
Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications
May 31, 2021 —
Paulo Flores, Timothy D. Matheny & Jackson Mabry - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The Texas Legislature has just sent Senate Bill 219 (“S.B. 219”) to the Governor for signature; if this legislation is signed by the Governor, it will further erode the Texas legal doctrine that makes the contractor the warrantor of owner-furnished plans and specifications unless the prime contract specifically places this burden on the owner.
Background
49 states follow what is known as the Spearin doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Spearin) in which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-furnished plans and specifications. Texas, on the other hand, follows the Texas Supreme Court created Lonergan doctrine, which has been an unfortunate presence in Texas construction law since 1907. In its “purest form,” as stated by the Texas Supreme Court, the Lonergan doctrine prevents a contractor from successfully asserting a claim for “breach of contract based on defective plans and specifications” unless the contract contains language that “shows an intent to shift the burden of risk to the owner.” Essentially, this then translates into the contractor warranting the sufficiency and accuracy of owner-furnished plans and specifications, unless the contract between them expressly places this burden on the owner. Over the years some Texas courts of appeal had ameliorated this harsh doctrine, but in 2012, the Texas Supreme Court indicated Lonergan was still the law in Texas, in the case of El Paso v. Mastec. In 2019, the Texas Legislature took the first step toward hopefully abrogating the Lonergan doctrine by implementing a new Chapter 473 to the Texas Transportation Code with respect to certain projects undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas political subdivisions acting under the authority of Chapters 284, 366, 370 or 431 of the Transportation Code, adopting, as it were, the Spearin Doctrine in these limited, transportation projects. Now, the legislature has further chipped away at the Lonergan doctrine with the passage of S.B. 219.
Reprinted courtesy of
Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Jackson Mabry, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com
Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com
Mr. Mabry may be contacted at jmabry@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ways of Evaluating Property Damage Claims in Various Contexts
February 18, 2020 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPotential damages in a lawsuit may come in many forms depending on the facts of the case. Common damages include medical expenses, loss of earnings, property loss, physical pain, and mental suffering. Of the many damages Plaintiffs may claim, one of the most prevalent and recognizable is property damage. This article briefly discusses these types of damages which fall under two major categories – Real Property and Personal Property.
Broadly speaking, “real property” means land, and “personal property” refers to all other objects or rights that may be owned. Ballentine’s Law Dictionary defines “real property” as: “Such things as are permanent, fixed, and immovable; lands, tenements, and hereditaments of all kinds, which are not annexed to the person or cannot be moved from the place in which they subsist. . . .” (Ballentine’s Law Dict. (3d ed. 2010).) “Personal property” is defined as: “Money, goods, and movable chattels . . . . All objects and rights which are capable of ownership
except freehold estates in land, and incorporeal hereditaments issuing thereout, or exercisable within the same.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
Real Property
Real property may be damaged or “harmed” through trespass, permanent nuisance, or other tortious conduct. The general rule is that Plaintiffs may recover the lesser of the two following losses: (1) the decrease in the real property’s fair market value; or (2) the cost to repair the damage and restore the real property to its pre-trespass condition plus the value of any lost use. (Kelly v. CB&I Constructors, Inc.) However, an exception to this general rule may be made if a Plaintiff has a personal reason to restore the real property to its former condition, sometimes called the “personal reason” exception. In such cases, a Plaintiff may recover the restoration costs even if the costs are greater than the decrease in the real property’s value, though the restoration cost must still be “reasonable” in light of the value of the real property before the injury and the actual damage sustained.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
