Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims
July 06, 2020 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies.
AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How to Prepare for Potential Construction Disputes Resulting From COVID-19
August 24, 2020 —
Helga A. Zauner & Sonia Desai - Construction ExecutiveEvery industry has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and construction is no exception. While construction work was deemed essential in some places, it has been limited only to pandemic-related projects in others.
In the current climate, construction companies face a myriad new challenges, including concerns about health and safety, delays resulting from employee illnesses, supply chain disruptions and increased prices for materials, as well as contract delays or cancellations by concerned contract owners. Contractors must keep their employees safe and institute what could be costly best-practice measures, while facing potential claims from employees if they get sick due to a company’s perceived lack of response to the dangers of the coronavirus.
Stakeholders in the construction process need to prepare for potential disputes and understand their rights and responsibilities. This includes understanding applicable clauses in construction contracts and subcontractor agreements as well as business interruption clauses and other provisions in insurance contracts. Stakeholders may need to seek professional counsel to help them understand their rights and responsibilities in potential disputes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Helga A. Zauner & Sonia Desai, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Ms. Zauner may be contacted at helga.zauner@weaver.com
Ms. Desai may be contacted at sonia.desai@weaver.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Discretion in Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees
January 25, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn prior articles I have discussed that courts apply the significant issues test to determine the prevailing party for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees. A party that recovers an affirmative judgement is NOT the de facto prevailing party for purposes of an entitlement to attorney’s fees in a breach of contract action (or a construction lien foreclosure action). This was the issue in a recent appeal discussed here where the party that recovered an affirmative judgment on a breach of contract case was not deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. While the party prevailed on one of its claims, it did not prevail on others, and it recovered less than half of the damages it originally sought. The appellate court, affirming the trial court, held that the trial court has discretion to determine that the party that recovered an affirmative judgement was not the prevailing party entitled to its attorney’s fees under the signifiant issues test. This was not what the party was expecting when the attorney’s fees it expended far exceeded the judgment it recovered.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act
September 13, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn August 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett was a regulated wetlands under the then-controlling 1977 EPA rules defining “waters of the United States,” and that the Sacketts dredging and filling of their property was subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or EPA. EPA’s case, as it has been for many years, was based on 2008 EPA and Corps inspection reports and Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test as the controlling opinion in the 2006 Supreme Court case, Rapanos v. United States. The Sacketts’ argument was that the text of the Clean Water Act, as interpreted by Justice Scalia and three other Justices, was controlling, but for several years, the Ninth Circuit has relied on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in these CWA controversies. The court’s opinion expressed considerable sympathy for the Sacketts as they negotiated the thicket of EPA’s regulatory processes, but it could not disregard circuit precedent. A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous decision, that EPA’s then extant administrative compliance orders were arbitrary and capricious. (See Sackett v. US, 566 US 120 (2015).) After that decision, the case was remanded to the federal district court, where it lingered for several more years.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Affirmed: Insureds Bear the Burden of Allocating Covered Versus Uncovered Losses
September 28, 2017 —
C. Lily Schurra & K. Alexandra Byrd – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Second Circuit recently affirmed a district court decision that an insured bears the burden of establishing what portion of a jury verdict constitutes covered damages1.
The case arose out of claims for property damage resulting from construction defects in a homebuilding project. The homeowners fired the construction manager, J. Barrows, Inc. (“JBI”), who then sued the homeowners in state court for unpaid fees (the “Underlying Action”). The homeowners counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract and negligence. JBI’s commercial general liability insurer, Harleysville Worcester Insurance Company (“Harleysville”), agreed to defend JBI under a reservation of rights.
Reprinted courtesy of
C. Lily Schurra, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Schurra may be contacted at cls@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Byrd may be contacted at kab@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Four Forces That Will Take on Concrete and Make Construction Smart
September 17, 2018 —
Massimiliano Moruzzi - Construction ExecutiveWhen it comes to building a bridge, what prevents it from having the most enduring and sustainable life span? What is its worst enemy? The answer is, simply, the bridge itself—its own weight.
Built with today’s construction processes, bridges and buildings are so overly massed with energy and material that they’re inherently unsustainable.
While concrete is quite literally one of the foundations of modern construction, it’s not the best building material. It’s sensitive to pollution. It cracks, stainsand collapses in reaction to rain and carbon dioxide. It’s a dead weight: Take San Francisco’s sinking, leaning Millennium Tower as an example.
Reprinted courtesy of
Massimiliano Moruzzi, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Manhattan Vacancies Rise in Epicenter Shift: Real Estate
August 20, 2014 —
David M. Levitt – BloombergThe luster is fading on some of midtown Manhattan’s shiniest skyscrapers.
Buildings in Midtown, from 30th Street to Central Park South at 59th Street, have more vacant blocks of contiguous office space than at the height of the recession in 2009, as landlords face increased competition from buildings downtown and at Hudson Yards on the far west side, according to a study by Savills Studley Inc., a New York-based real estate brokerage.
“The epicenter of this city has shifted several times before and is in the process of shifting again,” Michael Cohen, tri-state region president of brokerage Colliers International, said in an interview. Midtown is “the hole in the doughnut,” where landlords are vulnerable to extended vacancies and rents that probably won’t rise dramatically.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Levitt, BloombergMr. Levitt may be contacted at
dlevitt@bloomberg.net
Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum
June 10, 2019 —
Sean M. Mosman & Mark O. Morris - Snell & Wilmer Under ConstructionThe Utah Supreme Court recently decided Baker v. Carlson, 2018 UT 59, which considered a developer’s ongoing effort to build a mixed-use, part-residential and part-commercial development on the site of the long-defunct Cottonwood Mall located in Holladay, Utah. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third District Court’s ruling that a voter referendum to block the development was valid. This ruling calls into question the certainty of investment-backed real estate decisions in Utah and thus could carry negative implications for the Utah construction and real estate development communities.
The Cottonwood Mall opened in the early 1960s, and for several decades was a popular regional shopping destination. But the mall fell on financial hard times in the mid-1990s, and since 2007 the 57-acre lot has sat vacant. Around that time, the owner of the lot made plans to redevelop it, and asked Holladay City to rezone the site to permit mixed uses. In response, the City rezoned the lot as Regional/Mixed-Use (R/M-U). The City also created a process to control the development of an R/M-U zone, requiring prospective builders to first submit a site development master plan—which sets forth guidelines for the overall development and design of the site—to the City for approval. After the City approves a master plan, the developer must enter into a development agreement with the City, giving the developer certain rights and addressing other development-related issues.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sean M. Mosman, Snell & Wilmer and
Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mosman may be contacted at smosman@swlaw.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
