Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case
March 19, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that a jury “convicted four defendants charged in the massive scheme to take over and defraud homeowners associations.” Convicted defendants included former Benzer attorney Keith Gregory, Benzer’s half-sister Edith Gillespie, Salvatore Ruvolo, and David Ball.
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Prosecutors contended the multimillion-dollar scheme was carried out between 2003 and 2009 by former construction company boss Leon Benzer and the late construction defects lawyer Nancy Quon. Benzer has since pleaded guilty. Quon committed suicide in 2012 under the weight of the high-profile investigation.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Employees Versus Independent Contractors
February 23, 2017 —
Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPAre the workers you employ on the job site considered employees or independent contractors? This is an important distinction that contractors and subcontractors must understand for many purposes, including federal taxes. The classification of your workers can affect their federal income, social security, and Medicare taxes, and the type of benefits they can receive.
When determining whether workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors, courts generally look at three key factors: behavioral control, financial control, and the relationship of the parties.
Behavior Control
Behavior control concerns the business’s right to direct or control how the worker does its work. A worker is likely to be considered an employee when the business maintains behavior control. Such control can be exercised by giving instructions. This would include instructions on how, when, or where to do the work, what tools or equipment to use, who to hire to help with the work, or where to purchase the supplies to be used. Behavioral control can also occur through training. If the business provides training to tell the worker to do the work in a certain manner then the worker is more likely to be an employee.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Reynolds may be contacted at
reynolds@ahclaw.com
Federal District Court Continues to Find Construction Defects do Not Arise From An Occurrence
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFCoverage for construction defects continues to be hotly contested in Hawaii state and federal courts. In a recent decision, Judge Mollway felt bound to follow the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Burlington Ins. Co. v. Oceanic Design & Constr., Inc., 383 F.3d 940, 944 (9th Cir. 2004), where the court found construction defect claims arise from breach of contract, not from an occurrence. Judge Mollway’s most recent decision on the issue is Illinois Nat. Ins. Co. v. Nordic PCL Constr., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58464 (D. Haw. April 26, 2012).
Nordic constructed a grocery store for Safeway. In addition to the grocery store, Nordic built a 165-space rooftop parking deck, retail shops and related improvements. After opening for business in 2007, Safeway experienced significant leaks. Safeway demanded that Nordic repair the parking deck. Nordic sent the demand letter to the insurer, who agreed to appoint counsel subject to a reservation of rights.
Safeway filed suit against Nordic in state court alleging, among other things, breach of contract and negligence. The insurer provided Nordic with a defense, but Nordic hired independent counsel.
The insurer filed for declaratory relief in federal district court.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Plaintiffs Not Barred from Proving Causation in Slip and Fall Case, Even With No Witnesses and No Memory of Fall Itself
February 01, 2022 —
David Hoynacki, Arezoo Jamshidi & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn January 19, 2022, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District (Los Angeles), held that a plaintiff is not barred as a matter of law from proving causation in a slip and fall case if there were no witnesses to the fall, and the plaintiff does not remember the fall itself. The Court of Appeal stated specifically that circumstantial evidence would permit a jury to make a “reasonable and probable inference” regarding contributing factors to a fall, even with no eye-witness evidence.
In
Kaney v. Mazza (BC619247, Jan. 19, 2022), plaintiff and appellant Lydia Kaney (Kaney), was visiting her sister in her rented home in September of 2014. At some point during the visit, the light in the bathroom at the top of the stairs stopped working—Kaney used the stairs, and fell. Kaney filed suit against her sister and the owner of the home alleging premises liability, negligence, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In her deposition, Kaney testified that she remembered going up to the bathroom, and then waking up on the floor in pain. She could not remember how she fell; she did not know if she had missed a step, or if she had slipped and fallen backwards. She speculated that a worn-out bath mat may have been the cause of the slip and fall because the rubber traction on the bath mat was worn away.
Reprinted courtesy of
David Hoynacki, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Hoynacki may be contacted at dhoynacki@hbblaw.com
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic
April 06, 2020 —
Lori Smith & Patrick Devine - White and Williams Taking Care of Business BlogIncreasingly, M&A transactions are using representation and warranty insurance (RWI) to bridge the gap between a buyer’s desire for adequate recourse to recover damages arising out of breach of representations in the purchase agreement and a seller’s desire to minimize post-closing risk and holdbacks or purchase price escrows traditionally used as the means to satisfy such obligations. When it works, RWI provides a significant benefit to both parties: it mitigates the buyer’s risk in the event that the seller’s representations and warranties prove untrue, and it permits the seller to reduce the portion of the purchase price that it would otherwise have to leave in escrow to cover future claims for breach of those representations and warranties. However, as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the global economy, insurers are now expressly adding COVID-19 exclusions to their RWI policies. If RWI insurers decline coverage for these losses, the allocation of risk in the representations and warranties (and related indemnity provisions) will be more critical than the parties contemplated when they negotiated the transaction documents.
Unlike in the case of a natural disaster, insurers cannot quantify the economic fallout that may result from the coronavirus pandemic. This uncertainty breeds systemic concern about the number of insurance claims that covered parties of all varieties will bring, which in turn creates an industry-wide reluctance to cover the claims. Based on discussions with market participants, we understand that, at the present time, 70% to 80% of RWI insurers are broadly excluding losses resulting from COVID-19 and similar viruses, epidemics, and pandemics (including government actions in response thereto), 5% to 10% are narrowly excluding specific coronavirus-related losses that are more likely to be implicated in a particular transaction (e.g., losses caused by business interruption), and 10% to 15% may be willing to narrow their exclusions upon completion of the underwriting process, depending on their comfort level after conducting rigorous and heightened diligence. Insurers’ concerns are wide-ranging, but the representations and warranties causing the greatest distress appear to be those regarding customer retention, supply chain matters, undisclosed liabilities, and the absence of changes between the date of the seller’s most recent financial statements and the transaction closing date.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Smith, White and Williams and
Patrick Devine, White and Williams
Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at devinep@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Title Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment
February 01, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiIn a rare title insurance dispute before the federal district court in Hawaii, the court denied the insurer's motion for summary judgment while granting the insured's motion for summary judgment. First Am. Title Ins. Co. v. GS Industries, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240601 (D. Haw. Dec. 16, 2021).
GS Industries, LLC took ownership of a parcel of real property located fronting Waipa Lane in Honolulu. The property used four buildings and a parking area for 50 cars. GS obtained a title insurance policy from First American. The policy insured GS' fee simple interest in the property in the amount of $3,500,000. The policy insured GS "against loss or damage, not exceeding $3,500,000, sustained or incurred by GS by reason of . . . not right of access to and from the land,." The policy did not identify any issues with access to the property and did not define "access."
A portion of Waipa Lane was owned by the City and County of Honolulu. Parcel 86 and Parcel 91 on Waipa Lane were privately owned. (Private Waipa Lane Parcels). Vehicular access to (ingress) and from (egress) the property was via Waipa Lane. Ingress was made via the publicly owned portion of Waipa Lane. Vehicular egress was made via the Private Waipa Lane Parcels. The City of Honolulu maintained the Private Waipa Lane Parcels and considered them to be pubic. None of the owners of Parcels 86 or 91 notified GS of their intent to block the use of Waipa Lane.
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
Why Is California Rebuilding in Fire Country? Because You’re Paying for It
March 14, 2018 —
Christopher Flavelle – BloombergAfter last year’s calamity, officials are making the same decisions that put homeowners at risk in the first place.
At the rugged eastern edge of Sonoma County, where new homes have been creeping into the wilderness for decades, Derek Webb barely managed to save his ranch-style resort from the raging fire that swept through the area last October. He spent all night fighting the flames, using shovels and rakes to push the fire back from his property. He was even ready to dive into his pool and breathe through a garden hose if he had to. His neighbors weren’t so daring—or lucky.
On a recent Sunday, Webb wandered through the burnt remains of the ranch next to his. He’s trying to buy the land to build another resort. This doesn’t mean he thinks the area won’t burn again. In fact, he’s sure it will. But he doubts that will deter anyone from rebuilding, least of all him. “Everybody knows that people want to live here,” he says. “Five years from now, you probably won’t even know there was a fire.”
As climate change creates warmer, drier conditions, which increase the risk of fire, California has a chance to rethink how it deals with the problem. Instead, after the state’s worst fire season on record, policymakers appear set to make the same decisions that put homeowners at risk in the first place. Driven by the demands of displaced residents, a housing shortage, and a thriving economy, local officials are issuing permits to rebuild without updating building codes. They’re even exempting residents from zoning rules so they can build bigger homes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Flavelle, Bloomberg
Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence
April 08, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Alabama Supreme Court withdrew is prior opinion and authored a new decision finding that construction defects are an "occurrence." Owners Ins. Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilder, No. 1120764 (Ala. March 28, 2014) [decision here].
Jim Carr Homebuilder (JCH) contracted to build a home for the Johnsons. After completion of the construction and moving in, the Johnsons noticed several problems with the house, including water leaking through the roof, walls, and floors, resulting in water damage to those and other areas of the house. When JCH was unable to satisfactorily fix the problems, the Johnsons sued, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and negligence.
Owners, JCH's insurer, defended under a reservation of rights. The matter went to arbitration, where an award of $600,000 was made to the Johnsons.
Owners filed a declaratory judgment action against the Johnsons and JCH. Owners argued that the property damage upon which the award was based was not the result of an "occurrence." The trial court determined that the entire arbitration award was covered under the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
