Reinventing the Building Envelope – Interview with Gordon A Geddes
September 01, 2016 —
Aarni Heiskanen – AEC BusinessIn this interview with Gordon A Geddes, CEO of Lynx Systems, we talk about reinventing the building envelope. Gordon also gives great advice to innovators in the construction industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aarni@aepartners.fi
Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review
November 26, 2014 —
Angela S. Haskins & Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPA California Court of Appeal expressed its concern over the due process implications of reviewing a trial court's decision that incorporated reasons that were not documented due to the absence of a court reporter. In Maxwell v. Dolezal (No. B254893, filed 11/4/14), the court cautioned that although the lack of a transcript did not preclude its review of an order sustaining a demurrer, the case was an exception because the operative complaint and demurrer were sufficient to permit effective appellate review.
The plaintiff in Maxwell, acting in pro per, had filed an action for invasion of privacy and breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had used his photograph and website without his consent and that he did not receive the money, food and housing in exchange for the intellectual property rights per their agreement. The defendant demurred on the grounds that the complaint was uncertain and it could not be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract was written, oral, or implied. At the hearing on the demurrer, no court reporter was present. Nonetheless, the trial court's minute order explicitly sustained the demurrer "[f]or the reasons stated in open court," without further elaborating. The trial court also denied the plaintiff further leave to amend on the ground that he was unable to articulate in open court a reasonable basis for any additional allegations that would remedy the deficiencies. The court of appeal noted that it was "profoundly concerned about the due process implications of a proceeding in which the court, aware that no record will be made, incorporates within its ruling reasons that are not documented for the litigants or the reviewing court."
Reprinted courtesy of
Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Drowning of Two Boys Constitutes One Occurrence
August 06, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiWhen two boys drowned at a summer camp, the issue arose as to whether there were one or two occurrences. Fellowship of Christian Athletes v. AXIS Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13176 (8th Cir. July 11, 2014).
The two boys could not swim, and their camp permission forms indicated that they were non-swimmers. One night, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes (FCA) had a pool party. After the party, the FCA staff realized the two boys were missing. They had drowned, and their bodies were found lying side-by-side at the bottom of the deep end of the pool. The death certificate for one boy listed the time of death as 10:44 p.m., while the other boy's time of death was listed as 10:42 p.m.
The FCA was insured under three policies. AXIS Insurance Company insured FCA under a CGL policy with $1 million limits per occurrence and $5 million in the aggregate. The FCA also had two umbrella policies, one issued by Ironshore Speciality Insurance Company, which provided up to $10 million in coverage in excess of Axis's policy. Under the second umbrella policy, RSUI Indemnity Company covered up to $5 million in excess of the Axis and Ironshore policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (1/10/24) – New Type of Nuclear Reactor, Big Money Surrounding Sports Stadiums, and Positivity from Fannie Mae’s Monthly Consumer Survey
February 05, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, the commercial real estate market poses a risk to financial stability, New York City moves towards net-zero building emissions, workers at several Los Angeles area hotels tentatively agree to a new contract, and more!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
MBIA Seeks Data in $1 Billion Credit Suisse Mortgage Suit
June 26, 2014 —
Chris Dolmetsch and Jody Shenn – BloombergMBIA Inc. (MBI) asked a judge to order Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN) to turn over internal records that the bond insurer says bolster its contention the bank lied about how it processed loans packaged into mortgage-backed securities.
MBIA said in a court filing today that Credit Suisse has withheld evidence about how the bank’s actual practices diverged from its representations -- including documents identified as exhibits in other lawsuits based on the same allegations.
The bond insurer asked Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan to force the bank to search documents and e-mails on its policies and practices including those related to loan underwriting and origination, due diligence and post-acquisition quality-control review.
Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net; Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch and Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
Illinois Joins the Pack on Defective Construction as an Occurrence
December 16, 2023 —
Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Illinois joins the majority of states finding “property damage that results inadvertently from faulty work can be caused by an ‘accident’ and therefore constitute an ‘occurrence’.”
The Illinois Supreme Court’s ruling in Acuity v. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC1 (“Acuity v. M/I Homes”) is the first high court ruling in Illinois on this critical coverage issue for contractors. M/I Homes of Chicago, LLC (“M/I Homes”) constructed a townhome development. After completion, water entered the townhomes resulting in interior water damage. The townhome owners’ association filed suit against M/I Homes alleging it, or its subcontractors, caused the damage because it used defective materials, conducted faulty workmanship, and failed to comply with applicable building codes (the “Underlying Action”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Perry may be contacted at
APerry@sdvlaw.com
Supreme Court Rejects “Wholly Groundless” Exception to Question of Arbitrability
February 06, 2019 —
Justin Fortescue - White and Williams LLPIn newly appointed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first opinion, the United States Supreme Court held that the “wholly groundless” exception to arbitrability, which some federal courts had relied on as justification to decide questions of arbitrability over the express terms of a contract, was inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent. Based on this decision, where a contract delegates the question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, courts must respect the parties’ contract and refer the question to the arbitrator. Schein v. Archer & White, 586 U.S. __ (2019).
In Schein, Archer & White brought a lawsuit against Henry Schein alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief. The relevant contract between the parties contained an arbitration provision that provided:
“Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief . . .) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Justin Fortescue, White and Williams LLPMr. Fortescue may be contacted at
fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com
Why You Make A Better Wall Than A Window: Why Policyholders Can Rest Assured That Insurers Should Pay Legal Bills for Claims with Potential Coverage
March 14, 2018 —
Alan Packer and Graham Mills - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPUnfortunately, policyholders, such as manufacturers and contractors, routinely face the unnecessary challenge of how to access all of the insurance coverage which they have purchased. Frequently, the most pressing need is to get the insurance company to pay the legal bills when the policyholders have been sued. The recent Iowa federal district court opinion in
Pella Corporation v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company should help a policyholder in a dispute to require its insurance company to pay those legal bills sooner rather than later by highlighting that the duty to defend arises from the potential for coverage, and the insurer may not force the policyholder to prove the damage to obtain a defense.
In
Pella, a window manufacturer purchased several years of insurance coverage from Liberty Mutual. Similar to many companies, Pella had many “layers” of insurance coverage in any given year. These layers collectively function like a tower. The general idea is that each layer provides a certain amount of coverage after the insurance policy below it had paid its money. The Liberty Mutual insurance policies provided excess coverage.
After the
Pella window manufacturer made and sold its windows, it was sued in numerous lawsuits alleging that its windows were defective and that those defective windows caused a wide variety of damage to the structures in which they were installed. The window manufacturer tendered those lawsuits to its insurance companies in its tower of coverage, asking that the insurance companies pay its legal bills incurred in its defense. As to Liberty Mutual, the window manufacturer argued that the Liberty Mutual insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to reimburse it, if a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage or if there was a mere allegation that a window was installed during the years that those policies provided coverage. Liberty Mutual opposed, arguing that the date of installation of the windows was insufficient to trigger the policies, and that the manufacturer was required to demonstrate the date that damage actually occurred to trigger a defense.
The key issue before the
Pella Court in this decision was a simple one: which insurance policies, if any, issued by Liberty Mutual had an obligation to pay the window manufacturer’s legal bills? The answer to that question is critical and financially significant. Getting an insurance company to honor its obligations and start paying the legal bills as soon as possible is very important for a policyholder because of the cost of defending oneself in a lawsuit; often the key reason why an insurance policy is even purchased is to provide the policyholder with the right to call upon the insurance company’s financial resources to defend it should it be sued.
In a ruling that will be welcomed by policyholders, the
Pella Court held that Liberty Mutual’s multiple insurance policies were triggered, and so obligated to pay for the window manufacturer’s defense, if one of two events occurred during the years in which those insurance policies provided coverage: (1) a window was actually installed during a year when the insurance policy provided coverage or (2) the window was alleged to be installed in the year that the insurance policy provided coverage. The Court agreed with the policyholder that once the windows were installed, property damage was alleged and “may
potentially have occurred” from that point on, thus the policies on the risk from that point forward. The practical effect of this ruling meant that Liberty Mutual had to reimburse the window manufacturer for the defense fees and costs that it had paid.
While
Pella was decided under Iowa law, the principles upon which it relied are similar to those applied under California law. Importantly, both California and Iowa law hold that an insurance company must provide a defense in response to a claim that is, or could be, covered by the insurance policy. The mere potential that the claim might be covered is enough for the insurance company to be obligated to pay for policyholder’s legal fees and costs.
Establishing that an insurance company must pay legal fees and costs as soon as possible allows a policyholder to save its own money. Why should a policyholder pay legal bills when it purchased an insurance policy as protection to ensure that it did not have to pay those bills? The answer is that a policyholder should not and, under
Pella, the policyholder does not have to. Rather, the insurance company must start paying for that defense from a very early date. Pella confirms for policyholders the position that their insurance companies should pay legal bills earlier rather than later.
Alan Packer is a partner in the Walnut Creek office for Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing homebuilders, property owners, and business clients on a broad range of legal matters, including risk management, insurance matters, wrap consultation and documentation, efforts to counter solicitation of homeowners, subcontract documentation, as well as complex litigation matters. Alan can be reached at alan.packer@ndlf.com.
Graham Mills is a partner in the Walnut Creek offce of Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP, representing clients in the area of complex insurance law with an emphasis on insurance recovery, construction litigation, real estate litigation, and business litigation. He regularly examines and analyzes a wide variety of insurance policies. Graham can be reached at graham.mills@ndlf.com.
ABOUT NEWMEYER & DILLION LLP
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review’s AV Preeminent® highest rating.
For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
