New York Federal Court Enforces Construction Exclusion, Rejects Reimbursement Claim
August 03, 2020 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanIn Crescent Beach Club, LLC v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2020 WL 3414697 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2020), the district court considered application of a CGL policy issued to a property owner containing the following exclusion:
"This policy does not apply to any ‘bodily injury’, ‘property damage’, ‘personal and advertising injury’, or any other loss, cost, defense fee, expense, injury, damage, claim, dispute or ‘suit’ either arising out of, or related to, any construction, renovation, rehabilitation, demolition, erection, excavation or remedition [sic] of any building and includes planning, site preparation, surveying or other other [sic] construction or development of real property. This exclusion, however, shall not apply to routine maintenance activities."
Plaintiff in the underlying action alleged injury while engaged in construction work at the insured’s premises. The information the insurer received was conflicting as to whether plaintiff was demolishing a pergola (excluded) or merely removing vines (not excluded). The insurer reserved its rights accordingly.
At his deposition in the underlying action, the plaintiff testified he was in a manlift performing demolition at the time he was injured. The insured’s property manager also testified that the pergola was being demolished. Approximately one month after the depositions, the insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
Hunton Insurance Partner Among Top 250 Women in Litigation
October 05, 2020 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogBenchmark Litigation recently identified the Top 250 Women in Litigation. The list is based on an extensive research process, feedback from clients, and one-on-one interviews. Benchmark has identified the litigators who have participated “in some of the most impactful litigation matters in recent history” and have earned “hard-won respect of their peers and clients.”
Lorelie S. Masters was included in the list for the seventh time.
Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage
July 13, 2020 —
Brian J Clifford - Saxe Doernberger & VitaAn Indiana businessman found out the hard way how far his insurance company was willing to go to avoid paying a claim after it misrepresented the coverage of a crime policy it sold to him. The quote for the policy indicated that it included coverage for losses resulting from computer hacking. Despite this representation, when the policyholder’s bank accounts were hacked, the insurer denied coverage on the ground that there was no provision for hacking coverage in the policy. Fortunately, the Indiana Court of Appeals recognized the insured’s right to argue before a jury that the insurer’s quotes falsely represented the scope of its coverage.
In Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Richard Cornett, principal of Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC (the “LLCs”), purchased a Cincinnati Insurance Company CinciPlus Crime XC+ Policy (the “Policy”). At the time Mr. Cornett purchased this coverage, and during all subsequent renewals, Cincinnati issued insurance quotes that stated:
Cincinnati can insure your money and securities while at your premises, inside your bank and even off site in the custody of a courier. While you’ve taken precautions to protect your money and securities, you run the risk of loss from employees, robbers, burglars, computer hackers and even physical perils such as fire.
Give yourself peace of mind with Cincinnati’s crime coverage to insure the money and securities you worked so hard to earn.
Crime Expanded Coverage (XC®)Plus Endorsement $125.00.
(Emphasis added.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian J Clifford, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Clifford may be contacted at
bjc@sdvlaw.com
California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act
July 20, 2020 —
Kelly Alhadeff-Black & Alexander N. Knaub - Lewis BrisboisIn a recent ruling, California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal clarified the need for supplemental environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose (6th Dist., May 18, 2020). Specifically, the court held that seeking additional discretionary approvals, such as regulatory permits, does not constitute a “new discretionary approval for the project” under the California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162 (the CEQA Guidelines).
In 2014, the City of San Jose approved a project that included the demolition and replacement of a wooden railroad bridge known as the Willow Glen Trestle (the Project). CEQA review for the Project was conducted via mitigated negative declaration (MND). The Project was quickly challenged by a local group called Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle, alleging that the City should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report based on the allegation that the Willow Glen Trestle constituted an historic resource for CEQA purposes. Ultimately, the City prevailed in that litigation (See Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose, et al. (6th Dist., 2016), which remanded the case to the trial court for further review consistent with the Court of Appeal’s verdict) with the court eventually finding that the City correctly analyzed and answered the question of historic resource classification and significance in reference to the Willow Glen Trestle.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kelly Alhadeff-Black, Lewis Brisbois and
Alexander N. Knaub, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Alhadeff-Black may be contacted at Kelly.Black@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Knaub may be contacted at Alexander.Knaub@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paycheck Protection Program Forgiveness Requirements Adjusted
June 29, 2020 —
Jacob W. Scott - Smith CurrieOn June 5, 2020, the President signed into law the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020, amending portions of the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Most importantly, the PPP Flexibility Act adjusted the forgiveness requirements for PPP loans.
The CARES Act allowed borrowers to apply for forgiveness of loan amounts used for payroll and other covered costs during an eight-week period beginning on the date of origination, or by June 30, 2020, whichever came first. The CARES Act also allowed borrowers to use the loan funds by June 30 to restore employee and payroll levels that had been reduced as a result of COVID-19. The Small Business Administration instructed borrowers that at least 75% of the loan funds had to be used to cover payroll costs during the covered period to be eligible for forgiveness.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jacob W. Scott, Smith CurrieMr. Scott may be contacted at
jwscott@smithcurrie.com
Quick Note: Steps to Protect and Avoid the “Misappropriation” of a “Trade Secret”
November 23, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesFlorida’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (included in Florida Statute s. 688.001 en seq.) defines the terms “trade secret” and “misappropriation.” These definitions (found
here) are important in that just because 1) we deem something a trade secret does not, in of itself, make it so, and 2) we deem someone to have misappropriated a trade secret does not, in of itself, make it so.
If a party deems something to be a trade secret they should identify the document or paper as “confidential trade secret” as the first-step in preserving the confidentiality of that information. The party should also consider entering into an agreement with the party that may receive that information to maximize the protection of such confidential trade secret information during the parties’ agreement.
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
Out of Eastern Europe, a Window Into the Post-Pandemic Office
September 28, 2020 —
Andra Timu & Irina Vilcu - BloombergSpecial quarantine rooms. Floor-to-ceiling walls in bathroom stalls. Touchless entrances that take your temperature. This is what telecommunications company Ericsson’s office building in Bucharest looks like after coronavirus. The space has become the pilot for a 100-prong coronavirus standard that a real estate investor in Eastern Europe is pitching as a new global “immune” building standard.
Liviu Tudor, president of the Brussels-based European Property Federation, hopes the standard will convince more employees to go back to work. He’s gathered a team of experts in construction, health care and engineering, such as such as Adrian Streinu-Cercel, the head of Bucharest's biggest infectious diseases hospital, to develop three tiers of “immune” building certifications that he says are intended to make indoor spaces “pandemic proof.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andra Timu & Irina Vilcu, Bloomberg
Enforceability Of Subcontract “Pay-When-Paid” Provisions – An Important Update
June 15, 2020 —
Patrick McNamara - Porter Law GroupA California Court of Appeals opinion published earlier this month brings a change to payment bond claims brought by unpaid subcontractors and suppliers. The decision (Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America) places limitations on a payment bond surety’s ability to rely on subcontract “pay-when-paid” language, stating that a payment provision typically found in subcontracts is contrary to the “reasonable time” statutory requirement and will not be enforced. This represents a major shift in California construction payment bond claim rights.
Plaintiff Crosno Construction, Inc. (“Crosno) was a subcontractor to general contractor Clark Brothers (“Clark”), who was principal on a public works payment bond issued by Travelers. The owner was a public agency district (“District.”) Crosno had completed most of its subcontract work when a dispute between District and Clark arose, causing the project to stop. Crosno then sought payment through a payment bond claim against Travelers. Travelers denied the claim, relying on the subcontract’s payment provisions and asserting the defense that it had no obligation to pay on the bond claim because the litigation between Clark and the District had not yet reached its conclusion.
Subcontract. The subcontract between Clark and Crosno contained a “pay-when-paid” provision stating that Clark would pay Crosno within a reasonable time after receiving payment from the District. In defining “a reasonable time,” the subcontract language provided that the time for payment “in no event shall be less than the time [Clark] and [Crosno] require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against [District] or other responsible party to obtain payment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McNamara, Porter Law GroupMr. McNamara may be contacted at
pmcnamara@porterlaw.com
