ReBlog From HOA Constitutional Government-HOA Maintenance

Saw this on a blog, thought you could use the info....

Understanding deference to HOA boards and overturning bad precedents

A recent California case, Affan v. Portofino Cove HOA, highlights several important aspects of legal precedent and the judicial deference doctrine that all advocates must understand. First, in California, as applied to maintenance decisions only, the court in Lamden v. La Jolla made a reasonable clarification of the business judgment rule and established the “judicial deference” doctrine.

This court ruled:

It is important to note the narrow scope of the Lamden rule. It is a rule of deference to the reasoned decisionmaking of homeowners association boards concerning ordinary maintenance. It does not create a blanket immunity for all the decisions and actions of a homeowners association. The Supreme Court’s precise articulation of the rule makes clear that the rule of deference applies only when a homeowner sues an association over a maintenance decision that meets the enumerated criteria.

READ THE REST BY CLICKING HERE

Faultily Installed Heated Exterior Tile Deck Causes $67,000 in Damages, Insurance Co Denies Claim, Suit Goes to Court, Here's The Ruling

From LEAGLE.COM

After Safeco Insurance Company of America (Safeco) denied Connie Stevens Fisher's claim for water damage to her Wyoming home, Stevens sued for breach of insurance contract. The trial court granted Safeco's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in its favor. We affirm.

In July 2004 Stevens submitted a $67,000 claim to Safeco for damage caused by a leak from the home's terrace, which serves as the roof for a room with an indoor pool and spa, into the room below it. Stevens contended the leak resulted from a failure of the home's hydronic system, used to heat the stone on the terrace to melt snow and ice. The claim included the cost to repair the hydronic system, replace the terrace stone and repair the damage to the interior sheetrock and wood. Following inspection by a structural engineer retained by Safeco and a claims adjuster, review of the blueprints for the home and discussion with the tile setter who had installed the terrace stone, in September 2004 Safeco denied the claim, finding coverage was excluded by the water damage, weather and construction defect exclusions based in part on the structural engineer's report the leak resulted from improper construction methods and inadequate slope for the terrace.

In a December 2004 letter counsel for Stevens objected to Safeco's denial of coverage, asserting the exclusions Safeco had relied on were not found in Stevens's policy. Safeco responded it had relied on the correct Quality Crest policy form and sent counsel a certified copy of it. (It appears counsel had mistakenly believed the Quality Plus policy form sent to Stevens in late 2004 for the policy period beginning November 15, 2004 was the operative policy; Stevens canceled that policy on February 16, 2005.) Following more communications from Stevens and additional investigation, Safeco confirmed its denial of coverage in May 2005.

 

READ THE WHOLE CASE BY CLICKING HERE

W. R. Grace & Co acquires waterproofing products manufacturer in China

Speciality chemicals and materials supplier W. R. Grace & Co (NYSE: GRA | PowerRating) reported on Monday that it has completed the acquisition of the business and assets of Wuhan Meilixin New Building Materials Co Ltd (Meilixin) for an undisclosed sum.

Meilixin is a manufacturer of waterproofing products in China. The company has manufacturing facilities for the production of customisable, fit-for-use waterproofing membranes, materials and compounds, as well as administrative offices and warehousing operations in Wuhan, Hubei province. Its products include multilayer macromolecule compound membranes, self-adhesive rubber membranes, cementitious capillary crystalline waterproofing materials and macromolecule compound coatings. 

The Meilixin business will be integrated into Grace Construction Products' Specialty Building Materials product group and will operate through Grace's Chinese subsidiary, Grace China Ltd.

Parex/Merko Invite You to Attend Tomorrow's Event in Tustin

As of November 11, 2010 Lowry's Will Be The Master Disrtibuter of Enduro Products

Got a letter in the mail yesterday from Chris Proulx, President of Enduro Products announcing that Lowry's will be the stocking distributor of Enduro.

Lowry's has 7 locations in California and all stores are to be carrying the Enduro product line.

The switch from buying direct to buying from Lowry's is effective as of November 11th, sales and quotes from prior jobs within 30 days will be honored.

ReBlog From Merlin Law Group-Can a Condo Association Get Out of an Insurance Settlement Agreement?

Saw this on  a Google alert...

so I'm reblogging the post from Merlin Law Group's Blog

Can a Condo Association Get Out of an Insurance Settlement Agreement?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

What happens when a condominium or homeowners association enters into a settlement agreement with an insurance company and later finds out that the settlement was not enough or was fraudulently induced? That is exactly what happened in California in the case of Village Northridge Homeowners Ass’n v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 237 P.3d 598 (Cal. 2010).
Village Northridge Homeowners Association entered into a settlement agreement with its insurance company for $1.5 million for earthquake damage, based on representations from the insurance company that the insurance policy only provided $4.9 million worth of coverage. The settlement agreement expressly stated that the association could not bring suit against the insurance company for any issue related to the earthquake damage after the settlement. The association later learned that the policy actually provided $11.9 million worth of coverage, and filed suit against the insurance company for fraudulent inducement into the settlement agreement.
The problem with the homeowners association’s lawsuit for fraudulent inducement was the settlement agreement expressly prohibited it from filing a lawsuit against the insurance company. The trial court told the homeowners association that it would have to return the $1.5 million in settlement funds if it wanted to proceed on the lawsuit for fraudulent inducement, but...CLICK TO READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE