A recent case has just held that intentional conduct, with unintentional results is not covered as an "accidental loss" under an insurance policy. Fire Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court 181 Cal App 4th 388 (2010). This is a big deal, here is why. If you are a contractor or homeowner that built a home on a lot but, inadvertently built a small portion on the neighbor's side of the property line, you have no coverage for the lawsuit when the neighbor sues you for encroachment, nuisance, negligence, or trespass. The reason: you intended to build the house. It does not matter if you unknowingly or accidentally made a mistake on the placement of the home and inadvertently placed a portion of the structure on the neighbor's lot.
Another example of how this will impact regular people. Two kids are playing by the pool, when one kid decides it would be funny to throw his friend in the pool. Unfortunately, he does not throw is friend far enough and his friend hits his head on the side of the pool and suffers a fractured skull. He is sued by his injured friend for negligence to cover the medical costs and he tenders the lawsuit to his homeowner's insurance carrier. The carrier can deny coverage because the boy intended to throw the other boy. It does not matter that he did not intend to hurt his friend.
I am attorney Robert A. von Esch IV. I handle construction defect, real estate, business, and personal injury matters. If you have any questions about this article or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me via www.voneschlaw.com.
Showing posts with label Real Estate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Real Estate. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Court Layoffs Will Result In Civil Court Delays
The headlines over the past two weeks have made it clear: LA Superior Court is laying off nearly 300 support staff workers. This will result in the closure of Court departments. As a result, civil matters will get sent to the back burner because criminal and family matters have priority. The days of civil lawsuits taking 3-5 years to complete are back again. So much for fast track legislation that required a civil matter to be resolved within one year, unless, it was deemed a complex matter. Construction defect, real estate, business, and personal injury lawsuits will take a lot longer for plaintiffs to resolve, as these are all civil matters.
I am attorney Robert A. Von Esch IV. If you have any questions about any of the above, please refer to my website at www.voneschlaw.com or give me a call.
I am attorney Robert A. Von Esch IV. If you have any questions about any of the above, please refer to my website at www.voneschlaw.com or give me a call.
Labels:
Attorney,
Business,
Construction Defect,
lawsuit,
Lawyer,
Legal,
personal injury,
Real Estate
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Real Estate Brokers Be Wary
You must have a valid real estate brokers license to obtain compensation for brokering a real estate transaction. If you do not have a valid license at the time of providing the service, you have no right to compensation. See California Business & Professions Code 10136.
It is very popular in the real estate business to pay a "finder" fee to someone bringing a buyer and seller together. This technically is legal. See Tyrone v. Kelly, 9 Cal 3d 1, 11-12 (1973).
However, if the "finder" engages in negotiations between the parties, even to the slightest extent, a brokers license is required. See Rees v. DRE, 76 Cal App 3d 286, 295 (1977).
Thus, if the "finder" encourages one party to pay a certain price, offers advice about a fair price, or does anything other than simply introduce a buyer and seller, he risks not being entitled to any compensation. Without a valid license, no payment can be had, despite having a contract or promise to do so.
I am attorney Robert A. Von Esch IV and I provide business litigation, commercial real estate, and construction defect legal services. More information about my practice can be found at http://www.voneschlaw.com/
It is very popular in the real estate business to pay a "finder" fee to someone bringing a buyer and seller together. This technically is legal. See Tyrone v. Kelly, 9 Cal 3d 1, 11-12 (1973).
However, if the "finder" engages in negotiations between the parties, even to the slightest extent, a brokers license is required. See Rees v. DRE, 76 Cal App 3d 286, 295 (1977).
Thus, if the "finder" encourages one party to pay a certain price, offers advice about a fair price, or does anything other than simply introduce a buyer and seller, he risks not being entitled to any compensation. Without a valid license, no payment can be had, despite having a contract or promise to do so.
I am attorney Robert A. Von Esch IV and I provide business litigation, commercial real estate, and construction defect legal services. More information about my practice can be found at http://www.voneschlaw.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
