LIEB BLOG: coronavirus

Showing posts with label coronavirus. Show all posts

Friday, May 29, 2020

NY Businesses and Building Owners Authorized to Enforce No Mask, No Entry Policy

On May 28, 2020, Governor Cuomo signed Executive Order 202.34, which authorized business operators and building owners to exercise their own discretion in denying entry to individuals who fail to comply with Executive Order 202.17 requiring face-coverings when in a public place.

Specifically, EO 202.34 allows business operators and building owners to use their discretion in denying entry and requiring or compelling removal of persons not wearing a face-covering, unless they are under the age of two or are not able to medically tolerate it as per EO 202.17. More importantly, EO 202.34 exempts such business operators and building owners from a claim of violation of the covenant of quiet enjoyment or frustration of purpose. However, the directive must still adhere to the Americans with Disabilities Act or any provision of either New York State or New York City Human Rights Law, or any other provision of law.

While businesses and building owners can now restrict entry, they should contact counsel to create a policy that ensures compliance with the anti-discrimination laws and mitigate exposure to discrimination claims.

Commercial Personal Guaranties Deemed Unenforceable in NYC Council’s COVID-19 Relief Bill – Litigation to Follow if Enacted

Anonymous #listentolieb , #realestateinvestingwithandrewlieb

On May 13, 2020, the NYC Council approved Int. No. 1932-A, which makes substantial changes to personal guaranties in commercial leases. The bill is on the Mayor’s desk to be enacted.

The bill’s purpose is to provide relief to NYC commercial tenants impacted by COVID-19. It temporarily prohibits the enforcement of personal liability provisions in commercial leases or rental agreements. It would amend the Administrative Code of the City of New York by adding Section 22-1005 and adding Paragraph 14 to Subdivision a of section 22-902 of the NYC Administrative Code.

If enacted, the bill would render guarantee provisions unenforceable against natural persons who are not a tenant in commercial leases or other rental real property. The law would only impact liability for the payment of rent and other charges caused by an occurrence of default, and subject to the following conditions:

1. The tenant must satisfy at least one of the following:

a) The tenant was required to cease serving patrons food or beverage for on-premises consumption or to cease operation under EO 202.3;

b) The tenant was a non-essential retail establishment subject to in-person limitations under guidance issued by the NYS Department of Economic Development pursuant to EO 202.6; or

c) The tenant was required to close to members of the public under EO 202.7; and

2. The default or other event which caused the natural person to become personally liable for such obligation occurred between March 7, 2020 and September 30, 2020, inclusive.

Under the bill, an attempt to enforce a personal liability provision that the landlord knows or reasonably should know is unenforceable, pursuant to the above, shall be deemed commercial tenant harassment, which could result in compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees and court costs. See N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 22-903.

Sounds too good to be true for many tenants and often when it’s too good to be true, it’s untrue. Expect this law to be challenged on constitutional grounds should it be enacted. Specifically, the bill seems to impair the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution because it retroactively affects personal guaranties entered into prior to the bill’s passing. For such a claim to succeed, the initial inquiry under the impairment of contracts clause contains three components:

Whether there is a contractual relationship;
Whether a change in law impairs that contractual relationship; and
Whether the impairment is substantial. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 1, § 10, cl. 1; American Economy Ins. Co. v. State, 30 N.Y.3d 136 (2017).

While tenants will surely argue that the bill doesn’t substantially impair the parties’ contractual relationship, as the bill only covers rent and payments for the period of March 7, 2020 to September 30, 2020, landlords will counter that the personal guarantee was a material term of the lease and a substantial reason that the landlord agreed to enter into the contract.

For analogy, the Court of Appeals has previously struck down similar government interference in contacts. In Patterson v. Carey, the Court of Appeals struck down a law which curtailed toll authority bondholders’ ability to increase their tolls for Jones Beach State Parkway on constitutional grounds. 41 N.Y.2d 714 (1977).

If the NYC bill passes, it would likely undergo similar challenges and review as the law in Patterson and be deemed unconstitutional. The bill’s impairment to contractual rights agreed upon by landlords and guarantors would be substantial, especially considering that the bill does not merely delay a landlord’s right to enforce the guarantee during the period stated in the bill, it extinguishes it altogether.

Mayor DeBlasio has until June 12, 2020 to either sign, veto, or do nothing. If the Mayor signs the bill or does nothing, the bill will automatically become law. If the Mayor vetoes the bill, it is sent back to the Council. The Council can then override the Mayor’s veto with a 2/3 vote.

In the meantime, both landlords and tenants should contact their attorneys to ensure that their interests are protected and to prepare for expected lawsuits to follow. For ideas on how to creatively resolve lease issues due to coronavirus and for tips on important lease provisions when renegotiating, listen to our podcasts HERE and HERE.

New Bankruptcy Filing Procedures in relation to a COVID-19 Mortgage Forbearance

Anonymous #listentolieb , #realestateinvestingwithandrewlieb

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, Economic and Security (CARES) Act allows borrowers to request a forbearance on their mortgage. (You can read more about the CARES Act and mortgage forbearance requests in our article HERE.) As bankruptcy filings are expected to rise due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court system implemented a few system changes to their Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) Database in relation to borrowers who have requested a forbearance. These changes are effective May 11, 2020.

Specifically, a new bankruptcy event, “Notice of Mortgage Forbearance” was created to docket such event on the CM/ECF database. In addition to clicking such event, a question was also added to ask, “is a Notice of Mortgage Forbearance being filed with this filing?” in relation to established events on Notice of Mortgage Change. This change has been made to prevent filers from choosing the “Notice of Mortgage Change” event when only a forbearance has been obtained.

As the Court works towards streamlining and implementing a more efficient process, readers are advised to contact their counsel to ensure that the Court’s bankruptcy process and its recent changes be followed to a T to prevent any delays or other issues with filings.

Does Your Commercial Insurance Policy Cover Business Interruption Due to COVID-19?

Anonymous business interruption insurance , coronavirus

Business owners looking to their commercial policies for business interruption and loss of income coverage due to COVID-19 have likely run into a giant roadblock - an exclusion of loss due to virus or bacteria. Many insurers added these special endorsements to commercial policies after the SARS outbreak in the early 2000s, and yours probably looks something like this:

We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from any virus, bacterium or other micro-organism that induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or disease.

These virus exclusions have led practitioners like myself scratching our heads for novel legal theories to find coverage where coverage is expressly denied. The New York State Assembly has taken notice and is trying to solve this problem for us with ASSEMBLY BILL A10226A.

What Does The Bill Do?

The stated purpose of the bill is to "hold harmless businesses who currently hold business interruption insurance, for losses sustained as a result of the current COVID-19 health emergency, but for which no such coverage is currently offered." It accomplishes this by construing all policies insuring against loss of use and occupancy and business interruption "to include among the covered perils under that policy, coverage for business interruption during a period of a declared state emergency due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic." It also declares all virus exclusions null and void, and extends this special coverage for the duration of New York's declared state emergency. The new law would only apply to insureds with less than 250 full-time employees.

To offset the costs, the bill allows insurers paying claims to apply for reimbursement from the Department of Financial Services who will collect funding for the reimbursements from other insurers, thus spreading the cost amongst all insurers except life and health (a cost which presumably will be passed onto insureds as a surcharge).

Most importantly, the bill is retroactive - deemed effective March 7, 2020 and applying to policies in effect on that date.

What Should You Do Right Now?

Business owners should have their full policy examined to see: (1) if they have business interruption coverage; and (2) whether there is a virus exemption. While other exemptions may preclude coverage, these are the threshold questions. Retaining an attorney to evaluate your policy and to submit a claim is often a good investment because claims can be denied if the wrong language or explanation for your loss is given to your insurer, or if the claim is submitted in an untimely or improper manner. Talking yourself out of a covered claim because you didn't know what was covered and what wasn't is an avoidable mistake.

If your insurer denies coverage that you think you are entitled to, hiring an attorney to pursue a claim against your insurer is an appropriate next step. Federal Courts are still accepting new filings, and the Department of Financial Services is still accepting complaints from insureds.

Policy holders with virus exemptions should contact their local assemblymember and/or state senator to express support for the proposed legislation. The New York State Senate website even lets you voice your support for the bill digitally clicking the check mark on the right side of THIS WEBSITE.

Keep your eye on our blog for status updates on this bill. If it passes and you benefit from its changes, it may make sense to submit a claim, in which case you should hire an attorney who can give you the best shot at meeting eligibility requirements.

Is This Even Constitutional?

Expect insurers to push back on this bill because it will create, in their minds, an unfunded liability that was not bargained for when they set insurance premiums for policies in effect on March 7, 2020. Article 1 of the United States Constitution provides that "No State shall... pass any... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts". The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution prohibit the taking of property without due process of law. In the past insurers have turned to both arguments when objecting to legislation that retroactively imposed new obligations.

Long story short, the United States Supreme Court has held that the constitution permits contractual interference pursuant to a balancing test that evaluates (1) the extent of the interference, (2) the historic regulation of the industry affected by the law, (3) the legitimate public purpose for the law, and (4) whether the law is appropriate given the stated public purpose, with special deference given to laws addressing emergencies. Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell, 290 US 398 (1934); Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power and Light Co., 459 US 400 (1983). Litigation is inevitable and it appears that the Assembly has specifically drafted this bill with previous case law in mind.

The New York Court of Appeals has addressed retroactive insurance coverage changes in two important decisions.

In Health Insurance Association of America v. Harnett, 44 NY2d 302 (1978), the Court of Appeals struck down legislation that required retroactive coverage for maternity care in health insurance policies, but it did so on the narrow ground that those policies were forced renewal, where the insurer could not unilaterally cancel or refuse to renew a policy after its period expired, and therefore they did not consent to the change in the substance of the policy. The Court of Appeals did recognize that the legislation could work in other circumstances, stating "while there was a genuine, identifiable public purpose to be served by the enactment of [the law], the predicament which spawned the legislation had not risen to the magnitude of a crisis which warranted overriding the terms of the agreements entered into by the parties". Contrasting the holding in Harnett, commercial policies affected by this bill are not automatically renewable and can be cancelled by the insurer. Further, the Assembly bill specifically references the fact that COVID-19 is a state emergency, giving the legislation the emergency gravitas called for.

In American Economy Insurance Co. v. State of New York, 30 NY3d 136 (2017), the Court of Appeals upheld legislation that insurers argued retroactively imposed unfunded workers' compensation liability. The legislation did away with a special fund that was used to pay for workers' compensation claims that were closed but unexpectedly reopened many years later. This holding was on the narrow ground that the legislation did not change the actual legal enforceability of the contract between insurer and insured, only how the liability was paid for (i.e. passing the cost of the claim from the fund directly to the insurers). Here, the Assembly bill creates a type of fund that pays for the coverage imposed by retroactive changes, a provision that presumably is intended to bring the bill closer to what is permitted by American Economy Insurance Co., and further away from what is forbidden by American Economy Insurance Co., which cautions against the changing of contractual obligations between insurer and insured.

Other state courts have attempted similar legislation. In Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. State of South Carolina, 401 S.C. 15 (2012), the South Carolina Supreme Court struck down a law that retroactively changed the definition of an "occurrence" because it altered the contractual relationship between insurer and insured without addressing a pressing emergency. In Vesta Fire Insurance Corp. v. State of Florida, 141 F3d 1427 (11th Cir. 1998) legislation was permitted that limited property insurance cancellations in the wake of Hurricane Andrew. Likewise, in State of Louisiana v. All Property & Casualty Insurance Carries Authorized and Licensed to Do Business in State, 937 So2d 313 (La. 2006) the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld legislation that extended the filing deadline for claims, and the statute of limitations for insurers suing their insurers, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

So, is the proposed legislation constitutional? There are good arguments for both sides. On one hand, COVID-19 is undoubtedly an emergency and the proposed legislation serves a legitimate and pressing public purpose. The bill even attempts to fund the new liability imposed. On the other hand, the bill substantially changes the rights and obligations bargained for when the insurer issued policies in effect on March 7, 2020. It takes a specific exclusion and renders it null and void. This ham-fisted approach may prove too much - an axe when a scalpel would be more appropriate.

Regardless, business owners need relief now. Being legally correct and receiving your insurance payout 5 years from now after a drawn out legal battle does nothing to help pay your mortgage or payroll right now. While this bill is a good idea, and if passed will bring new benefits to many business that would not have received them otherwise, it's not a silver bullet that brings the relief business owners need immediately. It should be viewed as one arrow in the quiver and applied in conjunction with other relief programs such as the Paycheck Protection Program.

New York State Courts Release Reopening Details

Anonymous coronavirus , coronavirus legal updates

As expected, Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks has issued a new administrative order detailing the first stage of court operations for nonessential matters. A full copy of the order can be read HERE.

Judges will commit themselves to deciding fully submitted motions in pending cases.
Judges will examine their dockets to find matters through which video conferencing can be helpful in resolving the matter. Parties may request a similar conference, where appropriate.
Judges may conduct discovery and other ad hoc conferences to resolve disputes which should not require the filing of motion papers.

The Order also contains an important clarification and limitation: litigants may NOT file any new nonessential matters, and parties may NOT file any additional (new) papers in any pending nonessential matters.

This means no new motions, no new answers, no motion opposition papers, etc. Previous orders tolling deadlines in those matters still control. Currently deadlines are tolled by executive order of Governor Cuomo through May 7, 2020.

Expect expansion of the courts' capabilities and filings in the near future after successful implementation of this phase.

Reminder that federal courts are still open and capable for accepting new matters and Lieb at Law attorneys are still litigating where court intervention is not needed.

Friday, May 29, 2020

NY Businesses and Building Owners Authorized to Enforce No Mask, No Entry Policy

Thursday, May 21, 2020

Commercial Personal Guaranties Deemed Unenforceable in NYC Council’s COVID-19 Relief Bill – Litigation to Follow if Enacted

Thursday, May 14, 2020

New Bankruptcy Filing Procedures in relation to a COVID-19 Mortgage Forbearance

Wednesday, April 22, 2020

Does Your Commercial Insurance Policy Cover Business Interruption Due to COVID-19?

Thursday, April 09, 2020

New York State Courts Release Reopening Details

Get New Posts by Email:

Podcast

HOT TOPICS

Recent

Featured

Popular Posts

About

Blog Archive

Contact Form