Chalk it up to laziness. Oh?
Were you looking for highbrow
sophisticated humor here?
You might be in the wrong place. 

By Andy Delaney 

There were no decisions yesterday, March 11. There were two decisions the week of March 4, 2022. Why didn’t I post last week? Good question. I thought about it but I didn’t. That should count for something.  

First, we have a town torn between the Income Approach (or IA) and Direct Sale Comparison (or DSC) approach to the valuation of a hydroelectric plant. That last sentence was more dramatic than necessary. But I’m not going to try to pretend I understand anything about how this stuff works. I spent one half of one day in the Barre Town property records as a law clerk and decided I wanted nothing to do with real estate law. I suppose this is really tax law, though, which is . . . well, even worse. Long story short, the Town of Sheldon valued a hydroelectric generation facility at ~$44M; facility appealed with its expert’s $25M valuation. After a hearing, the property ended up with around a $31M valuation. Town appeals, arguing that the hearing officer should’ve gone the DSC route and not kicked it IA. There’s even a DC (for “Direct Capitalization”) in here to make the alphabet soup murkier. SCOV’s review is “quite deferential” (those aren’t my quotes). I imagine a slightly unkempt cartoon character shrugging his shoulders and saying, “Meh. It’s good enough.” SCOV concludes that the hearing officer’s valuation opinion was, well, good enough and also, the valuation method was supported enough. This one gets affirmed. Missisquoi Assoc. Hydro c/o Enel Green Power v. Town of Sheldon, 2022 VT 8.

Second, we have a case that I would like to understand but am going to have to read six to seven times to get straight. I’ll throw ten terms at you: (1) coverage dispute; (2) conflict of laws; (3) special master; (4) interlocutory appeal; (5) Georgia, New Jersey, and Vermont law; (6) ultimate net loss; (7) pro-rata method; (8) receivership and liquidation; (9) time-on-the-risk allocation; and (10) all-sums allocation. At base level, this is an insurance coverage dispute between a big-time drywall manufacturer and a liquidated insurance company formerly headquartered in Vermont over a policy that “was in effect for forty-four days” in 1983. I swear to God I am not making this up. If you’ve seen an asbestos complaint recently, you can probably intuitively feel why this coverage dispute exists. SCOV determines that the trial court did not err in concluding that Vermont law applied and granting partial summary judgment to insurer. There’s even a little foray into constitutional due process. This one also gets affirmed. In re Ambassador Insurance Company, 2022 VT 11.