Lewis Brisbois Ranks 11th in Law360’s Glass Ceiling Report on Gender Parity in Law Firms
October 11, 2021 —
Lewis BrisboisLewis Brisbois has ranked 11th in Law360’s 2021 Glass Ceiling report, moving up from 37th place in 2020. The report measures female presence and gender parity in law firms, this year evaluating 269 organizations.
As described in the Law360 Pulse article titled "Glass Ceiling Report: How Does Your Firm Stack Up?," the publication redesigned its report this year to evaluate female attorneys’ industry standing from a new angle by showing how the percentage of women across three levels within law firms compared with the potential marketplace of hires. This evaluation resulted in the firms’ "pipeline scores," which measure a firm’s percentage points above or below a set of benchmarks assembled with data from the American Bar Association and previous Law360 submissions.
Lewis Brisbois’ Los Angeles Co-Managing Partner Jana Lubert and Chief Strategy Officer Janet Eskow, the co-chairs of Lewis Brisbois' Women's Initiative, each expressed excitement about the report, along with resolve to further promote gender diversity. "We are proud that Lewis Brisbois has moved up in these rankings because we have focused diligently on hiring and retaining the best legal talent from a diverse pool of candidates nationwide," Ms. Lubert said. "At the same time, we recognize that there is more to be done to further improve gender equity and inclusion. We remain committed to this important goal, both as it pertains to Lewis Brisbois and to the entire legal industry," she added.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Congratulations to Arezoo Jamshidi & Michael Parme Selected to the 2022 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars List
April 04, 2022 —
Arezoo Jamshidi & Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPCongratulations to Arezoo Jamshidi and Michael Parme who were selected for the 2022 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. The 2022 San Diego Rising Stars list is an honor reserved for lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice. Only 2.5% of attorneys in San Diego receive this distinction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and
Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mid-Session Overview of Colorado’s 2017 Construction Defect Legislation
March 16, 2017 —
David McClain - Colorado Construction LitigationAs the 2017 Colorado legislative session reaches the halfway point, I thought it an opportune time to provide a quick overview of the construction defect bills introduced so far this session.
Senate Bill 17-045, “Concerning a Requirement for Equitable Allocation of the Costs of Defending a Construction Defect Claim,” sponsored by Senators Grantham and Angela Williams and Representatives Duran and Wist, was introduced on January 11th and assigned to the Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee. This bill affects construction defect actions in which more than one insurer has a duty to defend a party by providing that if the carriers cannot agree regarding how to allocate defense costs within 45 days of the filing of a contribution action, a court must conduct a hearing regarding the apportionment of the costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, among all carriers sharing in the duty to defend within 60 days after an insurer files its claim for contribution, unless the carriers agree to resolve the issue through a mutually agreeable, alternative process. The bill further provides that the court must make a final apportionment of costs after entry of a final judgment resolving all of the underlying claims against the insured. The bill also makes clear that an insurer seeking contribution may also make a claim against an insured or additional insured who chose not to procure liability insurance during any period of time relevant to the underlying action. Finally, the bill states that a claim for contribution may be assigned and that bringing such a claim does not affect any insurer’s duty to defend. The Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee heard SB 17-045 on February 8th and referred the bill, as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution
August 29, 2022 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWhile I have not performed exhaustive research into the origin of anti-concurrent causation (“ACC”) endorsements on insurance policies, or how or when they migrated from first-party property policies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, they have done so. The result for Colorado’s construction professionals may rear its ugly head as an unwelcome and surprise outright declination of coverage for construction defect claims.
ACC endorsements state that if there are two causes of damage: one of which is covered by a policy and one of which is not, the carrier can invoke the ACC endorsement to disclaim coverage for all of the damage. An exemplar ACC endorsement is ISO Form CG 21 67, entitled “Fungi or Bacteria Exclusion.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Texas res judicata and co-insurer defense costs contribution
March 23, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Truck Ins. Exchange v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., No. 03-08-00526-CV (Tex. App. 3d Aug. 27, 2010), insured contractor DCI was sued by the project owner seeking damages for defective construction. DCI tendered its defense to its CGL insurers Truck and Mid-Continent. Truck agreed to defend while Mid-Continent denied a defense. While the underlying suit was pending, Mid-Continent sued DCI, but not Truck, and obtained a judicial declaration of no duty to defend or indemnify DCI in the underlying suit. After settling the underlying suit, Truck sued Mid-Continent seeking contribution towards defense costs and indemnity payments. The state trial court entered summary judgment for Mid-Continent. The intermediate appellate court affirmed.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw
January 28, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsOver the past two weeks here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed the first two stages of a typical construction dispute (if such a thing exists): the claim, and how to bring heat short of litigation/arbitration. As promised, this week I’ll be discussing the next step or “last straw” in a construction dispute, namely, arbitration or litigation to enforce all of those rights that you preserved in the first two stages.
Construction litigation is expensive, time consuming, and, quite frankly, a pain in the neck. Because of this fact, I almost always recommend that my construction clients exhaust all of the non-litigation methods (including mediation of course) of resolving their disputes prior to “going nuclear” and filing suit. Unfortunately, even the most diligent attempts at less formal resolution means can be unfruitful and more formal means become necessary.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Don’t Do this When it Comes to Construction Liens
September 07, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to preparing and recording a construction lien, this case is an example of what NOT TO DO! I mean it — this exemplifies what NOT TO DO! It is also a case study of why a party should always work with counsel in preparing a construction lien so that you can avoid the outcome in this case–your lien being deemed fraudulent.
In Witters Contracting Company v. West, 2020 WL 4030845 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020), homeowners hired a contractor to renovate their home under a cost-plus arrangement where the contractor was entitled to a 10% fee on construction costs. The contract also required extra work to be agreed in writing between the owner and contractor.
During construction a dispute arose. The contractor texted the owner that it will cancel the permit and record a $100,000 construction lien if the owner did not pay it $30,000. Shortly thereafter, the contractor’s counsel sent the homeowners a demand for $59,706 with back-up documentation. Less than a week later, the contractor recorded a construction lien for $75,000. The owners initiated a lawsuit against the contractor that included a claim for fraudulent lien. The contractor then amended its construction lien for $87,239.
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
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
