Second Circuit Court Differentiates the Standard for Determining Evident Partiality for a Neutral Arbitrator and a Party-Appointed Arbitrator
August 07, 2018 —
Celia B. Waters - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On June 7, 2018, the Second Circuit Court in Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London v. Fla., Dep’t of Fin. Servs.,1 held that a party-appointed arbitrator should not be held to the same standard as a neutral arbitrator. The Court vacated a district court’s order vacating an arbitral award in a reinsurance dispute between Insurance Company of Americas (“ICA”) and Certain Underwriting Members of Lloyds of London (“Underwriters”). The case was one of first impression for the Second Circuit on how to determine the standard of evident partiality challenged to a party-appointed arbitrator.
Underwriters reinsured ICA under a series of treaties. The treaties each contained an arbitration clause requiring that disputes be adjudicated by an arbitration panel consisting of three members: one party-appointed arbitrator for each party, and a neutral. The clause required only that the arbitrators “be active or retired disinterested executive officers of insurance or reinsurance companies or Lloyd’s London Underwriters.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Celia B. Waters, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Waters may be contacted at
cbw@sdvlaw.com
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (08/30/23) – AI Predicts Home Prices, Construction’s Effect on the Economy, and Could Streamline Communications for Developers
October 17, 2023 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, SV invests in a new green “mega-city” outside San Francisco, refunds are given to investors in fraudulent real estate deal, homebuyers are losing purchasing power, and more!
- With major tech companies like Google and Amazon laying off workers, those with computer science and related degrees are looking to construction as a place to start or restart their careers. (Zachary Phillips, Construction Dive)
- Although Silicon Valley is the haven for most tech startups, Israel has become a place where those in construction innovation can find support and funding. (Matthew Thibault, Construction Dive)
- For those who may be concerned about the future price of their home, it may be possible for AI to look at a house and predict its price with “striking accuracy.” (Jacob Zinkula, Business Insider)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Construction Litigation Group Listed in U.S. News Top Tier
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn the U.S. News & World Reports annual ranking of law firms, the construction litigation practice of Williams Mullen was included in the nationwide first-tier rankings. Additionally, their Hampton Roads, Virginia office was in the Metropolitan first-tier ranking for a variety of practices, including construction lititgation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal
September 11, 2023 —
Colleen E. Hastie & Jeffrey George - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County.
The lawsuit, commenced by Plaintiff in 2015, alleged medical malpractice stemming from treatment Plaintiff received at a New York medical facility after falling out of a window at a rental property owned by Traub Lieberman’s client (“Property Owner”). Property Owner moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence in support of its claims, or in the alternative, compel plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery. The Medical Facility cross-moved for the same relief. Defendants agreed to adjourn the motion until after plaintiff’s deposition, but plaintiff made no effort to secure an adjournment with the court and plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, allowing the motion to be granted on default. Plaintiff waited nearly a year to file a motion to vacate the default judgment, despite receiving notification of the default from defense counsel. Property Owner, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, pointed to plaintiff’s long history of dilatory conduct and failure to comply with discovery orders in support of its position that plaintiff failed to show any good cause for its default on the motion to dismiss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman and
Jeffrey George, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com
Mr. George may be contacted at jgeorge@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Appeals Court Ruled Suits Stand Despite HOA Bypassing Bylaw
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the case Port Liberte II Condominium Association v. New Liberty Residential Urban Renewal Company, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that a homeowners association (HOA) could bypass a bylaw that requires unit owners to approve litigation before it is filed, the New Jersey Law Journal reported. Two construction-defect suits were reinstated by the appeals court, and both had been “dismissed based on alleged violation of the bylaws.” The first suit “claimed the defendants' negligence contributed to major construction defects at the 225-unit condominium development, which was completed in 2004” while “the second suit claimed that one section of the development is sinking into the ground because of a failure to properly investigate soil conditions at the former industrial site where the buildings sit.”
According to the New Jersey Law Journal, the HOA did not obtain approval from the unit owners prior to commencing litigation because “the statute of limitations was about to expire.” However, the HOA met with the residents in October of 2009 and a vote was cast “72 to 3 to pursue litigation.” In May of 2011 the second suit was dismissed because defendants stated “approval of residents was not obtained.” Another meeting of residents occurred, and another vote cast ratified “both suits by a vote of 65 to 1.” However, Judge Baber, who had previously dismissed both suits, refused to reinstate them.
“The Appellate Division said in its ruling that the Condominium Act, N.J.S.A. 46:8B-1, gives the association the exclusive authority to file suit against builders and other third parties for damage to common areas in the community,” the New Jersey Law Journal reported. “Given its legal responsibility for upkeep of common areas, and its statutory authorization to sue for damages to such areas, the association had standing to file suit, the appeals court said.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stuck in Seattle: The Aggravating Adventures of a Gigantic Tunnel Drill
April 01, 2015 —
Karen Weise – BloombergAbout 20 workers wearing hard hats and reflective vests clump together on the edge of a chasm near Seattle’s waterfront, peering down a hole 120 feet deep and 83 feet wide. The last men have been craned out of the pit in a yellow metal cage. Gulls squawk. A TV news helicopter hovers overhead.
A dozen journalists stand nearby on the bed of a truck. We’re here to see Bertha, one of the world’s biggest tunneling machines. Or at least a piece of her. A 240-foot crane is about to haul a 540,000-pound steel shield out of the ground, 20 months after Bertha started digging a highway. Almost imperceptibly, the crane starts rising.
The event, on a Thursday in mid-March, is part of a massive rescue mission to fix the $80 million machine. She broke abruptly in December 2013 after boring through just 1,000 feet, one-ninth of her job. Her seals busted, and her teeth clogged with grit and pieces of an 8-inch steel pipe left over from old groundwater tests. She stopped entirely.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Karen Weise, BloombergMs. Weise may be contacted at
kweise@bloomberg.net
Bad Faith and a Partial Summary Judgment in Seattle Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court of Washington has issued a ruling in the case of Ledcor Industries v. Virginia Surety Company, Inc. Ledcor was the builder of a mixed-use real estate project in Seattle called the Adelaide Project. Ledcor purchased an insurance policy from Virginia Surety covering the project. After the completion of the project, Ledcor received complaints of construction defects from the homeowners, which they forwarded to Virginia Surety.
Virginia Surety denied coverage on several grounds. Absent any lawsuit, Virginia claimed that there was “not yet any duty to defend or indemnify.” Further, as the policy commenced ten days after work on the project was substantially completed, Virginia cited a provision in the policy that excluded coverage for damage that occurred before the policy began. As problems included water intrusion, Virginia noted an exclusion for fungal damage. Finally, Virginia noted that it was not clear whether damage was due to Ledcor’s own actions.
The homeowners sued over the construction defects. Ledcor settled these suits before trial. In this, they were defended by, and settlements were paid by American Home, another of Ledcor’s insurers. Ledcor claims that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith by denying coverage and by its failure to investigate the ongoing nature of the work at the project.
The judge determined that Virginia Surety acted in bad faith when it invoked the fungus exclusion. Virginia noted that fungal damage “‘would have been’ referenced in the list of construction defects,” however, the HOAs claimed only “water stains” and “water damage,” and made no mention of mold or fungus. The court found that Virginia Surety “was not entitled to deny coverage simply because it may have suspected that mold or fungus damage existed.” The court noted that further proceedings would be needed to determine what portion of the settlement Virginia is obligated to pay.
The court found that there were matters of fact to be determined on the further issues in the case. The judge wrote that although Virginia acted in bad faith in invoking the fungus exclusion, it still had to be determined if they were in breach of contract by failing to defend Ledcor. Ledcor still needs to show that the damages claimed by the HOA were due to work actually covered by Virginia Surety.
Ledcor made an additional claim that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s laws concerning the insurance industry. Here, the court noted that the improper exclusion for fungus issues “constitutes a per se unfair trade practice.” Six other claims were made under this law. The court found that Virginia Surety did not misrepresent “pertinent facts or insurance policy provisions.” It also issued its denial letter promptly, satisfying the fifth provision. However, Virginia Surety did violate the second provision, in that it failed “to acknowledge and act reasonably promptly upon communications with respect to claims.” Two other issues could not be determined.
Judge Martinez’s decision granted a summary judgment to Ledcor on the issue of bad faith. An additional summary judgment was granted that Virginia Surety violated Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act. Judge Martinez did not grant summary judgment on any of the other issues Ledcor raised.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement
June 18, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality.
In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
