Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict
February 07, 2018 —
David W. Evans and Stephen M. Tye – Publications & Insights In
California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm.
This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled.
Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and
Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Damages for Delay May Not Be Enforceable in Virginia
January 08, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAnyone who reads Construction Law Musings with any regularity (thank you by the way) knows that the contract is king in most instances here in Virginia. Any commercial construction subcontractor in Virginia is likely also very familiar with so-called “no damages for delay” clauses in construction contracts. These clauses essentially state that a subcontractor’s only remedy for a delay caused by any factor beyond its control (including the fault of the general contractor), after proper notice to the general contractor, is an extension of time to complete the work. However, in 2015 the Virginia General Assembly passed a change in the law that precluded the diminishment of any right to claims for demonstrated additional costs prior to payment. This left open the question as to which types of “diminishment” would be barred by the statute.
The recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court, Strata Solar LLC v. Fall Line Construction LLC, added a bit of clarity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Recent Supreme Court Decision Could Have Substantial Impact on Builders
January 23, 2023 —
Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & SleightOn October 27, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court issued a decision which could have a substantial impact on the enforceability of contract clauses that require litigation to be commenced within a stated period of time from project completion. In Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.,the Supreme Court held that the contractual one-year statute of limitations for bringing claims against the contractor was substantively unconscionable and reversed the Court of Appeals.
In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract included a one-year claim limitations clause that required claims to be raised within a one year period from project completion and that any claims not raised during the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls.
The Tadychs moved into the home on April 8, 2014, and the City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development conducted its final site inspection on April 15 and approved the residence for occupancy on April 23. In January or February of 2015, the Tadychs began to notice a shift in their home. In February of 2015, the Tadychs engaged the Construction Dispute Resolution (CDR) to review NRC’s work. CDR raised concerns about the adequacy of the home’s construction and prepared a written report in March 2015 indicating several deviations from the architectural plans and building codes. The Tadychs sent this report to NRC, who assured the Tadychs that NRC’s work followed all requirements and rejected any claims that there were deviations from the plans. The Tadychs continued to notice issues with the home through October 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Ingram may be contacted at
cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com
Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action
March 26, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result.
Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda.
At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Official Tried to Influence Judge against Shortchanged Subcontractor
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFA contractor testified in the trial of former Cuyahoga County Commissioner Jimmy Dimora. According to Fox 8 in Cleveland, Ohio, Sean Newman, the president of Letter Perfect testified that his company was a subcontractor on the reconstruction of the locker rooms at the Cleveland Browns Stadium. Newman said his company was paid only $400,000 of their $650,000 bid. When Letter Perfect sued the contractor, D.A.S. Construction, Dimora called the judge to influence her to rule in favor of D.A.S.
The judge in the earlier case, Bridgett McCafferty, has been found guilty of lying to the FBI during their investigation and is serving a 14-month prison sentence.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado
June 28, 2021 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.”
By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Nevada Assembly Sends Construction Defect Bill to Senate
June 06, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn a 26 to 16 vote, the Nevada Assembly has passed Assembly Bill 401, which extends the time limit for legal action over home construction defects. According to the Las Vegas Sun, Assembly member Marcus Conklin, Democrat of Las Vegas, said the bill was about “keeping the consumer whole.” However, Ira Hansen, Republican of Sparks, told the sun that suits are happening before contractors can make repairs. The bill would allow attorney fees even if repairs are made.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Addenda to Construction Contracts Can Be an Issue
March 30, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsWe’ve all been there. Your client either has a well drafted standard subcontract (with any luck in consultation with an experienced construction attorney) that it presents to its subcontractors and suppliers or your client is presented with a construction contract that has some provisions that it would prefer were either different or gone altogether.
In the first of these scenarios, your client often gets push back from a subcontractor to change certain provisions. Such a response is not necessarily a bad thing depending on the provisions that the potential subcontractor may have. The construction contract documents will govern the way that the project moves forward and will be strictly enforced in Virginia and elsewhere so some early give and take is not unusual or unwanted.
In the second scenario, your client is likely to be reading a fairly one sided document. The General Contractor has drafted the contract and is “north” of your client in the payment chain. Like it or not, they will in most instances leave it to you and your attorney to root out the particularly egregious on sided terms and seek to negotiate them to some sort of equality.
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
