HVAC System Collapses Over Pool at Gaylord Rockies Resort Colorado
June 12, 2023 —
Jennifer Seward - Engineering News-RecordThe collapse May 6 of the HVAC system above an indoor pool at the Gaylord Rockies Resort near Denver sent six people to local hospitals, two with life-threatening injuries. An estimated 50 to 100 people were in the water or on the pool deck as pieces of the system fell into the pool and hot tub.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Seward, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Seward may be contacted at sewardj@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to Haight’s 2021 Super Lawyers San Diego Rising Stars
May 03, 2021 —
Catherine M. Asuncion, Arezoo Jamshidi & Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight congratulates partners Michael Parme and Arezoo Jamshidi and associate Catherine Asuncion who were selected to the 2021 San Diego Super Lawyers Rising Stars list.
Reprinted courtesy of
Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at casuncion@hbblaw.com
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain named Law Week Colorado’s 2015 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants
September 17, 2015 —
Sheri Roswell – Colorado Construction LitigationIt is my sincere pleasure to announce Law Week Colorado named my friend and partner, Dave McLain, as the 2015 Barrister’s Best Construction Defects Lawyer for Defendants. Law Week Colorado’s summary of David’s accomplishments includes the following recognition:
David McLain has set himself apart in the heated area of construction defects litigation as a founding member of his firm and as a member of several associations that serve developers. As one of the most connected and most vocal members of this area of law, we certainly know whom to go to when the construction defects issue inevitably bubbles up again.
I can say with pride and certainty, that there is no one more deserving of such recognition in the legal and construction community than David. I have had the honor of working side by side with David since he began practicing law. Together, fourteen years ago, we founded Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC with a vision of serving the construction industry at the highest level. Our firm’s Mission Statement states that “HHMR exists to embody and exemplify the principles of service and stewardship. In everything we do, we focus on serving our clients selflessly and to the best of our ability.” David lives our values each and every day.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sheri Roswell, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Roswell may be contacted at
roswell@hhmrlaw.com
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
An Obligation to Provide Notice and an Opportunity to Cure May not End after Termination, and Why an Early Offer of Settlement Should Be Considered on Public Works Contracts
August 17, 2020 —
Jeff Kaatz - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn 2015, the City of Puyallup (“City”) and Conway Construction Company (“Conway”) executed a public works contract for road improvements (“Project”). On March 9, 2016, approximately four months after work started on the Project, the City issued Conway a notice of suspension and breach of contract and identified nine defective and uncorrected work and safety concerns. Conway denied any wrongdoing, and on March 25, 2016, the City issued a notice of termination for default and withheld payments due to Conway.
Conway subsequently filed suit in Pierce County Superior Court and alleged the City’s termination for default breached the contract and sought a determination that the City’s termination for default was improper and should be deemed a termination for convenience. Conway sought approximately $1.25 million in damages and recovery of its attorney fees and costs. Following a bench trial, the Trial Court found the City breached the contract and awarded Conway damages, attorney fees, and costs. The City appealed.[1]
On appeal, after affirming the trial court’s determination that the City improperly terminated Conway, the Court of Appeals considered two other issues raised by the City. First, whether the City was entitled to a set-off for replacing defective work discovered after Conway was terminated. Second, whether Conway is entitled to attorney fees if it did not make the statutorily required offer of settlement per RCW 39.04.240.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Kaatz, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMr. Kaatz may be contacted at
Jeff.Kaatz@acslawyers.com
New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation
August 06, 2019 —
Will Wade, Chris Martin, & Millicent Dent - BloombergNew York has signed the biggest-ever deals for offshore wind power in U.S. history, a key part of the state’s plan to get all of its power from emissions-free sources by 2040.
On Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo awarded contracts for two projects off Long Island that will total 1,700 megawatts in capacity. Equinor ASA and a joint venture between Denmark’s Orsted A/S and Massachusetts-based Eversource Energy were chosen to build the farms, which will supply enough power to light up a million homes.
Cuomo is counting on the wind projects to achieve the most aggressive clean energy goal in the U.S., and signed the state’s 100% renewable energy target into law right after announcing the wind contracts. New York’s ultimate plan is to get enough turbines erected off its shores to generate 9,000 megawatts by 2035.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will Wade, Chris Martin, & Millicent Dent, Bloomberg
Relying Upon Improper Exclusion to Deny Coverage Allows Bad Faith Claim to Survive Summary Judgment
December 04, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer was successful on summary judgment in establishing it correctly denied coverage for collapse, but its motion was denied regarding the insureds' bad faith claim. Jones v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153102 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 7, 2018).
The insureds' retaining wall collapsed. They tendered to State Farm under their homeowners policy. An engineer retained by State Farm determined that the wall buckled due to "excessive lateral earth pressure from retained soils behind the wall." The parties agreed that the soil, saturated by water from frequent rain, grew too heavy for the retaining wall to bear, causing the collapse.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone
October 21, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogApril 23, 1985 will live in infamy.
The Coca Cola Company, responding to diminishing sales as its “sweeter” rival Pepsi-Cola gained market share, announced that it was changing its “secret” recipe and introducing a new kind of Coke, referred to by the public simply as, “new Coke.”
The reaction was unexpected.
People around the world began hoarding “old Coke.” Protest groups, such as the Society for the Preservation of the Real Thing and Old Cola Drinkers of America, sprang up around the county. Angry letters addressed to “Chief Dodo” were sent to Coca-Cola’s chief executive officer. And even Fidel Castro, a longtime Coca-Cola drinker, joined the backlash calling “new Coke” a “sign of American capital decadence.”
By July it was over.
Coca-Cola announced that it would once again produce “old Coke,” and in a sign (I’m sure Fidel Castro would say) of American arrogance, announced that “old Coke” would be produced under the name “Coca-Cola Classic” alongside “new Coke” which would continue to be called “Coca-Cola” suggesting that “new Coke” would be the Coke of today as well as the future. By 1992, however, “new Coke” whose sales dwindled to 3% of market share was demoted to “Coke II” and by 2002 was discontinued entirely.
The moral of the story: Change the recipe at your own risk.
Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks
In the next case, Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks, Case No. B258649, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (August 31, 2015), the corollary might well be change the recipe design at your own risk.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
