Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?
November 19, 2021 —
Michael T. Kennedy Jr. - BERDING|WEILOne of the most common features in construction defect cases is the Case Management Order (“CMO”) or Pre-Trial Order (“PTO”) to govern pre-trial and mediation procedures. CMOs and PTOs arose in the days when the HOA would sue the developer, the developer would cross-complaint against the subcontractors, and each defendant and cross-defendant might have 2 or 3 insurance carriers defending, each of whom may retain their own panel counsel. In a large case there may have been 20 parties and 30 defense attorneys. In order to avoid the cost and chaos of all of those parties propounding their own discovery, and in order to prepare these cases for mediation well before trial and the associated costs, it became standard practice in California to include provisions in the CMO to stay all discovery until just before trial.
Plaintiff would provide a Defect List or Statement of Claims and the parties experts would meet and exchange information as part of the mediation process. All of the information exchanged would be subject to mediation privileges and inadmissible at trial. The benefit of this practice was that the parties (and carriers) would avoid the cost of formal discovery and allow the experts to discuss compromised scopes of repair to help settle the case while being able to take a more aggressive position at trial. The disadvantages are that each party uses its privileged initial expert reports to stake out negotiating positions more extreme than what they would put on at trial, with each side losing credibility with the other in assessing the value of the case, and for those cases that did not settle, the parties would be faced with having to do all of the depositions and discovery in the last 60 days, or delaying trial, or both.
Over the last 10 or 15 years with the advent of wrap-up insurance policies, these cases now usually involve 2 sides instead of 20; only the HOA and the developer remain in the case. However, old habits die hard, and the standard CMO/PTO hasn’t evolved with other aspects of these cases. The practice of staying all discovery and exchanging information only under mediation privileges remains, and as a result insurance carriers don’t receive the admissible evidence that they need to determine coverage and evaluate the real settlement value of the case until just before trial. On the plaintiff’s side, if most of the experts’ work is done under the guise of mediation privilege, those costs may not be recoverable. Outside the context of mediation, costs incurred in investigation of the defects and preparation of a scope and cost of repair are recoverable.
This reflexive claim of mediation privilege over all information exchanged during the case has outlived its usefulness. The CMO can and should remain to regulate formal discovery and to help the parties prepare for mediation, but regulated discovery should be opened early in the case. In California, the SB800 process already provides for the exchange of admissible information during the prelitigation right to repair process. Continuing that exchange during the early litigation allows the parties to continue to prepare for mediation, but waiving privileges had advantages for both sides.
A senior claims manager once commented that Plaintiff’s mediation-protected Statement of Claims “might as well be a stack of blank paper” for all of its usefulness to the carrier in assessing the value of the case. If the Plaintiff and it expects are free to inflate their claims early in the case without having to worry about every supporting those claims in front of a jury, they have little or no credibility. And if those claims are inflated or not “real,” not only can the carrier not properly assess the verdict range and settlement value of the case, but it may also be hampered in making a coverage determination. Simply put, if the exchange of real information through formal discovery is put off until just before trial, the defense cannot be ready to settle until then. Worse, the cost of defense goes through the roof in the last 60 days before trial as the lawyers’ scramble to take all of the depositions and to all of the other work that had been stayed for the previous year or two.
The Plaintiff is faced with the same question of credibility of defense experts where they are free to take a “low ball” negotiating position without having to support that position through cross-examination in front of the jury. Just as the carrier behind the defense attorney needs the Plaintiff’s “real” evidence to assess the claim, so does the HIOA Board of Directors behind the Plaintiff’s counsel. Additionally, in California as in most states, the cost of experts’ preparation for mediation may not be recoverable as costs or damages, but investigation of the defects and preparation of the scope and cost of repair is recoverable.
The biggest challenge is resolving construction defect claims for both sides is how to resolve these cases quickly while keeping costs under control. Practices that worked 20 years ago are no longer applicable with changes in insurance, and in light of some of the bad habits that arise when all of the information exchanged was confidential.
The CMO/PTO process can still be useful to regulate the discovery and mediation schedule given the volume of documents and other information to be exchanged but exchanging “real” information in a form that may come into evidence at trial should foster earlier resolution, resulting in cost savings for the parties. The CMO can provide for the parties to respond to controlled discovery, and the exchange of expert reports and potentially depositions can and should be done earlier in the case, well before the eve of trial. The parties can then assess the true value of each case and prepare for more substantive mediation without waiting until they are on the figurative courthouse steps.
Construction defect cases have a pattern, and it is tempting for busy lawyers to just put each case through the same algorithms that they have used for years. However, these cases have evolved and those of us handling these cases need to reevaluate our approach to these cases. Taking aggressive negotiating positions that no longer have any credibility with the other side has become counterproductive, and the exchange of real evidence earlier in the case would better serve our clients and carriers.
BERDING|WEIL is the largest and most experienced construction defect and common interest development law firm in California. For more information, please visit https://www.berding-weil.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael T. Kennedy Jr., BERDING|WEILMr. Kennedy may be contacted at
mkennedy@berdingweil.com
Leaning San Francisco Tower Seen Sinking From Space
November 30, 2016 —
The Associated Press (Jocelyn Gecker) – BloombergSan Francisco (AP) -- Engineers in San Francisco have tunneled underground to try and understand the sinking of the 58-story Millennium Tower. Now comes an analysis from space.
The European Space Agency has released detailed data from satellite imagery that shows the skyscraper in San Francisco's financial district is continuing to sink at a steady rate — and perhaps faster than previously known.
The luxury high-rise that opened its doors in 2009 has been dubbed the Leaning Tower of San Francisco. It has sunk about 16 inches into landfill and is tilting several inches to the northwest.
A dispute over the building's construction in the seismically active city has spurred numerous lawsuits involving the developer, the city and owners of its multimillion dollar apartments.
Engineers have estimated the building is sinking at a rate of about 1-inch per year. The Sentinel-1 twin satellites show almost double that rate based on data collected from April 2015 to September 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
Following My Own Advice
October 21, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorI often advise clients on the use of E-Verify and the importance of getting policies and in place to ensure compliance. This is particularly true for clients that do federal and state work. Now it’s my turn to follow my own advice.
I was recently appointed to represent the Nebraska Board of Engineers and Architects. As such, I am a contractor for the State of Nebraska. That means I have to use E-Verify.
Here is a refresher of “our” E-Verify obligations as a contractor for the State.
Nebraska adopted an E-Verify law in 2009. Nebraska statute section 4-114 requires all contractors that are awarded a contract by a state agency or political subdivision to register with ta federal immigration verification system. Although not explicit in the statute, the Department of Labor has indicated that the obligation to E-Verify applies only to new employees that will be working on the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Chambers USA 2021 Recognizes Five Partners and Two Practices at Lewis Brisbois
June 07, 2021 —
Lewis BrisboisFive Lewis Brisbois partners and two Lewis Brisbois practices were recently ranked by Chambers in its 2021 USA rankings list.
Kansas City and Wichita Managing Partner Alan L. Rupe and Phoenix Managing Partner Carl F. Mariano were both ranked Band 1 for “Labor & Employment – Kansas” and “Insurance – Arizona,” respectively, while Minneapolis Partner Tina A. Syring was ranked Band 4 for “Labor & Employment – Minnesota,” and Washington D.C. Managing Partner Jane C. Luxton and Partner Karen C. Bennett were ranked Band 5 for “Environment – District of Columbia.”
Significantly, Chambers also ranked Lewis Brisbois’ Kansas Labor & Employment Practice Band 2 and the firm’s Washington D.C. Environmental Practice Band 4.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Public Policy Prevails: Homebuilders and Homebuyers Cannot Agree to Disclaim Implied Warranty of Habitability in Arizona
November 01, 2022 —
Ryan Bennett - The Subrogation StrategistIn Zambrano v. M & RC II LLC, et al., 2022 Ariz. LEXIS 309, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that a homebuilder and homebuyer could not waive or disclaim the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. While the court would normally enforce a contract between two parties – even if one side made a “bad deal” – they will not do so if the contract’s terms are against public policy.
In this case, Tina Zambrano (Zambrano) signed a purchase agreement with the homebuilder to buy a newly built home. The agreement included provisions which expressly disclaimed any implied warranties, including the warranty of habitability and workmanship. After the purchase, Zambrano claimed that there were construction defects within the home, including popped nails in the drywall and issues with the home’s foundation. Zambrano sued the homebuilder for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability. The homebuilder moved for summary judgment based on the waivers within the contract and the trial court, agreeing that the waivers applied, dismissed the case. Zambrano appealed and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court specifically explained that Arizona has a public policy interest in protecting consumers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan Bennett, White and Williams LLPMr. Bennett may be contacted at
bennettr@whiteandwilliams.com
California Condo Architects Not Liable for Construction Defects?
May 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFLaw360 reported that attorneys for the architects of a San Francisco, California condominium complex told the California Supreme Court that the designers “can’t be held liable for construction defects that caused units to overheat” and urged “the panel to reverse a lower court's ruling that the architects owed a duty of care to the condos’ buyers.”
The California appeals court ruling was based on California’s Right to Repair Act, however, “that law doesn’t apply to condo conversions.” The architects argued that since Beacon was “designed and originally rolled out as rental apartments before the units were sold as condos” the Right to Repair Act doesn’t apply.
However, Beacon Residential Community Association’s attorney Robert Riggs of Katzoff & Riggs “argued that the architects had a ‘cradle to grave’ involvement in the development of the Beacon.” Riggs stated, “They designed a very large building with essentially no ventilation system, along with windows that don't open.”
According to Law360, “[t]he justices took the arguments under submission and did not indicate which way they would rule.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Negligent Misrepresentation Claim Does Not Allege Property Damage, Barring Coverage
December 20, 2017 —
Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii The Tennessee Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination that the seller's alleged negligent misrepresentation regarding the propensity of the property to flood was covered. Erie Ins. Exh. v. Maxwell, 2017 Tenn. App. LEXIS 746 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2017).
The Chapmans purchased a residence from the Maxwells on March 7, 2014. Prior to the sale, the Maxwells completed a residential property disclosure in which they allegedly misrepresented the propensity of the property to flood. Five months after the purchase, the residence sustained damage as a result of two floods within three days. The Chapmans sued, alleging they relied on the Maxwells' representations regarding the propensity of the property to flood. The Chapmans further alleged that they sustained property damage as a result of the Maxwells' negligence and negligent misrepresentations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Doctrine of Merger Not a Good Blend for Seller of Sonoma Winery Property
April 15, 2015 —
Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Ram’s Gate Winery, LLC v. Joseph G. Roche, et al. (No. A139189 & A141090, filed 4/9/15) (Ram’s Gate), the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held the doctrine of merger did not extinguish a seller’s contractual duty to disclose potentially hazardous seismic conditions on a Sonoma winery property.
In Ram’s Gate, the buyer of the property filed a lawsuit alleging the seller failed to disclose information relating to earthquake issues prior to the close of escrow. In the parties’ “Purchase and Sales Agreement” (Purchase Agreement) the seller agreed to disclose any information known to it regarding “known geological hazards . . . soil reports . . . geotechnical reports” and other facts “having effect on the value of the ownership or use of the property.” The seller, however, argued this disclosure warranty did not survive the escrow period because it did not expressly provide for survival while other provisions in the Purchase Agreement did.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
