Construction Law Firm Welin, O'Shaughnessy + Scheaf Merging with McDonald Hopkins LLC
February 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to a press release on PR Newswire, Columbus, Ohio law firm McDonalds Hopkins LLC is merging with firm Welin, O’Shaughnessy + Scheaf. McDonalds Hopkins LLC is “a business advisory and advocacy law firm with a more than 80-year history.” They are looking to expand their “Columbus presence” by the merger with “the boutique firm” that specializes in construction law, complex business litigation and oil and gas litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to BWB&O’s Newport Beach Team for Prevailing on a Highly Contested Motion to Quash!
January 08, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPCongratulations to Newport Partners Tyler Offenhauser and Jonathan Cothran, and Associate Anisha Kohli, who recently prevailed on behalf of BWB&O’s client before the Orange County Superior Court on a highly contested Motion to Quash Service based on Plaintiff’s failure to timely file and serve a DOE Amendment, naming our client.
BWB&O’s client was the owner of a building where Plaintiff, a licensed electrician, was electrocuted while performing an upgrade to the building’s electrical infrastructure. Plaintiff’s original lawsuit named only the building’s tenant, who was also represented by BWB&O. BWB&O was successful earlier this year on a Motion for Summary Judgment under the Privette Doctrine and won judgment on behalf of the client/tenant. While that MSJ was pending, Plaintiff surreptitiously added the building’s owner to the suit with a DOE Amendment, after several months earlier learning the owner and then tenant were entities operated by the same individual. However, Plaintiff never informed counsel or any other party of the filing. Moreover, after the MSJ was granted, Plaintiff then waited several more months to serve the building’s owner.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
No Friday Night Lights at $60 Million Texas Stadium: Muni Credit
March 26, 2014 —
Darrell Preston and Aaron Kuriloff – BloombergPervasive cracking has shuttered the $60 million home of a high-school football championship team in Texas after less than two years. Investors in the tax-free bonds that paid for the stadium are unscathed.
Taxpayers in Allen Independent School District north of Dallas and the $29 billion Texas Permanent School Fund, a state bond insurer, are responsible for $119 million of debt that paid for the venue and other facilities, leading officials to find a new site for graduation and possibly games after closing 18,000-seat Eagle Stadium last month.
The development suggests the fund, created in 1854 to help pay for education, shouldn’t be used for stadiums, said Colby Harlow, president of hedge fund Harlow Capital Management. The Permanent Fund has top credit ratings and secures about $55 billion of bonds, according to the Texas Education Agency. The pool has at times reached the limit of debt it can back, preventing districts from accessing it. The guarantee is still a boon to bondholders.
Mr. Merelman may be contacted at smerelman@bloomberg.net; Mr. Sillup may be contacted at msillup@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Darrell Preston and Aaron Kuriloff, Bloomberg
Connecticut Federal District Court Again Finds "Collapse" Provisions Ambiguous
March 22, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Federal District Court for the District of Connecticut has issued several decisions of late finding coverage for collapse despite the building not being reduced to rubble. The latest decision in this series is Metsack v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24062 (D. Conn. Feb. 21, 2017).
The Metsack's property was insured by Allstate under policies issued from June 27, 1991 to September 9, 2009. From September 2009 to present, Liberty Mutual issued property policies to the insureds. Mr. Metsack built the insureds' home in 1992. The concrete basement walls used concrete supplied by JJ Mottes Company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Denial of Coverage for Bulge in Wall Upheld
November 26, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer properly denied coverage for a bulge in a warehouse wall that the insured claimed was caused by Hurricane Ike. Russell v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143882 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014).
Hurricane Ike displaced metal roof coverings on the insured's warehouse, causing interior water damage to several rooms. Scottsdale eventually paid $84,820.36 for the loss of the roof, less the deductible. The parties disagreed on whether a horizontal bulge on the north wall of the warehouse was also caused by the hurricane. The bulging portion of the wall was not cracked, but cracks were seen around the corners and windows. The insured admitted to an engineer retained by Scottsdale that the cracks in the exterior walls had been filled with caulking on several occasions prior to Hurricane Ike.
Scottsdale denied coverage for the damage to the north wall under exclusions for soil sinking, rising, or shifting and for damage from faulty, inadequate or defective design, construction, and repair.The insured later sent a demand for $800,000 for the damage to the wall. A suit was eventually filed by the insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
“Details Matter” is the Foundation in a Texas Construction Defect Suit
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Texas has ruled in the case of Barzoukas v. Foundation Design. Mr. Barzoukas contracted with Heights Development to build a house. He subsequently sued Heights Developments and “numerous other defendants who participated in the construction of his house.” Barzoukas eventually settled with all but two defendants, one who went bankrupt and Foundation Design, the defendant in this case. In the earlier phase, Barzoukas made claims of “negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, fraudulent inducement, conspiracy, and exemplary damages in connection with the foundation.”
Foundation Design had been hired to install 15-foot piers to support the foundation. The engineer of record, Larry Smith, sent a letter to Heights Development noting that they had encountered hard clay stone when drilling. Smith changed the specifications to 12-foot piers. Initially, the City of Houston called a halt to work on the home when an inspector concluded that the piers were too shallow. Heights Development later convinced the city to allow work to continue. Subsequently, experts concluded that the piers were too shallow.
Foundation Design filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted this, “without specifying the basis for its ruling.” Barzoukas contends the court was in error. Foundation Design contends that “Barzoukas failed to proffer competent evidence establishing that their conduct proximately caused damages.” Further, they did not feel that Smith’s letter gave “rise to viable claims for fraud and fraudulent inducement.”
One problem the court had was a lack of evidence. The court noted that “the purported subcontract is entirely missing” in the pleadings. The court has no contract between Bazourkas and Heights Development, nor one between Heights Development and either Foundation Design or Smith. The court underscored the importance of this, writing, “details matter.” They found that “the details are largely missing here.” Without the contract, the court found it impossible to determine if “Smith or an entity related to him agreed to indemnify Heights Development for damages arising from Smith’s negligent performance.”
As the material facts are in dispute, the appeals court found that there were no grounds for a summary judgment in the case. “Pointing to the existence of a contract between Heights Development and Barzoukas, or to the existence of a subcontract, is the beginning of the analysis ? not the end.”
Foundation Design and Smith also claimed that Barzoukas’s expert did not proffer competent evidence and that the expert’s opinions were conclusory. The trial court did not rule on these claims and the appeals court has rejected them.
Finally, Barzoukas made a claim that the trial court should not have rejected his argument of fraud and fraudulent inducement. Here, however, the appeals court upheld the decision of the lower court. “Barzoukas did not present evidence supporting an inference that Smith or Foundation Design made a purposeful misrepresentation.
The court remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration. One member of the panel, Judge Charles Seymore, upheld the entire decision of the trial court. He dissented with the majority, finding that the economic loss rule foreclosed the claim of negligence.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Discovery Requests in Bad Faith Litigation Considered by Court
June 10, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court considered a variety of discovery requests by the insured in a bad faith case against State Farm. Stephens v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2015 WL 1638516 (M.D. Pa. April 13, 2015).
The insured plaintiff was a quadriplegic. His complaint alleged that he notified State Farm, through its agent, that he would have to leave his residence for medical treatment and intended to rent the home while he received care for his disabling condition. The complaint further alleged that the insured was told by State Farm's agent that his insurance would remain unaffected by his departure while he sought medical care. Nevertheless, when the insured reported loss due to vandalism and water damage at his home, State Farm relied upon his departure from the residence to cancel his insurance.
In discovery, the insured requested three categories of documents from State Farm. First, he requested State Farm's claims manuals, guidelines and instructions materials relating to insurance claims like those made by this insured. Second, the plaintiff requested performance reviews and performance incentive programs for all of State Farm's employees who played a role in decisions in this case from 2009 to the present. Finally, the plaintiff demanded that State Farm compile information relating to other insurance lawsuits brought against State Farm involving theft, vandalism and water damage claims, as well as all lawsuits or complaints regarding the conduct of this particular claims adjuster. When the materials were not produced, plaintiff filed a motion to compel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Need and Prejudice: An Eleventh-Hour Trial Continuance Where A Key Witness Is Unexpectedly Unavailable
July 10, 2018 —
Angela S. Haskins & Allegra Perez - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Padda v. Superior Court (GI Excellence), No. E070522, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, recently held that a trial court abused its discretion in denying Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ request for a trial continuance where their key expert witness suddenly became ill twelve days before trial and before his deposition had been taken.
Reprinted courtesy of
Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Allegra Perez, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com
Ms. Perez may be contacted at aperez@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
