Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency
September 03, 2019 —
Amy E. Vulpio - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterIn In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), the court confirmed what many asbestos defendants and their insurers long suspected: that “the withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock” and other defendants. This “startling pattern of misrepresentation” included plaintiffs’ attorneys who, out of “perverted ethical duty,” counseled their clients to file claims against multiple trusts without valid factual grounds for so doing. Such “double dipping” and other abuse not only harms asbestos defendants and insurers, but also dilutes recoveries for legitimate claims. Now – five years after Garlock – the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a coordinated initiative to fight asbestos trust fraud and mismanagement. However, a series of recent bankruptcy court rulings suggests that this initiative stumbled out of the gate by focusing on the wrong issues. Asbestos defendants and their insurers can learn from the DOJ’s missteps.
In November 2017, invoking Garlock, 20 state attorneys general wrote to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to devote DOJ resources to fighting asbestos trust abuse. A September 13, 2018 DOJ press release announced an initiative to increase the transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts. Through its United States Trustee Program (UST), the DOJ objected to the debtors’ proposed legal representative for future claims (FCR) in several Chapter 11 cases involving asbestos liabilities: Lawrence Fitzpatrick in Duro Dyne and James L. Patton, Jr. in Maremont, Fairbanks and Imerys Talc.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amy E. Vulpio, White and Williams LLPMs. Vulpio may be contacted at
vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com
Students for Fair Admissions: Shaking the Foundations of EEOC Programs and M/WBE Requirements
October 16, 2023 —
Denise Farris Scrivener - The Dispute ResolverOn June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision,
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, holding that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 143 S. Ct. 2141, 216 L. Ed. 2d 857 (2023). On July 13, 2023, thirteen state Attorney Generals, relying on Students for Fair Admissions, issued a joint letter to the CEOs of the Fortune 100 companies, urging the elimination of all race-based programs in EEOC and government and private contracting. On July 19, 2023, a Tennessee district court judge issued an injunctive order against the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) application program on the basis of the program’s race-based presumption of disadvantage. Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 220CV00041DCLCCRW, 2023 WL 4633481 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2023).
The message to be taken from these developments: all race-based programs and, by extension, potentially all gender-based programs—including ones that require or reward participation of Minority Business Enterprises (“MBE”) or Women Business Enterprise (“WBE”) in construction programs—currently stand on shaky ground.
This post will explain the constitutional foundations at play, the decisions shaking things up, and why well-rounded dialogue is urgently needed to address the status of these programs before they’re dead in the water.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denise Farris Scrivener, Farris Legal Services LLCMs. Scrivener may be contacted at
denise@farrislegal.net
As Natural Gas Expands in Gulf, Residents Fear Rising Damage
July 11, 2022 —
The Associated Press (Cathy Bussewitz & Martha Irvine) - BloombergLake Charles, Louisiana (AP) -- The front lawn of Lydia Larce’s home is strewn with debris: Remnants of cabinets and chunks of pink shower marble lie between dumpsters. She lives in a FEMA trailer out back, her home in shambles more than a year after Hurricane Laura tore through Lake Charles.
Larce, like many in Southwest Louisiana, has what she calls “storm PTSD.” Tornado warnings trigger anxiety. She fidgets and struggles to sleep.
"The fear and the unknown — it has me on an edge,” Larce said. “I’m scared.”
A string of devastating hurricanes has torn through this region in recent years. Nationally, too, there have been more Category 4 and 5 hurricane landfalls in the past five years than in the previous 50 years combined. Larce and her neighbors know they are on the front lines of climate change.
Her region is now the epicenter of a trend that she fears will make those disasters even more destructive.
Developers plan to build a series of liquefied natural gas export facilities across Southwest Louisiana, already the heart of the industry. Even in a state with a heavy industrial base, these facilities are among the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in Louisiana.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements
June 15, 2017 —
Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:
While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Miller may be contacted at
gjm@sdvlaw.com
Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case
February 26, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPUnder California's SB 800 "Right to Repair Act," a builder may obtain a "reasonable release" to resolve a construction defect claim in exchange for a cash payment. So, what's a "reasonable release" under SB 800? This question was answered by the Second Appellate District in the case of Belasco v. Wells (filed 2/17/2015, No. B254525).
Plaintiff David Belasco ("Plaintiff") purchased a newly constructed residence in 2004 from the builder defendant Gary Loren Wells ("Wells"). In 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Wells with the Contractors' State License Board (the "Board") regarding certain alleged construction defects. The parties settled the 2006 action through written agreement that required Wells to pay Plaintiff $25,000 in consideration for Plaintiff executing a release and a Civil Code §1524 waiver of all known or unknown claims. In 2012, Plaintiff filed a subsequent action against Wells and Wells’ surety, American Contractors Indemnity Company ("American Contractors") (collectively "Defendants"), alleging a defect in the roof that was discovered by Plaintiff in 2011.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Colin T. Murphy, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Continuity and Disaster Recovery Plans for Contractors: Lessons From the Past
November 28, 2022 —
Rich Sghiatti - Construction ExecutiveThere is no shortage of natural disasters to illustrate the importance of being prepared. Wildfires, hurricanes, winter storms and floods can hit a construction job site hard. Appropriate property-casualty insurance and surety bonds are necessary protections for a contractor and project owner. But the addition of well-thought-out continuity and disaster recovery plans will better position the contractor to deal with whatever Mother Nature brings.
Consider Hurricane Katrina, the costliest hurricane to hit the United States. Pummeling Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi in August 2005, the storm led to 1,833 fatalities and an estimated $108 billion in damages. Levees meant to protect New Orleans from Lake Pontchartrain did not hold, flooding 80% of the city.
Utilities including power, water and sanitary sewers were severely damaged. Homes were destroyed. Roadways were closed. Communications systems were down.
Contractors who had good business continuity and disaster recovery plans fared better than those who did not.
Reprinted courtesy of
Rich Sghiatti, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Magistrate Judge Recommends Rescission of Policies
February 12, 2024 —
Craig Rokuson - Traub LiebermanIn the recent case of Union Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. 142 Driggs LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220393, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York recommended granting the insurer's default judgment and holding that of three policies issued to 142 Driggs LLC ("Driggs") be rescinded ab initio.
Driggs had represented on its insurance applications that it did not provide parking to anyone other than itself, tenants, and its guests at the subject insured premises. However, Union Mutual learned that Driggs had been renting out three garages to non-tenants. Second, Driggs represented that the mercantile square footage was around 1,000 square feet, when in actuality, it was larger than allowed under the policies.
Union Mutual provided underwriting guidelines in connection with its default motion, which state that "parking provided for anyone other than the insured, tenants and their guests," presents an "unacceptable risk." The guidelines also state that answering yes to any "preliminary application questions (which presumably included those regarding mercantile square footage and parking) is an "unacceptable risk." The court held that these guidelines supported a finding that Driggs made material misrepresentation and that Union Mutual relied on these misrepresentations in issuing the policies. The court, as such, recommended that the policies at issue be rescinded from inception.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub LiebermanMr. Rokuson may be contacted at
crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Will They Blow It Up?
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe issues concerning the Harmon Towers building in Las Vegas continue to make their way through the courts. As we noted in a previous piece, Cook County building officials stated that the building could be a hazard if Las Vegas were struck by an earthquake. The question of whether the building will continue to stand is just one of the issues in front of a judge.
MGM Resorts International argued at a March 13 hearing for permission to implode the Harmon hotel building. They claim that more than 1,700 defects have been discovered in the building and that the building is a public safety hazard. Arguing against demolition, Perini Building Company, the general contractor for the hotel, and its subcontractors are claiming that imploding the building would destroy evidence and prejudice juries in the ongoing construction defect claims. They claim that MGM Resorts wishes to abandon the building due to the economic slowdown. Perini Corp, the contractor for the project, claims that the building can be fixed. Perini claims that MGM’s position in the construction trial would be improved if the building is demolished.
After Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez heard the four days of testimony on the Harmon Towers building and whether it should be demolished, she scheduled more testimony, with two days in April and an entire week in July. Judge Gonzalez will be deciding whether the building will be torn down, imploded, or left in place.
Read the full story…
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
