COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Federal Court Holds That Other Insurance Analysis Is Unnecessary If Policies Cover Different Risks

September 28, 2020 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law Blog
In Greater Mutual Insurance Company v. Continental Casualty Company, 2020 WL 5370419 (S.D.N.Y. September 8, 2020), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had occasion to consider the “other insurance” provisions of a commercial general liability policy, issued by Greater Mutual Insurance Company (“GNY”), and a directors and officers (“D&O”) policy, issued by Continental, to the same insured. The GNY policy covered, inter alia, property damage caused by an occurrence, as well as “personal advertising injury,” defined to include “[t]he wrongful eviction from, wrongful entry into, or invasion of the right of private occupancy of a room, dwelling or premises that a person occupies, committed by or on behalf of its owner, landlord or lessor.” The Continental D&O policy covered claims for wrongful acts, including “wrongful entry or eviction, or other invasion of the right to private occupancy. . . .” Unlike the GNY policy, however, the Continental policy expressly excluded coverage for damage to tangible property. In the underlying action, the plaintiffs alleged that the insured engaged in construction work to fix a leak from a terrace on the seventeenth floor. In doing so, the insured accessed the plaintiffs’ roof terrace. The plaintiffs alleged that the construction workers installed and stored construction materials on the roof terrace, making the plaintiffs unable to access the terrace. Plaintiffs also alleged that their deck furniture may have suffered damage, and that the workers had a “direct line of sight” into their unit, resulting in the plaintiffs having to leave their unit frequently. Causes of action were for property damage, constructive eviction, partial constructive eviction, and invasion of privacy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com

---

Quick Note: Don’t Forget To Serve The Contractor Final Payment Affidavit

July 30, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are a contractor in DIRECT CONTRACT with an owner, serve a contractor final payment affidavit on the owner, as a matter of course, and without any undue delay, particularly if you are owed money and have recorded a construction lien. In numerous circumstances, I like to serve the contractor final payment affidavit with the construction lien. The contractor final payment affidavit is not a meaningless form. It is a statutory form (set forth in Florida Statute s. 713.06) required to be filled out by a lienor in direct privity of contract with an owner and served on the owner at least 5 days prior to the lienor foreclosing its construction lien. The contractor final payment affidavit serves as a condition precedent to foreclosing a construction lien. Failure to timely serve a contractor final payment affidavit should result in a dismissal of the lien foreclosure lawsuit, presumably by the owner moving for a motion for summary judgment. This should not occur. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend

January 17, 2013 — Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

The Fifth Circuit held that under Texas law, conclusory allegations of property damage in the underlying complaint did not trigger the insurer's duty to defend. PPI Tech. Serv., L.P. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24571 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2012).

Royal Production Company was the lessor and operator of three leases for oil exploration. Royal retained the insured, PPI, as its agent to assist in well-planning and oversee the drilling of wells on the leases.

A well was drilled on one of the three leased areas, but in resulted in a dry hole. It was later discovered that the well had been drilled on the wrong lease. Royal sued PPI for negligence, claiming that PPI caused the drilling rig to be towed to the wrong location, resulting in a dry hole and "property damage." 

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly
Tred Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized in the 2024 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America®

September 06, 2023 — Traub Lieberman
Related Attorneys: Lisa L. Shrewsberry, Brian C. Bassett, Rina Clemens, Lauren S. Curtis, Scot E. Samis, Anthony Hatzilabrou, Adam P. Joffe, Heather Jones, Ashley Kellgren, Jessica N. Kull, Ryan S. Parker, Nicole E. Shapiro Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that five Partners have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®. In addition, seven attorneys have been included in the 2024 Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch list. These recognitions include attorneys from the firm’s Hawthorne, NY; Chicago, IL; Palm Beach Gardens, FL; and St. Petersburg, FL offices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

---

Denver Airport's Renovator Uncovers Potential Snag

March 04, 2019 — Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-Record
The renovation of the Great Hall of Denver International Airport’s iconic Jeppesen Terminal, roofed by a series of peaked tensile tents that echo the nearby mountains, has hit a bump. Routine but limited concrete testing of the nearly quarter-century-old terminal’s elevated floor slab, to determine whether the floor could support crane loads, shows the compressive strength of the concrete in certain sections is lower than was specified for the original project, more than 25 years ago. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nadine M. Post, ENR
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com

---

General Liability Alert: ADA Requirements Pertaining to Wall Space Adjacent to Interior Doors Clarified

February 26, 2015 — Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond (No. 12-56727, filed February 19, 2015) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a department store related to the necessary moving clearance for an interior restroom door pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Plaintiff, Chris Kohler, is paraplegic and requires the use of a wheelchair to move in public. On two separate days in May 2011, Kohler used the restroom inside the Bed Bath & Beyond store in Riverside, California. Of relevance to the appeal, Kohler contends there was less than ten inches of strike-side wall space on the pull side of Bed Bath & Beyond’s restroom door which allegedly made it difficult for Mr. Kohler to pull open the restroom door by pushing off the strike-side wall with one hand while pulling the door handle with the other. He also contends there was less than three inches of strike-side wall or floor space on the push side of the door, making it difficult for Kohler to open the door from the push side. The door at issue did not have a latch which would stop the door from freely swinging on a hinge. Reprinted courtesy of Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Are Proprietary Specifications Illegal?

April 11, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
A friend came to me with a question regarding a case he was working: “can a public owner require that bidders use a specific brand name product?” “Of course not,” I said “proprietary specifications are illegal.” Or, at least that’s what I assumed. To my surprise, the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is not as clear as it is in other jurisdictions. What is a proprietary specification? A proprietary specification lists a product by brand name, make, model and/model that a contractor must (shall) utilize in construction. A basic example of a proprietary specification would state:

“Air Handlers shall be “Turbo Max” as manufactured by Chiller Corp.”

There are two problems with a proprietary specification (other than potentially being illegal): (a) they limit competition, and (b) invite steered contract awards. They limit competition because it limits the type of material that can be used on the project. In the example above, there could be equivalent air handlers available at a better price but the contractor could not use that lower priced product in its bid. Thus, the taxpayers end up paying more for tile. Also, contractors may not be able to secure a certain brand name product because of exclusive distribution agreements. Again, using the example above, contractor A’s competitor may have the exclusive distribution agreement with Chiller Corp. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Client Alert: Restaurant Owed Duty of Care to Driver Killed by Third-Party on Street Adjacent to Restaurant Parking Lot

January 07, 2015 — R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, & Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight, Brown, & Bonesteel, LLP
In Annocki v. Peterson Enterprise, LLC, (Filed 11/14/2014, Certified for Publication 12/5/2014, No. B251434) the Court of Appeal, Second District, held a restaurant owed a duty of care to the driver of a motorcycle who died as a result of the negligent driving of a third party exiting the restaurant’s parking lot. Decedent, Joseph M. Annocki, was driving his motorcycle on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, when it collided with the vehicle operated by Terry Allen Turner, who was exiting the parking lot of “Geoffrey’s" restaurant, which was owned and operated by the Defendant, Peterson Enterprise, LLC (“Peterson”). The parents of the decedent (“Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Peterson, alleging Peterson failed to adequately staff the restaurant parking lot, which caused Turner to become confused and make an illegal left turn onto Pacific Coast Highway, thereby causing the accident that killed decedent. Plaintiffs further alleged Peterson knew, or should have known, that its parking lot and driveway were designed and in such condition as to create a danger of decreased visibility of the adjacent highway, and failed to adequately provide signage directing patrons that only right turns could be made onto Pacific Coast Highway. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---