Don’t Waive Your Right to Arbitrate (Unless You Want To!)
October 19, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesDoes your construction contract require you to arbitrate (instead of litigate) disputes arising out of the contract? If so, and you want to arbitrate, you do NOT want to do anything inconsistent or adverse with your right to arbitrate. Arbitration can be waived and you do not want arbitration to be waived if you believe this is the best forum to resolve your construction dispute. For instance, actively participating in a lawsuit through the prosecution or defense of issues in the lawsuit is certainly inconsistent with your right to arbitrate. This will result in a waiver of your right to compel arbitration.
In a non-construction dispute—a dispute involving a law firm and its former partner—the law firm sued the partner. Chaikin v. Parker Waichman LLP, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2165b (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). There was a partnership agreement that required disputes to be resolved by arbitration. The law firm sued the partner claiming he violated a previously entered employment agreement that did not require arbitration. When the partner counterclaimed, the law firm claimed that the counterclaim must be compelled to arbitration because the counterclaim arose out of the partnership agreement that required arbitration. Guess what? The trial court actually compelled the counterclaim to arbitration! Crazy! Clearly, any employment agreement and partnership agreement were intertwined such that the dispute would involve the same set of facts and any claims would have a significant relationship to the partnership agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Seyfarth Shaw’s Construction Group Receives Top Tier Recognition from Legal 500
July 05, 2023 —
Alison Ashford, Michael McKeeman, Bennett Greenberg, Meghan Douris, Jason Smith, Michael Wagner & Ryan Gilchrist - The Construction SeyfarthSeyfarth Shaw’s Construction group have achieved a top tier ranking in the highly regarded
Legal 500 United States 2023 edition, solidifying their reputation as one of the nation’s top legal teams. This recognition reaffirms Seyfarth’s unwavering commitment to excellence in Real Estate Construction and Construction Litigation.
The Legal 500 United States guide recognizes Seyfarth’s Construction practice as having a “very deep team with extensive construction knowledge as well as experts in related fields such as government contracting and business organization.” Our team is regarded by clients and peers as “collegial, intelligent, direct and adaptable.” The guide specifically recognizes the firm’s former Construction group chair, Bennett Greenberg, in their Hall of Fame. Alison Ashford, the firm’s current Construction group co-chair, is named a Leading Lawyer and Washington, DC Associate, Michael Wagner, made the Rising Stars list. Other notable mentions include, Michael McKeeman, Construction group co-chair, Jason Smith, Meghan Douris, and Ryan Gilchrist.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alison Ashford, Seyfarth,
Michael McKeeman, Seyfarth,
Bennett Greenberg, Seyfarth,
Meghan Douris, Seyfarth,
Jason Smith, Seyfarth,
Michael Wagner, Seyfarth and
Ryan Gilchrist, Seyfarth
Ms. Ashford may be contacted at aashford@seyfarth.com
Mr. McKeeman may be contacted at mmckeeman@seyfarth.com
Mr. Greenberg may be contacted at bgreenberg@seyfarth.com
Ms. Douris may be contacted at mdouris@seyfarth.com
Mr. Smith may be contacted at jnsmith@seyfarth.com
Mr. Wagner may be contacted at mewagner@seyfarth.com
Mr. Gilchrist may be contacted at rgilchrist@seyfarth.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
San Francisco Sues Over Sinking Millennium Tower
November 17, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDennis Herrera, San Francisco’s city attorney, filed a lawsuit against the developer of the Millennium Tower, “for failing to inform buyers that it was sinking ‘much faster than expected,’” reported the New York Times. Mission Street Development sold more than 400 units in the skyscraper.
“They went ahead and sold condominiums for a handsome profit without telling the buyers about the situation,” Mr. Herrera told the New York Times. “This is every homeowner’s worst nightmare.”
The spokesman for the development, P.J. Johnson, stated that “the allegations by the city attorney had ‘no merit,’ and that the “building had sunk within ‘predicted, safe ranges’ during the entire sales process,” according to the New York Times. Furthermore, Johnson asserted that the problem derived from the nearby railroad station removing water from the ground, which “had caused the building to ‘settle beyond the 12 inches it was predicted to settle.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Policies and Indemnity Provisions Are Not the Same
October 19, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogJust because you own a pair of Air Jordans doesn’t make you Michael Jordan. In the next case, Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation, Case No. A154757 (July 23, 2020), the 1st District Court of Appeal denied an insurance carrier’s equitable subrogation claim explaining that an insurer’s obligations under its insurance policy are not the same as an idemnitee’s obligations under an indemnity provision. Or, as aptly put by the Court of Appeal, while a “subrogated insurer is said to ‘stand in the shoes’ of its insured, because it has no greater rights than the insured. Here . . . [the insurer] is seeking to stand in a different, more advantageous set of shoes.”
Carter v. Pulte Home Corporation
Pulte Home Corporation was sued for construction defects by 38 homeowners in two housing developments. Various subcontractors had worked on the projects, but under their subcontracts, each subcontractor agreed to indemnify Pulte from and against “all liability, claims, judgments, suits, or demands for damages to persons or property arising out of, resulting from, or relating to Contractor’s performance of work under the Agreement (‘Claims’) unless such Claims have been specifically determined by the trier of fact to be the sole negligence of Pulte . . . ”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Court Rules that Collapse Coverage for Damage Caused “Only By” Specified Perils Violates Efficient Proximate Cause Rule and is Unenforceable
January 26, 2016 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Vardanyan v. Amco Ins. Co. (No. F069953, filed 12/11/15) a California appeals court held that policy wording that the collapse coverage for damage “caused only by” certain specified perils did not mean “solely” by those specified perils, but that coverage may nonetheless apply even if excluded causes contributed to the loss, under the Insurance Code section 530 and the efficient proximate cause rule.
In Vardanyan, the insured made a claim for water damage from unknown origin to a rental house. An engineer concluded that the various sources of moisture—roof leaks, gutters and downspouts that did not channel the water away from the house, a faucet spraying water on the exterior of the house, leaking toilet and bathtub, and humidity—contributed to the damage to the house, along with poor construction, termite damage and decay.
The insurer denied coverage citing multiple policy exclusions, including damage caused by seepage or leakage of water from a plumbing system; deterioration; mold, wet or dry rot; settling of foundations, walls or floors; earth movement; water damage; neglect; weather conditions; acts or decisions of any person; and faulty or defective design, workmanship, repair, construction, or maintenance. The insured retained a public adjuster who disagreed, in particular citing the policy’s “Other Coverage 9” coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building “caused only by one or more” of a list of perils, including hidden decay, hidden insect damage, and weight of contents, equipment, or people.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolute Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage For Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims
January 24, 2018 —
White and Williams LLPOn December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in
GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams
Client Alert: Court of Appeal Applies Common Interest Privilege Doctrine to HOA Litigation Meetings
March 19, 2014 —
David W. Evans, Steven M. Cvitanovic, and Michael C. Parme - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Seahaus La Jolla Owners Assoc. v. Superior Court (No. D064567, March 12, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held a homeowners association’s (“HOA”) litigation meetings related to the HOA’s construction defect lawsuit were subject to protection under the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, the court concluded the common interest doctrine applied to the subject litigation meetings, thereby barring the defendants in the HOA’s lawsuit from seeking discovery related to the content and disclosures made during those meetings.
The plaintiff HOA initiated a construction defect lawsuit against a residential developer and builder, seeking damages for construction defects related to common areas. The defendants took the depositions of individual homeowners and inquired regarding the communications and disclosures made at informational litigation update meetings. The meetings were conducted by the HOA’s counsel with groups of homeowners, some of whom had filed their own, separate lawsuits against the same defendants. Motions to compel were filed after attorney-client privilege objections were asserted by counsel for the HOA. After the court-appointed discovery referee opined that the common interest doctrine applied and that the communications presented at the meetings were subject to the attorney-client privilege, the trial court rejected this recommendation and overruled the HOA’s privilege objections. The HOA filed a petition for a writ of mandate.
The defendants argued the privilege had been waived based on the presence of persons who were not the clients of the HOA’s attorney, that the subject communications were not “confidential communications” and that the individual homeowners and the HOA did not share common interests at the time. After setting forth a comprehensive discussion of the statutory principles underlying the attorney-client privilege and the bases for waiver, as provided in California Evidence Code §§ 912 and 952, and summarizing applicable decisional law, the court specifically analyzed the question of whether the common interest doctrine applied in the context of the disputed HOA litigation meetings. The common interest doctrine protects confidential communications made by counsel to third parties if the third parties are present to further the interest of the client or are those to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information or the accomplishment of the purpose for which the lawyer was consulted.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans,
Steven M. Cvitanovic, and
Michael C. Parme of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com, Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com, and Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
TOP TAKE-AWAY SERIES: The 2023 Annual Meeting in Vancouver
May 22, 2023 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverProgram coordinators Katie Kohm and Peter Marino put together an amazing annual meeting last week in Vancouver. While its impossible to retread all of the ground we covered in discussing the "future of construction law," here are my top 10 take-aways:
10. Public-private partnerships may finally be taking off in the United States. P3s were slow to be pursued within the United States. According to panelists Peter Hahn, John Heuer, Sean Morley, and Lee Weintraub, this was chiefly because of the reticence of public bodies to deviate from the standard vendor model. Looking at the recent trends, it seems as though the United States--the "sleeping giant of public-private partnerships"--may finally be waking up. In 2022, a total of 29 public-private partnership projects were signed or reached financial close within the United States, representing an increase of 16% from the prior year. Thirty-eight states also now have some form of P3 enabling legislation. While we still lag behind our Canadian cousins, the future of P3s in this country is looking a little brighter.
9. The value proposition for the architecture profession is broken. Architects Lakisha Ann Woods (the CEO of AIA) and Phillip Bernstein (Associate Dean & Professor Adjunct Yale University) shared their thoughts with moderator Kelly Bundy on the challenges facing the architecture profession. The biggest issue they noted was the need to recruit qualified (and diverse) candidates into the profession. Unfortunately, this is difficult to do given the long career track (on average, it becomes 13.1 years to become a licensed architect) and the low salaries paid compared to other professions. Phillip shared that the high average starting salary for architecture grads from Yale (one of the leading programs in the country) is just $76,000. If we want to recruit the best and most innovative candidates into the field, the value proposition needs to change.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
