Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits
January 27, 2020 —
David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement BlogA recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits.
One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!
January 19, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsWe all know that the contract is king in Virginia. We also know that Virginia will allow for a so called “incorporation” clause that will allow for “flow down” of certain prime contract provisions in a way that will make those provisions applicable to subcontractors. We also know that a claim for breach of contract or other contractual claim does not last forever due to certain statutes of limitation found in the Code of Virginia. What happens when all of these elements crash together in one place leading to litigation? Well, a relatively recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least a partial answer.
In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc, the Virginia Supreme Court considered a claim that arose from construction at Virginia Tech by Hensel Phelps. The construction concluded in 1998 (remember that date). The Prime Contract included language concerning a one year “Guarantee of Work” as well as fairly typical Warranty of Workmanship” language. However the Prime Contract also stated that the one year guaranty term did nothing to affect any other limitations period for any other action pursuant to the Prime Contract (this is important as well because Virginia Tech was not subject to any statute of limitations due to its status as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia). Final payment was made to Hensel Phelps and subsequently to the subcontractors in 1999.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Manhattan Trophy Home Sellers Test Buyer Limits on Price
February 14, 2014 —
Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergBroker Alon Chadad’s client purchased a $14.3 million apartment on Manhattan’s Central Park South, then spent nine months seeking approval for plans to overhaul it. In January, the buyer changed course, listing the unit for sale at more than double what he paid just a year ago.
“He filed all the documents for renovation and he was ready to go and he decided, ‘You know what? I see opportunity in the market,’” said Chadad, co-founder of Blu Realty Group and the agent for the 6,160-square-foot (572-square-meter) condominium, which has an asking price of $29.5 million.
Luxury-apartment owners in New York are listing a record amount of properties for sale, testing the upper limits of what buyers are willing to pay even as median prices remain off their peak set almost six years ago. Sellers have taken notice of a handful of record-shattering deals, triggered by an $88 million purchase at 15 Central Park West, and demand for trophy homes by international investors seeking havens for their cash.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, BloombergMs. Carmiel may be contacted at
ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net
Newmeyer Dillion Named 2020 Best Law Firm in Multiple Practice Areas by U.S. News-Best Lawyers
November 24, 2019 —
Newmeyer DillionProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that U.S. News-Best Lawyers® has recognized the firm in its 2020 "Best Law Firms" rankings, with six of its practice areas earning the highest ranking possible - Tier 1 in the Orange County Metro area. The practices recognized include Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Insurance Law, Litigation - Construction, Litigation - Real Estate and Real Estate Law.
Firms included in the 2020 "Best Law Firms" list have been recognized by their clients and peers for their professional excellence. Firms achieving a Tier 1 ranking have consistently demonstrated a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal expertise.
“We are grateful that the firm’s clients and our peers again recognize our personalized approach to legal service. We strive to provide creative solutions that propel our clients’ businesses forward,” said Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff.
To be eligible for the “Best Law Firms” ranking, a firm must have at least one attorney recognized in the current edition of The Best Lawyers in America for a specific practice area. Best Lawyers recognizes the top 4 percent of practicing attorneys in the U.S., selected through exhaustive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers.
ABOUT NEWMEYER DILLION
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of corporate, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, Newmeyer Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Emotional Distress Damages Not Distinct from “Annoyance and Discomfort” Damages in Case Arising from 2007 California Wildfires
November 21, 2017 —
Kirsten Lee Price & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOriginally published by CDJ on February 16, 2017
In Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co., (No. D070259, filed 1/31/17), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that emotional distress damages are available on claims for trespass and nuisance as part of “annoyance and discomfort” damages.
In Hensley, plaintiffs sustained fire damage to their home and property during the 2007 California wildfires. The Hensleys were forced to evacuate as the fires advanced. Although their home was not completely destroyed, it sustained significant damage and they were not able to return home permanently for nearly two months. Thereafter, the Hensleys filed suit against San Diego Gas and Electric Company (“SDG&E”) asserting causes of action for trespass and nuisance, among others. Mr. Hensley, who had suffered from Crohn’s disease since 1991, further claimed that as a result of the stress from the fire, he experienced a substantial increase in his symptoms and his treating physician opined that “beyond a measure of reasonable medical certainty... the stress created by the 2007 San Diego fires caused an increase of [Mr. Hensley’s] disease activity, necessitating frequent visits, numerous therapies, and at least two surgeries since the incident.” SDGE moved, in limine, to exclude evidence of Mr. Hensley’s asserted emotional distress damages arguing he was not legally entitled to recover them under theories of trespass and nuisance. The trial court agreed and excluded all evidence of such damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kirsten Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker, 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
Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Welcomes Quinlan Tom
January 06, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogThere’s been more cheer than usual at Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group this holiday season.
Earlier this month, Quinlan Tom, a construction and business attorney, joined us from McInerney & Dillon, a venerable and well-respected construction boutique firm (we know a lot of folks there) with local roots like us in Oakland, California. We’ve all known Quinlan for a while, so when he decided to join our band of merry legal practitioners, we were quite thrilled.
Being lawyers though, and better at asking than answering questions, we decided to pose a few questions to Quinlan:
Q. So, you’ve just been sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under penalty of perjury. So, tell us about your practice.
A. Let me just start with it’s quite an honor to appear in your blog; I’ve been a reader for a while (in secret of course before I got to Wendel Rosen). I’m also excited to join you and the other members of Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group; as you mention, I’ve known each of you professionally for quite some time and respect each of you tremendously.
I started as a construction litigator right out of law school. I completed three years of mechanical engineering at UC Davis and put that on my resume when I was looking for a job after law school. (In addition, my dad retired after 40 years in the trenches as a union electrician). McInerney & Dillon (“M&D”) and a couple of other firms found that interesting and I ended up starting with M&D. I did find that my engineering studies helped with my acclimation to construction disputes. While I never pretend to be an engineer, it has provided me with a foundation of how the construction process works and how the projects are designed. 26 years later, I continue to enjoy counseling my clients in their construction disputes/issues and still find each construction project I am involved with fascinating.
I have tried, arbitrated and litigated cases for 26 years, from the United States District Court to the California Superior Court and the California Office of Administrative Hearings. I have argued cases before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the California Court of Appeal. I counsel my clients into hopefully making the best business decisions available melding the knowledge I have gleaned from my litigation experience with their financial and personal goals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Celebrating Dave McLain’s Recognition in the Best Lawyers in America® 2025
September 16, 2024 —
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCWe are thrilled to announce that David M. McLain, a founding partner of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC, has been recognized in the prestigious publication, The Best Lawyers in America® 2025. David has earned this honor for his outstanding work in Construction Law and Litigation – Construction.
For over two decades, David has been a leading figure in the field of construction law. His dedication to providing exceptional legal services to developers, general contractors, and other construction professionals has set him apart as a trusted advisor and advocate in the Colorado construction industry. His inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America® 2025 is a testament to his hard work, legal acumen, and the respect he has garnered from his peers.
About The Best Lawyers in America®
The Best Lawyers in America® is one of the oldest and most esteemed peer-review publications in the legal profession. Each year, lawyers are nominated and evaluated by their peers based on their professional expertise and achievements. Only a select few receive this honor, making it a significant recognition of excellence in the legal field.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers
February 24, 2020 —
Traub LiebermanIn New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2019 WL 6109144 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 18, 2019), New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) defeated the claim of several of its insurers that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to its Superstorm Sandy damages and recovered the full $400 million limits of its property insurance tower. The decision is a big win for the beleaguered transit agency, and for insurance professionals working with complex insurance towers, the decision highlights critical underwriting issues that can dramatically affect the amount of risk transferred by the policyholder or assumed by the insurer.
In NJ Transit, NJT secured a multi-layered property insurance program providing $400 million in all-risk coverage. The first and second layers provided $50 million each, the third and fourth layers provided $175 million and $125 million, respectively, with several insurers issuing quota shares in each layer. The program contained a $100 million flood sublimit, and “flood” was defined to include a “surge” of water. The program did not contain a sublimit for damage caused by a “named windstorm,” which was defined to include “storm surge” associated with a named storm. After NJT made its Superstorm-Sandy claim, some of the third- and fourth-layer insurers advised NJT that the $100 million flood sublimit applied to bar coverage under their policies. NJT sued these excess insurers and won at the trial and appellate levels.
In holding that the $100 million flood sublimit did not apply, the court applied the rule of construction that the specific definition of “named windstorm,” which included the terms “storm surge” and “wind driven water,” controlled over the policies’ more general definition of “flood.” In ascertaining the parties’ intent, the court noted that the omission of the term “storm surge” in the definition of “flood” evidenced an intention that the flood sublimit would not apply to storm surges. Based on this finding, the court rejected several arguments made by the insurers that other policy provisions evidenced the parties’ intent to apply the flood sublimit to all flood-related losses, regardless of whether the loss was caused by a storm surge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
