Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony
October 07, 2019 —
Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation StrategistSeven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida.” On May 23, 2019, however, Florida’s high court did an about-face. In In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the Florida Supreme Court overruled its decision in DeLisle and declared that Florida will now apply the Daubert standard to determine whether scientific evidence is admissible.
The Daubert standard comes from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which held that the longstanding Frye test[1] for admitting expert testimony was superseded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert instructed that federal judges should act as “gatekeepers” to ensure expert testimony is rooted in scientifically valid principles and that those principles are properly applied to the facts at issue. In determining whether scientific evidence should be admitted, Daubert sets forth several factors to consider: the testability of the theory or technique; the peer review and publication of the theory or technique; the error rate for the technique; the standards controlling the technique’s operation; and the general acceptance of the theory or technique.[2] The Daubert standard is generally considered a more onerous test than Frye, precluding expert testimony that might otherwise go to the jury under Frye.[3] Whereas Frye is a single factor test that applies only to new or novel science, Daubert is a multifactor test that applies to all expert testimony.
Since Daubert, a growing number of states have moved away from the Frye test in favor of the Daubert standard; it is now followed by a majority of jurisdictions in the country. In 2013, the Florida State legislature attempted to move Florida in this direction by amending the Florida Evidence Code to codify the Daubert standard. But because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with the power to make procedural rules and it was unclear whether the Daubert standard was a procedural or substantive rule, it was uncertain whether the 2013 Daubert amendments were controlling law. Then in 2017, in In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC16-181, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined adopting the Daubert amendments to the extent they were procedural. This decision signaled that, if faced with the Daubert standard on appeal from a litigated case, the Florida Supreme Court would reaffirm that Frye – not Daubert – controlled the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida state courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLPMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
Counterpoint: Washington Supreme Court to Rule on Resulting Losses in Insurance Disputes
September 01, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogThis is the fourth installment of posts on Vision One v. Philadelphia Indemnity, a Washington Supreme Court case touching on Washington construction and insurance law. After Williams v. Athletic Field got so much coverage, I wished that I had provided a forum for argument on Builders Counsel. While we await that opinion from the Supreme Court, I decided to let a few good writers have at Vision One here on the blog. Last week, attorney Chris Carr weighed in. Today, insurance expert David Thayer returns to give his final impression. David provided an initial peak at the case earlier this year. Thanks to both Chris and David for contributing to the debate.
In August 2011 the Washington Supreme Court will rule on a pair of joined cases that involve critical insurance coverage issues. The outcome of the ruling will impact a large swath of policyholders in Washington State including builders, developers, and homeowners to name a few.
The cases are Vision One vs. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance and Sprague vs. Safeco. The Vision one case comes from Division Two of the Appellate Court which overturned a lower court decision in favor the plaintiff, Vision One. Division Two decided that the collapse of a concrete pour during the course of construction did not constitute a resulting loss due to faulty workmanship. They further went on to redefine efficient proximate cause in a way that is harmful to policyholders by broadening rather than narrowing the meaning of exclusionary language in Philadelphia’s Builders Risk Policy.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Rejecting Construction Defect Claim Must Share in Defense Costs
March 02, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiOne insurer, who accepted the tender of defense in a construction defect case, successfully moved for summary judgment against the second insurer, who denied the insured's tender. Interstate Fire & Cas. v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5800 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25,2019).
Standard Waterproofing Corporation was hired by the construction manager, G Builders, to perform waterproofing work as part of condominium conversion project. After the project was completed,the condominium occupants experienced water damage in their units. The Condominium Board retained an engineer who reported numerous issues of water infiltration relating to Standard's work.
The Condominium Board filed suit against the construction manager, who filed a third party complaint against Standard. Standard tendered to four different insurers, including plaintiff Interstate and defendant Aspen. Interstate agreed to defend, while Aspen and the other two insurers declined. Aspen argued there were no allegations of an occurrence resulting in property damage during its policy periods. Interstate filed for declaratory relief against Aspen and Standard.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.
December 31, 2014 —
Heather M. Anderson – Colorado Construction LitigationIn a recent case arising out of a denial of coverage for alleged construction defect claims concerning a pre-fabricated home, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado applied the 10th Circuit’s determination of what can constitute an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. See Wardcraft Homes, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4852117 (D. Colo. September 29, 2014). William and Grace Stuhr sued Wardcraft, which manufactured pre-fabricated homes at a facility in Fort Morgan, Colorado, because their home was not completed as scheduled and contained various defects. The Stuhrs filed suit against Wardcraft alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
Wardcraft tendered the Stuhrs’ complaint to Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”), which denied coverage under its policy and denied any duty to defend. According to EMC, the Stuhrs’ alleged construction defects were not property damages and there was no occurrence in connection with faulty workmanship. Approximately two and a half years after they filed their initial complaint, the Stuhrs filed an amended complaint. Wardcraft did not tender this amended complaint to EMC, and first informed EMC about the amended complaint about a year after it was filed. A month prior, Wardcraft settled with the Stuhrs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather M. Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Anderson may be contacted at
Anderson@hhmrlaw.com
SB 721 – California Multi-Family Buildings New Require Inspections of “EEEs”
December 19, 2018 —
Brenda Radmacher - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogMany in the construction industry and multi-family development field have been closely following Senate Bill 721, or the “Balcony Bill,” regarding new requirements for building owners associated with decks and balconies. After almost a dozen amendments, the “Balcony Bill” finally passed in the state legislature with an overwhelming majority and was signed into law September 17th, 2018, by Governor Jerry Brown.
Balconies and decks, called “Exterior Elevated Elements” (“EEE”) in the statute, are common features in most multi-family buildings in California – where better to enjoy the California sun? However, many of the structures have proven to be problematic at best due to complex intersections of construction trades and design issues as well as limited understanding and effectuation of maintenance. Indeed, the “Balcony Bill” arose largely out of an outcry following the 2015 balcony collapse in Berkeley in 2015, which left six young people dead and another seven injured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Radmacher may be contacted at
bradmacher@grsm.com
New York Court Temporarily Enjoins UCC Foreclosure Sale
September 21, 2020 —
Steven E. Ostrow, Timothy E. Davis, Steven E. Coury & Kristen E. Andreoli - White and WilliamsNew York courts have become a battleground for challenges to foreclosure sales under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Another trial court of the New York State Supreme Court (New York County) issued a preliminary injunction in Shelbourne BRF LLC v. SR 677 Bway LLC, halting a mezzanine lender’s August 19, 2020 UCC foreclosure sale. The decision confirms that the impact of the pandemic on the value of commercial real estate, and upon traditional steps taken to conduct a foreclosure auction, are both key factors that courts will continue to consider in determining whether a UCC foreclosure sale scheduled during the pandemic can be conducted in a commercially reasonable manner as required by the UCC.
THE CASE
In Shelbourne, the mezzanine borrowers owned the membership or equity interests in the companies (collectively, the “Property Owner”) that held title to a 12-story office building in Albany, New York. As security for the $3.35 million mezzanine loan, the mezzanine borrowers pledged their equity interests to the mezzanine lender. In May 2020, the mezzanine lender declared a default under the mezzanine loan as a result of the Property Owner’s default under the $28.5 million senior loan secured by a mortgage against the office building. The mezzanine lender then scheduled a public UCC foreclosure sale of the equity interests in the Property Owner for August 19, 2020. If the sale had been held, the equity interests in the Property Owner (and right to control the Property Owner and office building) would have been transferred to the successful bidder, either the mezzanine lender or a third party purchaser.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Steven E. Ostrow,
Timothy E. Davis,
Steven E. Coury and
Kristen E. Andreoli
Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Andreoli may be contacted at andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group Receives “Tier 1” Ranking by U.S. News and World Reports
November 10, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogWendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group has received a “Tier 1” ranking by U.S. News and World Reports in its 2017 Best Law Firms rankings and the firm as a whole has been named one of the “Best Law Firms.” This is the fourth consecutive year that Wendel Rosen’s Construction Practice Group has achieved a “Tier 1” ranking.
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
Colorado Passes Construction Defect Reform Bill
June 05, 2017 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.According to Daniel E. Evans of Gordon & Rees Scully Mansukhani, Colorado’s state legislature recently passed a bill “designed to reduce litigation risk associated with building condos by requiring a majority of actual condo unit owners, as opposed to a majority of the HOA board members, to approve the filing of a lawsuit over construction defects.” Evans stated that this “legislation cannot be viewed as sweeping reform” and that “future legislative sessions will undoubtedly see additional efforts to reform construction defect litigation.”
Perhaps the most significant aspect of HB 1279 is the requirement for a majority of condo owners in a development to approve a lawsuit, Evans reported. Furthermore, HB 1279 “requires the HOA board to notify all condo unit owners and builders about plans to pursue a construction lawsuit. It further requires the HOA board to hold a meeting to allow the board and the developer to present facts and arguments to the individual condo unit owners, including arguments of the potential benefits and detriments of filing a lawsuit.”
Unlike its failed predecessors, HB 1279 does not require arbitration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
