Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products
May 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court found that various claims for bodily injury against a supplier of asbestos products arose from multiple occurrences, increasing indemnity amounts available under the policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45437 (N.D. Ohio April 7, 2015).
Mahoning Valley Supply Company (MVS) was sued by numerous claimants who alleged that they had been injured by asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties, but supplied by MVS. The claimants alleged exposure to asbestos fibers at a variety of job sites, on numerous dates, and under a variety of conditions. Two insurers shared defense and indemnity costs.
In 2013, Continental informed MVS that the three policies issued to MVS were nearly exhausted. Therefore, the parties disputed whether MVS' asbestos claims arose out of a single "occurrence" rather than multiple occurrences. The policies defined "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Haight has been named by Best Law Firms® as a Tier 1, 2 and 3 National Firm in Three Practice Areas in 2024
November 27, 2023 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the
Best Law Firms® (2024 Edition) with metro rankings in the following areas:
Los Angeles
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Metropolitan Tier 3
- Workers’ Compensation Law – Claimants
Orange County
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Association Bound by Arbitration Provision in Purchase-And-Sale Contracts and Deeds
January 11, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen an association files a lawsuit pertaining to matters of common interest, the lawsuit is typically filed as a class on behalf of the owners that make up the association (i.e., the association’s members). How do you deal with an arbitration provision that is included in an owner’s purchase-and-sale agreement or recorded in the deed? The recent opinion in Lennar Homes, LLC v. Martinique at the Oasis Neighborhood Association, Inc., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D15c (Fla 3rd DCA 2021) dealt with this exact issue with a homeowner’s association ruling that the association was required to arbitrate its latent construction defect claims against the developer (homebuilder).
In this case, a community in Miami consisted of 26 townhouse buildings. There was a broad arbitration provision in each owner’s purchase-and-sale agreement that included disputes relating to property damage. Further, with each closing, a special warranty deed was recorded that included a nearly identical arbitration provision.
The association became aware of latent defects relating to the exterior walls of the buildings and filed a lawsuit against the developer (homebuilder). The developer moved to compel the dispute to arbitration which was denied by the trial court because there was no specific agreement between the association and the developer that required arbitration and the lawsuit dealt with matters that the association was obligated to maintain.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)
February 27, 2019 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. SquillarioIn Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”
Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Shortens Cut-Off Date for Suits Against Homebuilders Who Provide a 6-Year Written Warranty
June 26, 2023 —
Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Summary of the new law as it pertains to builders of new homes:
The existing 10-year statute of repose for builders of new homes (the ultimate cut-off date for filing suit) has been shortened to 6 years if the builder provides a 1-2-6 written warranty (1-year workmanship and materials; 2-year plumbing, electrical and HVAC; 6-year structural).
Extended time to bring suit if written claim presented during the period of repose:
If a written claim for damages, contribution, or indemnity is presented to the builder during the applicable limitations period and the 6-year statute of repose applies, the time to sue is extended one year from the date the claim is presented. In practical effect, this means that if a written claim is presented and the statute of repose expires before suit is filed, suit may still be filed provided it is within one year of the date the written claim was made.
When the new law goes into effect:
The new law is effective as of June 9, 2023 and applies to suits commenced on or after that date. However, if the contract under which the claim is brought was entered into before June 9, 2023, the former 10-year version of the statute of repose applies. In other words, the statute applies to contracts entered into on or after June 9, 2023, if the contract has at least a 1-2-6 warranty.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kim Altsuler - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Altsuler may be contacted at
kaltsuler@pecklaw.com
Render Unto Caesar: Considerations for Returning Withheld Sums
January 18, 2021 —
William E. Underwood Partner, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsWithholding sums during a dispute can be an effective and perfectly legitimate means to protect against the harms caused by another party’s breach. However, withholding too much money during a dispute can turn a position of strength into one of weakness.
“Why should I fund the other side’s litigation war chest?” and “Isn’t this just a display of weakness?” are common questions raised by contractors when this issue is discussed. Often, the contractor is well within its contractual or legal rights to withhold money from a breaching subcontractor (another topic for another day). But it may not always be in a contractor’s best interest to withhold every single penny available.
This article addresses some of the long-term implications for failing to return withheld sums, including the potential to recover attorneys’ fees, possible bad faith, accruing interest, and overall litigation costs. Admittedly, it can be hard to give money back in the middle of a dispute. But sometimes it can positively impact the overall outcome of the case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William E. Underwood, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)Mr. Underwood may be contacted at
wunderwood@joneswalker.com
A Survey of New Texas Environmental and Regulatory Laws Enacted in the 88th Session (Updated)
August 28, 2023 —
Anthony B. Cavender & Alexandra Trahan - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThis is a brief survey of many of the environmental and regulatory laws passed by the Texas Legislature and signed by the Governor in the 88th Regular Session of the Legislature, which ended in May 2023, although a special session has been called to address lingering matters. Altogether, more than 1,000 laws were enacted in this session, including a surprising number of water-related environmental bills.
Water
HB1565 relates to the functions of the Texas Water Development Board and continuation and functions of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas Advisory Committee.
Effective 9.1.23.
HB1699 relates to the authority of the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District to impose certain fees.
Effective 6.9.23.
HB1845 amends Section 37 of the Water Code to add Section 37.0045 relating to the licensing requirements for certain operators of wastewater systems and public water systems.
Effective 9.1.23.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury and
Alexandra Trahan, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case
May 26, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA three-judge panel issued a per curium ruling on May 23 in Fairview Heights Condo. v. Investors (N.J. Super., 2011), a case which the members of a condominium board argued: “that the judge erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s claims against RLI based upon the statute of repose; 2) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Luppinos based upon a lack of expert opinion; 3) barring the testimony of Gonzalez; and 4) barring the May 23, 1989 job site report.” The court rejected all claims from the condominium board.
The court found that the building must be unsafe for the statute of repose to apply. They noted, “the judge made no findings on whether the water seepage, or the property damage caused by such seepage, in any way rendered the building, or any of the units, unsafe.” Further, “without a specific finding on the question of whether the defects had rendered the building ‘unsafe,’ defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the ten-year statute of repose.“
On the second point, the court also upheld the lower court’s findings regarding the management company:
“The report submitted by Berman establishes that the EIFS product was defective in its design and would therefore have failed from the outset. The defects in that product were, according to Berman, not prone to repair or other mitigation. Therefore, even if defendants did not appropriately inspect or repair the EIFS, their failure to do so would have had no impact on the long-term performance of the EIFS exterior cladding. As plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these questions, the judge properly granted summary judgment to the Luppinos on plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.”
On the final two points, the judges noted “plaintiff maintains that the judge committed reversible error when he excluded the Gonzalez certification and the 1989 job site report prepared by Raymond Brzuchalski.” They saw “no abuse of discretion related to the exclusion of the Gonzalez certification, and reject plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.” Of the job site report, they found, “no abuse of discretion in the judge's finding that the Brzuchalski 1989 job site report did not satisfy the requirements of N.J.R.E.803(c)(6).”
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
