Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered
June 10, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe employee exclusions in the employer's CGL and Umbrella policies barred coverage. Piatt v. Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Mo. LEXIS 32 (Mo. April 28, 2015).
Linda Nunley was killed while working for Missouri Hardwood Charcoal, Inc. The kiln's large steel door had been removed and was leaning upright against another kiln when it blew over and crushed Ms. Nunley. Her family filed a wrongful death suit against Junior Flowers, the company's sole owner, director, and executive officer. The complaint alleged that Flowers was negligent in ordering employees to lean the kiln doors upright, even though he knew it was unsafe. The complaint further alleged that Flowers breached a personal duty of care owed to Ms. Nunley and that his actions were "something more" that a breach of the company's duty to provide a safe workplace.
Flowers requested a defense under CGL and Umbrella policies issued by Lumbermen's. The policies insured Missouri Hardwood and its executive officers, but excluded liability for a work-related injury to an "employee of the insured." The policies also had a "separation of insureds" provision, stating that the insurance applied "separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought." Lumbermen's denied coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Georgia Legislature Passes Additional Procurement Rules
May 30, 2018 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPOn May 3, 2018, Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 899 into law, officially making it Act 389. Act 389 modifies O.C.G.A. § 13-10-4 and § 36-91-23 relating to public works bidding and contracts of state and local governments, respectively. Both sections are modified in the same bill because they contain the same language. The bill prohibits the disqualification of bidders based upon lack of previous experience with the project’s desired construction delivery method.
Before the modifications, the code protected a contractor from disqualification only for lack of previous experience on a job of comparable size. After the modification, the law expands to prohibit disqualification based on lack of previous experience with comparable job size and lack of previous experience with the construction delivery method.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
“Professional Best Efforts” part 2– Reservation of Rights for Engineers who agree to “best” efforts? (law note)
April 20, 2017 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaRecently, a reader reached out to me to ask about case examples of an engineer losing his insurance coverage because he agreed to a “heightened” or “best” standard of care. The reader stated that he was an insurance adviser who handled various construction professional coverages, and that in his experience it was very unusual to deny or limit damages because of a heightened standard of care.
This comment led me to an informal survey of several insurance brokers that I deal with, and the general consensus is that instead of outright denying a claim, most E&O insurers will issue a “reservation of rights” letter. What that means is that the insurance company will defend the claim (i.e., pay for your lawyer to defend you and your Firm), but with the understanding that they are (potentially) denying any liability for any adverse money judgment against you.
Inevitably, most such cases settle, but if they do not, the question then is whether the heightened duty created part of the damages. The insurer may ask to intervene in the lawsuit to ask the jury that question, in an effort to limit its share of the damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Alaska Supreme Court Dismisses Claims of Uncooperative Pro Se Litigant in Defect Case
August 11, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Alaska Supreme Court found that in the case of Khalsa v. Chose, Ms. Khalsa? failure to cooperate with the courts has obligated them to dismiss her claims against Mr. Chose. Ms. Khalsa bought a home kit from Mandala Custom Homes of Nelson, British Columbia, Canada. Mr. Chose, one of the owners of Mandala was paid by Ms. Khalsa to supervise assembly in Fairbanks. After construction, the roof developed leaks. Ms. Khalsa stated that when climbing a ladder to inspect a skylight leak, she fell and injured herself.
During the subsequent suit, Khalsa proved uncooperative. She skipped a pretrial conference. She attended a hearing that set discovery deadlines but then did not comply with discovery, including her failure to provide medical records documenting her injuries. She eventually said that she would only be able to travel from Arizona to Alaska if the defendants paid for her and her caretaker?s expenses.
When finally deposed, Khalsa terminated the deposition after five minutes, alleging the deposition was “intentionally designed to cause [her] to endure further emotional distress, due to the psychological trauma . . . that was caused or contributed to by the defendants.”
Eventually, the lower court sanctioned her twice. In July, 2008, the court concluded that her failure to provide medical records required dismissal of her injury lawsuit. In October of that year, the court dismissed all remaining claims due to her “pattern of excuses and long delays in providing information for discovery culminating in her refusal to participate in her deposition by the defendants.” Further, Khalsa has argued that the trial court displayed “prejudice and bias toward the pro se plaintiff.”
The Alaska Supreme Court rejected all of Ms. Khalsa?s claims, dismissing her case. They did, however, note that she has thirty days to file an appeal.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?
June 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDespite a “no cracks” welding code and contract provision for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, in 2008 Caltrans proceeded with the project despite welding cracks created by the Chinese firm hired to build the roadway, according to the Sacramento Bee. By the time the cracks had been discovered, the costs were at $6.5 billion and climbing, and fixing the cracks would be time-consuming and expensive.
However, there is some dispute as to rather the welding “cracks represent a hazard to the traveling public.”
“Examine history,” Brian Maroney, Caltrans’ chief engineer for the bridge, said in a recent interview by the Sacramento Bee. “… Caltrans reviewed major quakes around the globe and never found a case in which weld cracks caused bridge-roadway fractures.”
However, the Sacramento Bee reported that there was a case where welding cracks led to fractures. For instance, after the southern California earthquake in 1994 centered in Northridge, the Santa Clara River Bridge “suffered several fractures in steel girders. The breaks were traced to tiny cracks in welds, likely present before the quake, and worsened by vibrations of heavy trucks passing overhead. When the quake struck, the girders fractured.”
The Santa Clara bridge did not collapse. Sacramento Bee claimed it remained standing because the I-beam-shaped girders were “not fracture-critical.” However, the Bay Bridge’s “roadway consists of box-girder segments welded together. In effect, they create one contiguous, fracture-critical girder,” Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, UC Berkeley engineering professor told the Sacramento Bee. “If welds crack and grow rapidly during a large quake, the entire roadway could fail.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability
September 29, 2021 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible.
LG Electronics arose from a fire at the home of Thomas and Lisa Ellis. The public sector fire investigator identified the area of fire origin as the top of a refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics USA, Inc. (LG). The Ellises filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (Insurer). Insurer retained a fire investigator and an electrical engineer to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator agreed with the public sector investigator that the fire originated at the top of the refrigerator. The engineer conducted a forensic inspection of the scene and ruled out all potential external ignition sources. He then examined the internal components of the refrigerator. He found arcing activity on a wire at the front top of the refrigerator. He opined that there were two possible causes of the fire: either the heater circuit insulation failed over time due to mechanical damage, or the heat from the internal light fixture ignited combustible components of the refrigerator. Since the engineer ruled out improper use of the refrigerator, he opined that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Eleven WSHB Lawyers Honored on List of 2016 Rising Stars
July 28, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFWood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced that eleven of their attorneys were recognized on the list of 2016 Rising Stars. According to their press release, “The attorneys honored on the Rising Stars list are 40 years or younger and demonstrate the finest qualities of a good lawyer: first-rate legal skills, preparation, judgment, creativity, dedication and ethics. No more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in each state are named to Rising Stars.”
The WSHB lawyers on the list practice out of Southern California, Northern California, the Pacific Northwest, Arizona, and Florida, and include Raymond Babaian, Emil Macasinag, Amy Pennington, Christopher Perez, Keith Smith, Kevin Gillispie, Alicia Kennon, Eugene Zinovyev, Timothyf Repass, Jodi Mullis, and Vincent Beilman.
“We are pleased to have 11 of our best selected for this year’s lists,” said Dan Berman, Firm Chairman and Founding Partner. “We value our selections to Rising Stars because the choices come from our peers. It is truly an honor and a validation of all of the great work we do at WSHB.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Public Procurements: What Changed on September 1, 2017? a/k/a: When is the Use of E-Verify Required?
October 11, 2017 —
Timothy D. Matheny – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Every contractor that does business with the federal government is familiar with the requirement to use of E-Verify in order to document the employability of a contractor’s employees. But, when is a contractor required to use E-Verify in Texas? And, does this requirement to use E-Verify extend to the contractor’s subcontractors? All contractors and each of their subcontractors will be required to use E-Verify for a variety of goods and services contracts with state agencies. Failure to understand these requirements could lead to your company losing out on the award of the next Texas public procurement contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Matheny may be contacted at
tmatheny@pecklaw.com
