GRSM Named Among 2025 “Best Law Firms” by Best Lawyers
December 23, 2024 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been recognized in the 2025 "Best Law Firms" survey published by Best Lawyers.
To be eligible for a 2025 ranking, a law firm must have at least one lawyer recognized in the 2025 edition of the Best Lawyers in America in a "Best Law Firms" practice area and geographic jurisdiction. GRSM announced earlier this year that 166 lawyers were recognized in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers in America®, while 74 lawyers were named to the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. Explore the full list of GRSM recognized attorneys.
No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. For details about Best Law Firms' methodology, please click here.
The firm received National "Tier 1" rankings in the following areas:
- Admiralty and Maritime Law
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Law
- Insurance Law
- Litigation – Construction
- Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished
January 17, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe historic Portland Public Services Building, designed by Michael Graves, may be demolished after a report showed that “the 32-year-old building needs more than $95 million worth of repairs,” Dezeen Magazine reported. The Portland, Oregon building “is credited with being one of the first major buildings of postmodernism.” According to The Oregonian, the Portland city commissioners have differing opinions as to how to proceed. Council member Amanda Fritz commented that she “doesn’t think the problems at The Portland Building are all that bad compared to other city facilities,” while council member Nick Fish stated, “There’s got to be a better option than putting another $100 million into a white elephant.”
Dezeen Magazine also reported that the former American Folk Art Museum in New York is scheduled to be demolished to make room to extend the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). Glenn Lowry, the MoMA director, stated that the decision came after a six-month study: “The analysis that we undertook was lengthy and rigorous, and ultimately led us to the determination that creating a new building on the site of the former American Folk Art Museum is the only way to achieve a fully integrated campus.”
The decision is being criticized by “architects, conservationists, and critics” reported Dezeen Magazine. Architects Tod Williams and Billie Tsien designed the former American Folk Art Museum. Williams and Tsien stated, “Demolishing this human-scaled, uniquely crafted building is a loss to the city of New York in terms of respecting the size, diversity and texture of buildings in a midtown neighborhood that is at risk of becoming increasingly homogenized."
Read the full story at Dezeen Magazine re The Portland Building...
Read the full story at The Oregonian re The Portland Building...
Read the full story at Dezeen Magazine re American Folk Art Museum... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Appeals Court Rekindles the Spark
March 16, 2017 —
Lian Skaf - White and Williams LLPIn John Trimble, et al. v. City of Albany, et al., 2016, 144 A.D.3d 1484; 42 N.Y.S. 3d 432 (N.Y. App. Div.), the Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, addressed the issue of governmental immunity for municipal fire companies. The court held that the plaintiff, John Trimble (Trimble), had sufficient evidence related to the four-pronged test for establishing a “special relationship” between a municipality and a citizen for liability to attach. In addition, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the issue of governmental immunity. Specifically, regarding the latter holding, the court stated that, when there is no actual choice made on the part of the government, the government’s actions cannot be considered discretionary and immunity will not apply.
In the case at hand, a fire occurred at Trimble’s home on the evening of February 2, 2013. Trimble called 911 and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services for the City of Albany (the Department) responded. After extinguishing the fire, the Department conducted an investigation and cleared the home. The Department’s investigators then told Trimble that the fire was extinguished and it was safe to enter the home. Trimble did so, removing some items so that he could stay with relatives that night. Several hours later, there was a rekindle and the rekindled fire destroyed the home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected
September 05, 2022 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight[
1]Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini, entered into a $1.4 billion contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to replace the Highway 99 viaduct. In December 2013, a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”) bearing the moniker “Bertha,” then the largest TBM ever built, measuring 425 feet long and 57 feet in diameter, struck an underground pipe. Shortly after the impact, Bertha overheated and eventually could no longer make forward progress. A massive repair effort ensued causing a 2.5-year delay in reaching substantial completion.
WSDOT sued STP for the delay, seeking liquidated damages of $57 million. In response, STP argued its delay was excusable because it was caused by Bertha’s impact with the pipe, and the steel well casing was a Differing Site Condition (DSC) undisclosed in the contract documents. STP asserted counterclaims against WSDOT, alleging breach of contract and seeking $300 million in damages. Ultimately, a jury found that the steel well casing on the pipe was not a DSC, foreclosing STP’s excusable delay defense and counterclaims, and resulting in a $57 million verdict, plus interest, in favor of WSDOT.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com
He's the Top U.S. Mortgage Salesman. His Daughter Isn't Buying It
July 16, 2014 —
Lorraine Woellert – BloombergDavid Stevens, chief executive officer of the Mortgage Bankers Association, has spent his career lauding the merits of homeownership. One person still isn’t buying it: his daughter.
Sara Stevens, 27, knows interest rates are low, rents are high and owning a home can build wealth. She also had a front-row seat to the worst real-estate slump since the Great Depression.
“The world has changed,” she said.
Six years since the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a financial meltdown, some young adults are more risk averse and view the potential upsides of status and wealth more skeptically than before the crisis, altering the homeownership calculation. It’s more than the weight of student loans, an iffy job market and tight credit -- even those who can buy are hesitant.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lorraine Woellert, BloombergMs. Woellert may be contacted at
lwoellert@bloomberg.net
Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 28 in the case of Burch v. Premier Homes. Ms. Burch bought a home after negotiating various addendums to the contract. The contract was a standard California Association of Realtors contract to which both the buyer and seller made additions. At issue in this case was paragraph 17 of the contract which included that “Buyer and Seller agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.”
The seller/defendant’s Addendum 2 “included provisions relating to the arbitration of disputes that may arise.” Ms. Burch’s realtor, Lisa Morrin, told Burch that “she had never seen a proposed contractual provision that would require a home buyer to agree to arbitrate with a builder over construction defects.” Ms. Burch told Morrin that she did not want to buy the property if she would have to give up her rights under California law.
As part of Addendum 2, the buyer had to buy a warranty from the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation. The sale was held up for a while, as Ms. Burch waited for a copy of the warranty. When she received it, she took further exception to Addendum 2. Scott Warren of Premier Homes said he could not sell the property without Addendum 2. Ms. Burch told her realtor that despite the claims made by Mr. Warren that this was for her benefit, she felt it was more to the benefit of Premier Homes. Don Aberbrook of HBW agreed to the clause, contained in the final sentence of Addendum 2, being struck.
Subsequent to buying the home, Burch submitted a claim concerning construction defects. HBW denied the claim and Burch began an action against the defendants. Premier filed a motion to compel arbitration which Burch opposed.
The trial court ruled that the striking out of the arbitration clause at the end of Addendum 2 “created a conflict with respect to the parties’ intent as to the scope of arbitration.” The trial court found that “the parties’ intention was to preserve Burch’s right to make state law claims including her right to a jury trial for any non-warranty claims against the builder.”
The appeals court in their ruling looked at the standard of review and concluded that the purchase agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was required to resolve that ambiguity. As the contract contained contradictory provisions as to whether or not arbitration was required, it was necessary for the trial court to examine these claims. The appeals court found that the evidence supported the conclusions of the trial court.
Finally, the appeals court found that “there was no valid agreement to arbitrate disputes.” The court noted that arbitration can only happen by mutual consent and “it is clear that Burch did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate any construction defect disputes she might have.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2019 Legislative Changes Affecting the Construction Industry
July 09, 2019 —
Melinda S. Gentile & Cadian T. Baker - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The 2019 Florida Legislative Session recently concluded and a number of important construction-related House Bills (HB) and Senate Bills (SB) were presented during the Session. Below is a summary of those construction-related bills set to become law in 2019.
Bills Becoming Law in 2019
HB 1247: Relating to Construction Bonds. This bill passed both the House and the Senate and is awaiting the Governor’s signature. Once the Governor has approved the bill it becomes effective as of October 1, 2019.
This bill addresses how to properly perfect a claim against a contractor’s payment bond.
(1) The Notice of Nonpayment that must be served on the contractor and the surety, must be made under oath and include the following provisions:
The nature of the labor or services performed or to be performed;
The materials furnished or to be furnished;
The amount paid on the account; and if known, the amount owed and the amount to become due.
A Notice of Nonpayment that includes the sums for retainage must specify the portion of the amount claimed for retainage.
(2) A subcontractor, laborer, or material supplier (claimant) who files a fraudulent Notice of Nonpayment loses their rights under the bond. The filing of a fraudulent notice is a complete defense to claimant’s claim against the bond. A notice is fraudulent if the claimant willfully exaggerated the amount due, willfully included a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished or prepared the notice with willful and gross negligence, which resulted in willful exaggeration. However, a minor mistake in the notice, or a good faith dispute as to the amount due, is not considered fraudulent. Please note that this provision mirrors the existing statute relative to a fraudulent lien.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melinda S. Gentile, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Gentile may be contacted at
mgentile@pecklaw.com
Inability to Confirm Coverage Supports Setting Aside Insured’s Default Judgment on Grounds of Extrinsic Mistake
January 21, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Mechling v. Asbestos Defendants (No. A150132, filed 12/11/18), a California appeals court affirmed the trial court’s grant of an insurer’s motion to set aside default judgments entered against its defunct insured pursuant to the trial court’s inherent, equitable power to set aside defaults on the ground of extrinsic mistake, thereby allowing the insurer to intervene and defend its own interests in the case.
In Mechling, Fireman’s Fund insured Associated Insulation of California, which was named as a defendant in asbestos litigation filed in 2009. Associated had ceased operating in 1974, but was somehow successfully served with the complaint and defaulted, leading to default judgments of several million dollars. Notice of the judgments was served on Associated but not Fireman’s Fund.
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
