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
“Families First Coronavirus Response Act”: Emergency Paid Leave for Construction Employers with Fewer Than 500 Employees
March 30, 2020 —
Sidney Lewis & Alex Glaser, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsCOVID-19 has already taken a toll on construction projects across the nation. Construction industry participants, including general contractors, now face risks and challenges that are exceedingly difficult to anticipate and plan for. The spread of this virus has and will continue to create new labor force issues and amplify existing ones.
On March 18, 2020, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6021, the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act,” which, contains provisions related to mandatory paid leave for employers with fewer than 500 employees. This legislation and the substantial obligations it imposes apply to the overwhelming number of general contractors in the nation—those with less than 500 full-time employees! The bill mandates up to 80 hours of “emergency paid leave” related to COVID-19, and not just for those who contract the illness. However, contractors with less than 50 employees may seek exemption.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sidney Lewis, Jones Walker LLP and
Alex Glaser, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Lewis may be contacted at slewis@joneswalker.com
Mr. Glaser may be contacted at aglaser@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The U.S. Flooded One of Houston’s Richest Neighborhoods to Save Everyone Else
December 01, 2017 —
Shannon Sims - Bloomberg“Next contestant, come on down.” On Oct. 6, in a bright courtroom in downtown Houston, Susan Braden, chief justice of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, opens a preliminary hearing with a joke, beckoning a lawyer forward. Braden has flown in from Washington to oversee disputes involving the homes and businesses flooded in West Houston after Hurricane Harvey made landfall over Texas in late August. She has summoned attorneys interested in suing, to get their thoughts on how the proceedings should unfold.
Almost 100 lawyers are present, combed and buzzing in anticipation of what promises to be some of the most complex and expensive litigation ever brought against the federal government. Observers speculate that thousands of plaintiffs could eventually join in, and that the total damages claimed could reach $10 billion or more, especially if the big energy and oil companies—whose presence in one section of West Houston gave it the nickname the Energy Corridor—sue over their flooded headquarters. Eighty suits, 11 of which are seeking class-action status, have been filed by homeowners against the federal government, though many of the Energy Corridor’s approximately 9,500 residents are still weighing their options, speed-dating lawyers by phone and at community meetings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon Sims, Bloomberg
How to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive
July 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJohn P. Ahlers on the Ahlers & Cressman PLLC blog has posted the first of a two-part series on Ways to Make the Construction Dispute Resolution Process More Efficient and Less Expensive: “In our view, construction is well suited to streamlining the resolution process, particularly when experienced lawyers and judges / arbitrators are involved.”
“Discovery can take vast amounts of time and cost a company significant resources,” Ahlers wrote. “Many times, only small portions of a deposition might actually be used at the hearing in cross examination. The question then becomes whether the cost of the discovery is providing a return.”
Ahlers listed several steps and requirements that arbitrators, judges, or the parties themselves can impose to make the process more efficient, such as client involvement, avoiding too much process at the expense of practical outcomes, discovery limitations, among others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Restrictions On Out-Of-State Real Estate Brokers Being Challenged In Nevada
April 10, 2019 —
Aaron D. Lovaas - Newmeyer & Dillion LLPFor years, the Nevada Real Estate Division (“NRED”) and its sub-entity, the Nevada Real Estate Commission (“NREC”), have been tasked with administering the licensing procedures applicable to real estate professionals in Nevada, as well as enforcement of the regulations governing business practices, advertising, commissions, license maintenance, and a host of other dayto-day parameters within which the profession operates. Within the past five years, however, the NREC has tasked itself with the publicly stated goal of “protecting” Nevada real estate licensees and the commissions they earn from out-of-state real estate professionals seeking to do business in the Silver State. While efforts to preserve local real estate opportunities for local brokers might seem sound, an international brokerage firm is challenging the foundation of that structure. If they win, the outcome could have huge implications on the real estate industry in Nevada. Businesses, here’s a breakdown of the existing structure and what the challenge is all about.
The Existing Regulatory Structure
Through amending their own regulations, the NRED and NREC have created a regulatory structure that:
- Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any seller (Nevada based or non-Nevada based) of any Nevada real estate;
- Prohibits any non-Nevada licensed real estate broker from representing any Nevada resident in the purchase of Nevada real estate; and
- Allows non-Nevada licensed real estate brokers to represent non-Nevada purchasers of Nevada real estate only if the out-of-state broker formally affiliates (and therefore shares commissions with) a resident Nevada-licensed broker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron D. Lovaas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMr. Lovaas may be contacted at
aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com
In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law
December 20, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe year was 1995. The old guard was still in power in Sacramento. “Button-Down” Pete Wilson was Governor. Willie Brown, the self-nicknamed “Ayatollah of the Assembly,” was Speaker of the Assembly. And Bill “Huggy” Lockyer was Senate Pro Tem. Names that, for many reasons as of late, seem . . . well . . . let’s just say, “quaint.”
Their time, however, was coming to an end. Three years earlier, California voters approved Proposition 140, which instituted term limits for the first time in California. And by 1996, the first slate of legislators would be “termed out.” The immediate impact: It was the time for making deals because you didn’t know who would be keeping house next.
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
Courts Are Ordering Remote Depositions as the COVID-19 Pandemic Continues
August 10, 2020 —
Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Douglas M. Weck - White and WilliamsThe COVID-19 pandemic has generally put a stop to in-person depositions nationwide. Many litigants and their attorneys have also resisted attempts to proceed with remote video depositions, some holding out for the pandemic to subside and for the return of in-person business as usual while others are resistant to using new or unfamiliar virtual video technology. However, with COVID-19 cases still increasing nationwide, courts are beginning to mandate that depositions proceed remotely regardless of these apprehensions. It looks like remote video depositions may become part of a new set of best practices and perhaps mandatory in some circumstances for the foreseeable future.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey, for example, has ordered that “[t]o the extent practicable . . . depositions should continue to be conducted remotely using necessary and available video technology.” The court has not explicitly mandated remote depositions, but has certainly encouraged trial courts to do so, indicating in orders litigants are “strongly encouraged” to depose witnesses remotely. Other jurisdictions, such as Philadelphia’s First Judicial District, have given trial court’s similar authority and flexibility.
Recently, a trial court in Middlesex County, New Jersey granted a motion to compel a defense deposition of the plaintiff to proceed remotely, if not in person, over the objection of plaintiff’s counsel in a slip-and-fall case. This is one of the first such rulings in this area. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the remote deposition on the grounds that his client was elderly with a heavy accent, had no technology knowledge, and had no internet access. That would seem to be a pretty good argument that a remote deposition would be impracticable. However, the defendant bolstered their case with an offer to cover the cost of renting and delivering a remote deposition technology package to the plaintiff, complete with a tablet, phone, speaker, internet hotspot and remote training beforehand. Although the trial court acknowledged the plaintiff’s “significant hardship,” the court ordered that the deposition proceed remotely if not in person.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Robert Devine,
Douglas Weck and
Victor Zarrilli
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
