What the FIU Bridge Collapse Says About Peer Review
September 23, 2019 —
Richard Korman & Scott Judy - Engineering News-RecordAttorneys for families of the six people who were killed and for survivors of 2018’s Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse say Louis Berger Group is the last defendant that has not yet agreed to settle lawsuits in state court in Miami. The legal actions target companies that designed and built the bridge.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record and
Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Best Lawyers® Recognizes 43 White and Williams Lawyers
September 07, 2020 —
White and Williams LLPThirty-three White and Williams lawyers were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2021. Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers® employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services.
In addition, ten associates were recognized as "Ones to Watch” by Best Lawyers®. This recognition is given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States.
We are also pleased to announce two
White and Williams partners have been named Best Lawyers® 2021 "Lawyer of the Year" in Philadelphia – Edward F. Beitz, Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants and William J. Taylor - Construction Law. Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results
October 21, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.”
Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage.
Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Strikes a Deathblow to Substantial Factor Causation in Most Cases; Is Asbestos Litigation Next?
March 22, 2021 —
Christian J. Singewald, Rochelle Gumapac & Timothy J. Keough - White and Williams LLPIn Doull v. Foster, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) addressed the proper causation standard in a medical malpractice case. In reaching this issue, the SJC reached far beyond the medical malpractice case before it. The SJC concluded that the substantial factor test for causation, which had been regularly employed in the Commonwealth for decades, was “unnecessarily confusing.” In doing so, the SJC effectively ended the use of the substantial factor test in all negligence cases going forward, except in toxic tort litigation. However, the SJC openly questioned its usefulness in toxic tort litigation and all but welcomed a direct challenge to its use there.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christian J. Singewald, White and Williams LLP,
Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy J. Keough, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Keough may be contacted at keought@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appellate Court Reinforces When the Attorney-Client Relationship Ends for Purposes of “Continuous Representation” Tolling Provision of Legal Malpractice Statute of Limitations
October 20, 2016 —
Stephen J. Squillario & David W. Evans – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn Gotek Energy, Inc. v. Socal IP Law Group, LLP (No. B26668, October 12, 2016), the Second District Court of Appeal held that rather than the date on which a client file is transferred to new counsel, the attorney-client relationship ends for statute of limitations purposes when, using an objective standard, there is no “ongoing mutual relationship” nor evidence of “activities in furtherance of the relationship.” (Emphasis in opinion.)
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Georgia Federal Court Says Fact Questions Exist As To Whether Nitrogen Is An “Irritant” or “Contaminant” As Used in Pollution Exclusion
May 20, 2019 —
Lawrence J. Bracken II, Michael S. Levine & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Southern District of Georgia recently ruled that Evanston Insurance Company is not entitled to summary judgment on whether its policies’ pollution exclusion bars coverage for the release of nitrogen into a warehouse. The case stems from an incident at Xytex Tissue Services, LLC’s warehouse, where Xytex stored biological material at low temperatures. Xytex used an on-site “liquid nitrogen delivery system” to keep the material properly cooled. This system releases liquid nitrogen, which would vaporize into nitrogen gas and cool the biological material. On February 5, 2017, a Xytex employee, Deputy Greg Meagher, entered the warehouse to investigate activated motion detectors and burglar alarms. Deputy Meagher was overcome by nitrogen gas and died as a result. Following Deputy Meagher’s death, his heirs filed suit against Xytex and other defendants. Evanston denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion in its policy. Evanston then brought a declaratory judgment action to confirm its coverage position.
In denying Evanston’s summary judgment motion, the Southern District of Georgia reasoned that the type of injury sustained is essential in analyzing whether the pollution exclusion applies. Specifically, Xytex argued, and the court agreed, that the underlying lawsuit alleged that the bodily injury was caused by a lack of oxygen, not exposure to nitrogen. The court also distinguished prior decisions, explaining that injury caused by a lack of oxygen is not a contamination or irritation of the body in the same way as injury resulting from exposure to carbon monoxide or lead. The court also found that Xytex “reasonably expected that liability related to a nitrogen leak would be insured.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Lawrence J. Bracken II,
Michael S. Levine and
Alexander D. Russo
Mr. Bracken may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims
September 28, 2017 —
John Anooshian & Sean Mahoney - White & Williams LLPEarlier today, in a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the Terletsky two-part test for proving a statutory “bad faith” claim under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, which requires that a plaintiff present “clear and convincing evidence (1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis.” Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company, No. 28 WAP 2016 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2017). The court further ruled that proof of an insurer’s “subjective motive of self-interest or ill-will,” while potentially probative of the second prong of the test, is not a requirement to prevail under § 8371. Evidence of an insurer’s “knowledge or reckless disregard for its lack of a reasonable basis” for denying a claim alone, according to the court, is sufficient even in cases seeking punitive damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Anooshian, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Sean Mahoney, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at majoneys@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
