Justin Clark Joins Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek Branch as its Newest Associate
May 03, 2017 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPWALNUT CREEK, Calif. – APR. 28, 2017 – Up and coming associate and insurance attorney
Justin Clark is the newest associate to join the ever-growing litigation practice at Newmeyer & Dillion LLP’s Walnut Creek office. Clark brings experience in the areas of insurance litigation, construction defect litigation, and business transactions.
Walnut Creek’s managing partner Brian Morrow explained why he is so excited by the addition of Clark: “We are thrilled to have Clark on board, as his emphasis on insurance coverage will assist in a key area for our clients, and further expand our capabilities in our northern California office.”
Clark has a background in a variety of practice areas, including insurance coverage, products liability, and asbestos litigation. He advocates for manufacturers, suppliers, distributers, and contractors in all phases of litigation. Clark represents developers, builders, and general contractors in construction and insurance disputes. He also helps small business clients draft commercial contracts to better serve their growing business needs. Clark can be reached at justin.clark@ndlf.com or 925-988-3263.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Harsh New Time Limits on Construction Defect Claims
April 26, 2011 —
Scott F. Sullan, Esq., Mari K. Perczak, Esq., and Leslie A. Tuft, Esq.A recent Colorado Supreme Court decision, Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc., 230 P.3d 1186 (Colo. 2010), considerably shortens the time limit for bringing many construction defect lawsuits. Homeowners and homeowner associations risk losing the right to seek reimbursement from builders, developers and other construction professionals unless they carefully and quickly act upon discovery of evidence of any potential construction defect.
The Statute of Limitations for Construction Defect Claims
Colorado’s construction defect statute of limitations limits the time for homeowners and homeowners associations to bring lawsuits for construction defects against “construction professionals,” including developers, general contractors, builders, engineers, architects, other design professionals, inspectors and subcontractors. The statute requires homeowners and associations to file suit within two years “after the claim for relief arises.” A claim for relief “arises” when a homeowner or association discovers or reasonably should have discovered the physical manifestation of a construction defect.
The two-year time limitation applies to each construction defect separately, and will begin to run upon the appearance of a “manifestation” of a construction defect (which may include, for example, a condition as simple as a roof leak or drywall cracks), even if the homeowner or association does not know the cause of the apparent problem.
The Smith Opinion and its Effect on the Statute of Limitations
In Smith v. Executive Custom Homes, Inc., the plaintiff homeowner, Mrs. Smith, slipped on ice that had accumulated on her sidewalk because of a leaking gutter and suffered injury. When she first noticed the leak, she reported it to her property manager, who reported it to the builder. The builder attempted to repair the gutter, unbeknownst to Mrs. Smith, and she did not notice further problems until approximately one year after she first observed the leak, when she fell and suffered serious injury. She sued the builder within two years of her injury, but nearly three years after she first learned of the leak.
The Colorado Supreme Court dismissed Mrs. Smith’s claims as untimely and held that under the construction defect statute of limitations, the two-year period for suing for injuries due to construction defects begins when the homeowner first observes the physical manifestation of the defect, even if the resulting injury has not yet occurred. The court acknowledged that this ruling could result in “unfair results,” especially if a serious and unforeseeable injury occurs more than two years after the first time the homeowner noticed the problem, and as a result the victim is unable to seek redress from those responsible for the defect.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Scott F. Sullan, Esq., Mari K. Perczak, Esq., and Leslie A. Tuft, Esq. of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Smith & Perczak, P.C., and they can be contacted through their web site.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
National Demand Increases for Apartments, Refuting Calls for Construction Defect Immunity in Colorado
September 08, 2016 —
Jesse Witt – The Witt LawfirmFor the last four years, the homebuilders’ lobby has been aggressively pushing the idea that consumer protection laws are stifling condominium construction in Colorado. The lobbyists claim that the fear of liability for construction defects has forced many local developers to build apartments instead of condominiums. They have dismissed the notions that the shift to apartments merely reflects supply and demand, or that modern families might actually prefer to rent rather than buy. To support this theory, they have touted high condominium sales in other states. A new story from NPR’s Here & Now refutes this claim, however.
Contrary to what the lobbyists have been saying, data now confirm that large numbers of Americans prefer to rent, not buy, their homes. NPR reported today that home ownership in the U.S. fell to its lowest rate since 1965, while the share of U.S. households who rent is nearing a 50-year high. This trend appears nationwide and can hardly be blamed on consumer protection laws in Colorado.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Witt welcomes comments at www.witt.law
Cuomo Proposes $1.7 Billion Property-Tax Break for New York
January 14, 2015 —
Freeman Klopott – BloombergGovernor Andrew Cuomo wants to give middle-class New Yorkers a $1.7 billion break on property taxes.
The plan announced at Hofstra University on Long Island today would provide credits to more than 1 million homeowners and another 1 million renters. The plan, which will be included in Cuomo’s proposed budget next week, builds on his effort to control what he says are the nation’s highest property levies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Freeman Klopott, BloombergMr. Klopott may be contacted at
fklopott@bloomberg.net
The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims
January 26, 2017 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn October 20, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced the Sopris Lodging, LLC v. Schofield Excavation, Inc.[1] decision. The Sopris decision significantly altered the potential pitfalls awaiting a general contractor in pursuit of third-party claims as well as potential defenses available for a subcontractor defending against third-party claims.
By way of background, the Sopris construction defect case arose out of the following facts: TDC was the general contractor for the construction of a hotel owned by Sopris Lodging. On March 11, 2011, Sopris Lodging sent TDC a notice of claim regarding alleged construction defects. On May 24, 2013, Sopris Lodging filed a complaint in district court asserting construction defect claims against one of the subcontractors of the hotel, and against the general contractor’s principals, but not the general contractor. Contemporaneous with the filing of the suit, Sopris Lodging and TDC entered into an agreement to toll the statute of limitations on Sopris Lodging’s potential claims against TDC. In August 2013, Sopris Lodging joined the general contractor to the suit. A year later, in 2014, the general contractor joined a variety of subcontractors as third-party defendants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Jean may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
New York Assembly Reconsiders ‘Bad Faith’ Bill
May 31, 2021 —
Copernicus T. Gaza, Robert S. Nobel, Craig Rokuson, Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanThe New York State Assembly is considering A07285, which creates a private right of action for bad faith “if the insurer unreasonably refuses to pay or unreasonably delays payment without substantial justification.” The bill was first introduced in 2013 but was reintroduced on May 3, 2021 and has received some recent attention. According to the bill, an insurer acts unreasonably when it (among other things):
- Fails to provide the claimant with accurate information regarding policy provisions relating to the coverage at issue; or
- Fails to effectuate in good faith a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement of a claim or portion of a claim and where the insurer failed to reasonably accord at least equal or more favorable consideration to its insured's interests as it did to its own interests, and thereby exposed the insured to a judgment in excess of the policy limits or caused other damage to a claimant; or
- Fails to provide a timely written denial of a claimant's claim, or portion thereof, with a full and complete explanation of such denial, including references to specific policy provisions wherever possible; or
- Fails to act in good faith by compelling such claimant to initiate a lawsuit to recover under the policy by offering substantially less than the amounts ultimately recovered in such suit; or
- Fails to timely provide, on request of the policy holder or the policy holder's representative, all reports or other documentation arising from the investigation of a claim; or
- Refuses to pay a claim without conducting a reasonable investigation prior to such refusal.
Reprinted courtesy of
Copernicus T. Gaza, Traub Lieberman,
Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman,
Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman and
Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Gaza may be contacted at cgaza@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Recent Developments Involving Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington
September 05, 2022 —
Donald Verfurth, Sally Kim, Stephanie Ries & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogEver since the Washington Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Cedell v. Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, 176 Wn.2d 686, 295 P.3d 239 (2013), insurance coverage attorneys have been struggling to define the exact parameters of the Cedell ruling in order to safeguard the attorney-client privilege as to the communications between the insurer and its counsel. As a brief background, the Washington Supreme Court held in Cedell that there is a presumption of no attorney-client privilege in a lawsuit involving bad faith claims handling. However, an insurer can overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege by showing that its counsel provided legal advice regarding the insurer’s potential liability under the policy and law, and did not engage in any quasi-fiduciary activities, i.e. claims handling activities, such as investigating, evaluating, adjusting or processing the insured’s claim.
Since Cedell, various trial courts have held that the following activities by an insurer’s counsel constitute quasi-fiduciary conduct that do not overcome the presumption of no attorney-client privilege, resulting in an order to produce documents and/or to permit the deposition of the insurer’s counsel:
- Insurer’s attorney being the primary or sole point of contact with the insured for the insurer;
- Insurer’s attorney requesting documents from the insured that are relevant to the investigation of the claim;
- Insurer’s attorney communicating directly with the insured or the insured’s counsel regarding claims handling issues or payments;
- Insurer’s attorney interviewing witnesses for purposes of the investigation of the claim;
- Insurer’s attorney conducting an examination under oath of the insured;
- Insurer’s attorney drafting proposed or final reservation of rights letter or denial letter to the insured; and
- Insurer’s attorney conducting settlement negotiations in an underlying litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Donald Verfurth, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani,
Sally Kim, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani,
Stephanie Ries, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and
Kyle Silk-Eglit, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Mr. Verfurth may be contacted at dverfurth@grsm.com
Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com
Ms. Ries may be contacted at sries@grsm.com
Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Competitive Bidding Statute: When it Applies and When it Does Not
April 15, 2024 —
Mason Fletcher - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe University of Washington (UW), a public university, aimed to secure a real estate developer for a new building on its campus. The proposal involved an 80-year ground lease (the “Lease”), and developers submitted bids. The selected developer would demolish an existing building, construct a new one, own it during the Lease at its own cost, and UW would lease back a portion, with ownership reverting to UW at the Lease’s end. Alexandria Real Equities, Inc. (ARE) was a finalist but ultimately was not selected, and the Lease was awarded to Wexford Science and Technology, LLC (Wexford). As a result, ARE filed suit against UW asserting three claims: 1) UW lacked authority to execute the Lease, 2) UW didn’t follow required competitive bidding procedures, and 3) UW’s developer selection process was arbitrary and capricious. None of these claims were successful and ARE appealed.
Division II of the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed in Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. v. Univ. of Wash., __ Wn. App. __, 539 P.3d 54 (2023), a published decision. The Court concluded, based on the facts in that case, that because construction was not publicly funded, UW did not have to follow competitive bidding requirements that were laid out in a statute relevant to state universities. Still, the Court applied the “bright-line cutoff point” that prohibits disappointed bidders from challenging an award once a contract has been executed. See Dick Enterprises, Inc. v. Metro. King County, 83 Wn. App. 566, 572, 922 P.2d 184 (1996).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Fletcher may be contacted at
mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com
