Patti Santelle Honored by Rutgers School of Law with Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award
March 01, 2021 —
Patricia Santelle - White and WilliamsWhite and Williams is proud to announce that Patti Santelle, Chair Emeritus, will be honored by the Rutgers School of Law-Camden Alumni Association with the 2020 Arthur E. Armitage Sr. Distinguished Alumni Award. The Armitage Award was established in 1983 in memory of Armitage, who, with a group of interested citizens, founded both the South Jersey Law School in 1926 and its companion College of South Jersey in 1927. Past recipients include governors, member of Congress, state and federal judges, and industry leaders.
Patti, a 1985 graduate, is a Co-Chair of the Executive Committee of the newly established Rutgers Law Alumnae Network and a Past Chancellor and long-time member of the Board of the Rutgers-Camden Law Alumni Association. While in law school, she was President of the Student Bar Association, winner of the Hunter Advanced Moot Court Competition and a member of the National Moot Court Team. In 2010, Patti received the Scarlet Oak Meritorious Service Award from Rutgers University for her contributions as an alumni leader and student mentor at the law school. For the past seven years, she served as the Managing Partner and Chair of the Executive Committee at White and Williams, the first woman in the firm’s history and in the City of Philadelphia to serve in that role in a major law firm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia Santelle, White and WilliamsMs. Santelle may be contacted at
santellep@whiteandwilliams.com
Nonparty Discovery in California Arbitration: How to Get What You Want
March 02, 2020 —
Leilani E. Jones - Payne & FearsThis article was originally published for the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ATBL) Report, Volume XX, No. 3, Winter 2018 by attorney Leilani L. Jones.
Opting for arbitration requires attorneys to balance efficiency and procedural protections. The implications of arbitration are something clients certainly have to carefully consider both when drafting arbitration provisions, and after initiating a demand. While arbitration can in many respects streamline the civil discovery process, one of the largest roadblocks for cases in California arbitrations is “streamlining” discovery from nonparties. This article explores the challenges presented by third party discovery in arbitration, and proposes strategies for obtaining such discovery efficiently and expeditiously.
Alternative dispute resolution tends to make sense to most businesses implementing preventive measures for future litigation. Clients, lawyers, and judges can generally agree that arbitration is the more “cost-effective” way to resolve disputes, especially in California. While arbitration is theoretically a lowcost option for dispute resolution, almost all parties (particularly the party defending) bristle at climbing expenditures during discovery. This is all despite the perception of more “streamlined” processes in arbitrations. On balance, arbitrators, employing less formal procedures for discovery disputes, can typically cut to the chase faster than a civil judge. Parties often resolve issues via letter brief and telephonic hearing, if necessary, instead of formal noticed motions with accompanying separate statements. The Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc.’s (“JAMS”) own “Arbitration Discovery Protocols” specifically “ensure that an arbitration will be resolved much less expensively and in much less time than if it had been litigated in court.” Accessed at https:// www.jamsadr.com/arbitration-discovery-protocols.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Leilani E. Jones, Payne & FearsMs. Jones may be contacted at
llj@paynefears.com
Colorado Senate Bill 15-177: This Year’s Attempt at Reasonable Construction Defect Reform
February 18, 2015 —
Zach McLeroy – Colorado Construction LitigationOn February 10, 2015, Senators Scheffer and Ulibarri introduced Senate Bill 15-177, which is sponsored in the House by Representatives DelGrosso and Singer. SB 15-177 amends the prerequisites, found in the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), for an association to file a construction defect action. The bill has been assigned to the Senate Committee on Business, Labor, and Technology but not yet scheduled for hearing.
The major points of the bill include: 1) enforcement of a mediation or arbitration provision contained in the original governing documents of a common interest community, even if subsequently amended or removed; 2) the addition of a requirement that mediation take place before a construction defect action can be filed; 3) heightened requirements that an association board provide advanced notice to all unit owners, together with a disclosure of projected costs, duration, and financial impact of the construction defect claim; 4) the addition of a requirement that the board obtain the written consent of a majority of the owners of units, and; 5) a requirement that prior to the purchase and sale of a property in a common interest community, the purchaser receive notice that binding arbitration may be required for certain disputes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zach McLeroy, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLeroy may be contacted at
mcleroy@hhmrlaw.com
Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion
October 19, 2020 —
Kerianne E. Kane & David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer was not obligated to pay damages associated with a hydrochloric acid spill based on a pollution exclusion in the policy.
In Burroughs Diesel, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America,1 a trucking company sued its property insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) when it refused to pay a claim for a storage tank leak which resulted in over 5,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid entering the property and causing significant damage to buildings, vehicles, tools, and equipment. The acid was initially dispensed in liquid form, but quickly became a cloud that engulfed the property. Travelers denied coverage for the claim based on the pollution exclusion because “acids” fell within the policy’s definition of “pollutants.”
The trucking company sued Travelers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for refusing to pay the claim. The trucking company argued that coverage was warranted because there is an exception to the pollution exclusion if “the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by any of the ‘specified causes of loss,’” and the hydrochloric acid cloud was a form of “smoke,” which is a specified cause of loss covered by the policy. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Travelers, finding that the trucking company failed to demonstrate that an exception to the pollution exclusion applied. The trucking company appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at dgj@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hard to Believe It, Construction Law Musings is 16
January 07, 2025 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsOn this date back in 2008 (wow, that seems so long ago), I began Construction Law Musings on the Blogger platform with a brief announcement. Little did I know that this corner of the internet (or is it Blawgosphere?) would still be around in 2024!
In the time since I made that short entry 16 years ago (I know, I can’t believe it either), I’ve met several construction lawyers here in Virginia who refer to me as the “blog guy.” To be recognized for the work I do here at Construction Law Musings, something that benefits me (and I hope the readers), and which I do for the fun of it, is an honor.
The blog has since taken on a life of its own in many respects, allowing me to meet some of the great construction pros who have provided a guest post or two for Musings and added their different perspectives. Musings also kept me up on at least most of the trends in Virginia construction law by making me post consistently (though sometimes less consistently than others). Now, around 975 posts and 16 years later, I find it hard to believe that so much time has passed and effort has been put into what started on a whim and the plan that I’d post thoughts on the legal landscape and construction from the perspective of a Virginia construction lawyer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
When Is Mandatory Arbitration Not Mandatory?
August 19, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsI have discussed my views on mandatory mediation in construction contracts at other places here at Musings and also discussed how the contract is king here in Virginia. A recent Charlottesville, Virginia Circuit Court case combined these two concepts to allow a subcontractor to proceed straight to litigation despite various ADR provisions in the contract between it and the general contractor.
In ProBuild v. DPR & Continental Casualty, the Court looked at a series of ADR steps that were to be followed in the contract between the parties in order to allow DPR, the general contractor to require arbitration as opposed to litigation. The Court considered the surety’s motion to stay the litigation against it pending arbitration between ProBuild and DPR.
In ProBuild, the Court looked at a contractual provision that provided certain steps to be followed in the event of a dispute, starting with a notice of dispute, followed by negotiation, followed by mediation should the disputing party request it, and in the event that mediation was tried and failed, the disputing party or general contractor could require arbitration. The Court determined that ProBuild, the subcontractor, was the disputing party under the contract, had pursued unsuccessful formal negotiations and that neither ProBuild nor DPR requested mediation. The Court then held that because unsuccessful mediation was a prerequisite to required arbitration and because mediation was never pursued, the mandatory arbitration clause did not apply.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA West Virginia couple has sued the manufacturer of their home for construction defects and damage. Darrell and Teri Pearson claim that the home they purchased from Giles Industries was defective. They further claim that Kitchen’s Construction failed to set the home up properly and that the firm did not repair damaged sections of home. The suit also names the firm that sold the home and others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Repair of Part May Necessitate Replacement of Whole
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFJudge Gleuda E. Edmonds, a magistrate judge in the United States District Court of Arizona issued a ruling in Guadiana v. State Farm on January 25, 2012. Judge Edmonds recommended a partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Ms. Guandiana’s home had water damage due to pluming leaks in September 2004. She was informed that polybutylene pluming in her house could not be repaired in parts “it must be completely replaced.” She had had the plumbing replaced. State Farm denied her claim, arguing that “the tear-out provision did not cover the cost of accessing and replacing those pipes that were not leaking.”
In September 2007, State Farm filed a motion to dismiss. The court rejected this motion, stating that “If Guadiana can establish as a matter of fact that the system that caused the covered loss included all the pipes in her house and it was necessary to replace all the pipes to repair that system, State Farm is obligated to pay the tear-out costs necessary to replace all the pipes, even those not leaking.”
In March 2009, State Farm filed for summary judgment, which the court granted. State Farm argued that “the tear-out provision only applied to ‘repair’ and not ‘replace’ the system that caused the covered leak.” As for the rest of the piping, State Farm argued that “the policy does not cover defective materials.”
In December 2011, Ms. Guadiana filed for summary judgment, asking the court to determine that “the policy ‘covers tear-out costs necessary to adequately repair the plumbing system, even if an adequate repair requires replacing all or part of the system.”
In her ruling, Judge Edmonds noted that Ms. Guadiana’s claim is that “the water damage is a covered loss and she is entitled to tear-out costs necessary to repair the pluming system that caused that covered loss.” She rejected State Farm’s claim that it was not obligated to replace presumably defective pipes. Further, she rejected State Farm’s argument that they were only responsible for the leaking portion, noting “Guadiana intends to prove at trial that this is an unusual case where repair of her plumbing system requires replacement of all the PB plumbing.”
Judge Edmonds concluded by directing the District Court to interpret the tear out issue as “the tear-out provision in State Farm’s policy requires State Farm to pay all tear-out costs necessary to repair the plumbing system (that caused the covered loss) even if repair of the system requires accessing more than the leaking portion of the system.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
