Winning Attorney Fees in Litigation as a California Construction Contractor or Subcontractor
December 27, 2021 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupThe General Rule in California: The Winner Does NOT Receive Attorney Fees and Costs:
There is a common misconception that court decisions require the loser in a lawsuit to reimburse the winner for the fees and costs incurred during the lawsuit. Reliance on this misconception in developing a legal strategy for dealing with disputes is a serious strategic error. Where the legal issue is, for example, “breach of contract,” the general rule in California is that there are only two methods by which the winning litigant will be awarded the attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing or defending the lawsuit. The first of these is if the contract in question contains an effective attorney fee clause specifically providing that the prevailing party will recover their attorney fees and costs. The second is if there is a statute on point which provides that the prevailing party will be awarded those fees and costs. The general rule in California is that each party pays their own attorney fees and costs, unless there is an independent legal basis that provides otherwise. This is known as the “American Rule,” used throughout most of the country.
The Issue is Important Because Spending More Money Than You Can Be Awarded is a Losing Strategy:
The importance of whether the prevailing party in a lawsuit will be awarded their fees and costs cannot be underestimated. The party contemplating whether to bring a lawsuit must seriously consider whether it is even worth the trouble. In many cases, unless the one bringing the lawsuit (the “plaintiff”) is entitled to be reimbursed for the considerable attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing the case, it is just not worth doing so. There is no point spending $50,000 on attorneys on a $40,000 claim unless the plaintiff can be awarded both the $40,000 and the $50,000 if the plaintiff wins. Unless fees and costs are awarded, the plaintiff will still be out $10,000 in the very best of cases. For a party sued (the “defendant”) a similar situation arises in that the defendant faces the reality that it may be less expensive to just pay on a frivolous or false claim than to fight it. Either scenario is unsatisfactory. On the whole, it is beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract when either a plaintiff or a defendant must vindicate its rights. Both deserve to be fully compensated to achieve justice. It is also beneficial to have an attorney fee clause in a contract to encourage the one who is at fault to resolve the case rather than risk paying the fees and costs of the other party who is likely to win the case. In either case, the presence of an attorney fee clause facilitates the party in the right and encourages resolution outside of litigation. These are admirable societal goals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
A New Study on Implementing Digital Visual Management
July 31, 2024 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessA new paper, “Implementing Digital Visual Management: A Case Study on Challenges and Barriers,” discusses situational management in complex infrastructure projects. It’s worth reading for anyone interested in improving project management with digital tools.
A complex infrastructure project
The authors interviewed nine project management professionals who worked for the client on constructing the western part of the Metro in Helsinki and Espoo, Finland. The project lasted eight years and had a budget of 1,200 million euros.
The project used a Digital Visual Management (DVM) tool, and the paper discusses the challenges and barriers faced during the tool’s implementation. At the time of the study, the system was used to manage the final documentation and testing status.
KPI management
The project management team was involved in developing a system for combining collected data into a central dashboard and using it to manage the whole project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Daniel Albregts, who represents Benzer, filed court papers accusing Justice Department lawyers of misconduct that allowed the newspaper to obtain what are now sealed FBI and Las Vegas police reports of the failed negotiations in the summer of 2011." Albregts claimed that "prosecutors promised lawyers for Benzer’s co-defendant, attorney Keith Gregory, that they would not object if the lawyers filed reports of the negotiations under seal in a related matter in September, but then turned around in court and told a federal judge the reports should be made public."
The investigative reports had been sealed, however, "after prosecutors argued to make them public, U.S. Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. ordered them unsealed." The reports were sealed again two days later, but the media (including the Las Vegas Review-Journal) obtained the documents while they were public.
“This conduct, when viewed in the light of the ceaseless and inflammatory reporting, particularly with regard to this defendant, is the kind of conduct which can only be remedied through dismissal,” Albregts wrote, as quoted in the Las Vegas-Review Journal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds
November 04, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIn Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker.
East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion.
As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fed Inflation Goal Is Elusive as U.S. Rents Stabilize: Economy
March 12, 2014 —
Michelle Jamrisko and Ilan Kolet - BloombergFederal Reserve efforts to nurture a more robust rate of inflation this year are likely to fall short. The reason: the biggest gains in rents are probably over.
The costs to lease residential real estate, the second-biggest component of the price measure tracked by U.S. central bankers, helped put a floor under inflation over the past two years as most other components decelerated. Now, with builders cranking out a record number of multifamily buildings and the job market still far from tight, the outlook for rents is the bleakest it’s been in four years.
“Because the economy is still not in the strongest position and certainly the labor market is not in the strongest position, landlords really can’t extract much more in the way of rent growth,” said Ryan Severino, a senior economist at real-estate data provider Reis Inc. in New York. Also, rents are already high, which makes more increases difficult, he said.
Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net; Mr. Kolet may be contacted at ikolet@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Jamrisko and Ilan Kolet, Bloomberg
Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards
September 29, 2021 —
Krsto Mijanovic, Jeffrey C. Schmid & John M. Wilkerson - Haight Brown & BonesteelIn Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021 WL 3671594) (“Gonzalez”), the Supreme Court of California held that a landowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor or its workers to remedy or adopt other measures to protect them against known hazards on the premises. The Court applied the Privette doctrine which establishes a presumption that a landowner generally delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to its independent contractor. (See generally Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590.) As such, the independent contractor is responsible for ensuring that the work can be performed safely despite a known hazard on the worksite, even where the contractor and its workers are unable to take any reasonable safety precautions to avoid or protect themselves from the known hazard.
In Gonzalez, the landowner, Mathis, had hired an independent contractor, Gonzalez, to clean a skylight on his roof. To access the skylight, Gonzalez needed to utilize a narrow path between the edge of the roof and a parapet wall. While walking along this path, Gonzalez slipped and fell to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. Gonzalez alleged this accident was caused by several dangerous conditions on the roof, including a slippery surface, a lack of tie-off points to attach a safety harness, and a lack of a guardrail. Gonzalez was aware of all of these hazards prior to the accident.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel,
Jeffrey C. Schmid, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
John M. Wilkerson, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Schmid may be contacted at jschmid@hbblaw.com
Mr. Wilkerson may be contacted at jwilkerson@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements
May 13, 2019 —
Edward M. Koch & Michael Jervis - White and Williams LLPThe United States Supreme Court recently approved and adopted amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concerning class action practice as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The amended rule went into effect on December 1, 2018. The amendments do not affect the core of the rule – the criteria for obtaining class certification. Instead, the changes are more subtle adjustments that update and modernize procedures and processes for notification to class members and obtaining approval of class settlements. Nonetheless, although the amendments are not breathtaking, there are important changes.
The first set of amendments apply to Rule 23(e), governing the process of settlement of a class action. First, the amendment makes explicit that the subsection applies not just to already certified classes, but also “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.” The changes also add some discretion of the court concerning when notice of a proposed settlement and settlement class should be provided. As part of the settlement approval process, the parties now are expressly required to give the court “information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class.” The giving of notice is justified only if that information is sufficient to allow the court to determine it is likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class. Once notice is approved, the new rule recognizes modern developments by allowing that notice may be by “United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” The rule thus recognizes that in many cases traditional mail notice may still be best; in others e-mail notification might be the best way to reach class members.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AGC’s 2024 Construction Outlook. Infrastructure is Bright but Office-Geddon is Not
February 12, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe Associated General Contractors of America has issued its
2024 Construction Outlook. According to its survey of construction contractors throughout the United States, contractors have a mixed outlook for 2024 with firms predicting transitions in the demand for projects, the types of challenges they will face and technologies they plan on embracing. According to the survey, contractors continue to cope with significant labor shortages, the impact of higher interest rates and input costs and a supply chain which, while better than in past few years, is still far from normal.
Of the 17 categories of construction types included in the survey, respondents expected a net positive growth in 14 of those categories, with infrastructure projects leading the net positive readings following the passage of the
Infrastructure Bill in 2021, and commercial retail and office leading the net negative readings as a result of the continuing
office-geddon:
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
