Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy: Colorado Court of Appeals Expressly Affirms the Continuing Viability of the Common-Law After-Acquired Title Doctrine and Expressly Recognizes Utility Easements by Necessity
June 28, 2021 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOn May 27, 2021, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Amada Family Limited Partnership v. Pomeroy, 2021 COA 73. In that case, the court decided two significant issues that apparently had never been expressly ruled on by a Colorado appellate court before: (1) that Colorado’s common-law after-acquired title doctrine was not abrogated by adoption of the after-acquired interest statute; and (2) that utility easements may be implied by necessity.
As is often the case in matters involving access and implied property rights, the facts and history underlying Amada are complicated, but the case’s two most significant rulings are not. Instead, the basic legal principles established (or confirmed) in Amada appear to be broadly applicable, and real property practitioners should take note of these significant developments (or clarifications) in the law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite
February 03, 2020 —
Kelsey Rzepecki - Construction ExecutiveDespite the overall decrease in electrical workplace fatalities, construction workers remain the most at risk of death from electrical accidents. In 2016, 53% of all fatal electrical injuries were in the construction industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Employers can improve their bottom line by implementing prevention strategies to reduce chances of electrical injuries and create a safer, more efficient jobsite.
What Are the Most Common Electrical Injuries in Construction?
The three types of electrical injuries that occur the most often on construction jobsites are:
- electrocution (such as electric shock and burns) through unintentional contact with high-voltage lines or equipment;
- severe burns or death from explosive gases accidentally ignited by electrical equipment; and
- injuries from falls or from contact with moving equipment after worker experiences a low-voltage electrical shock and can no longer keep balance or physical control of the tools or equipment they have when shocked.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kelsey Rzepecki, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Rzepecki may be contacted at
krzepecki@graphicproducts.com
Traub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo Win Motion for Summary Judgment in Favor of Property Owner
September 30, 2024 —
Lisa M. Rolle, Erin O’Dea, Nicole Verzillo - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partners Lisa Rolle, Erin O’Dea, and Nicole Verzillo won motion for summary judgment in a premises liability matter brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Westchester County. The Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell in a pothole on the common driveway of five abutting properties and sustained an injury. The firm represented one of the multiple property owners. Traub Lieberman moved for summary judgment, asserting that the claims against the firm’s client should be dismissed as they did not own, operate, control or make special use of the driveway where the incident occurred. The firm also asserted that the alleged condition of the driveway that allegedly caused Plaintiff’s accident was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm also moved to dismiss the cross-claims asserted against them, contending that there was no evidence of negligence on behalf of the firm’s client. As such, the court found that the defect was a non-actionable, trivial defect. The firm secured dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against the firm’s clients and against all moving and non-moving Defendants.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman,
Erin O’Dea, Traub Lieberman and
Nicole Verzillo, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Ms. O'Dea may be contacted at eodea@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Verzillo may be contacted at nverzillo@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Plaintiff’s Mere Presence in Area Where Asbestos is Present Insufficient to Establish Bystander Exposure
October 21, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin & Laura C. Williams – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Schiffer v. CBS Corporation (filed 9/9/15; modified 9/30/15), the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant asbestos insulation manufacturer finding plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of bystander exposure.
Plaintiff James Schiffer (“Schiffer”) alleged that while working at the Ginna Gas & Electric power plant in the summer of 1969, he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials during installation of equipment and insulation manufactured by CBS Corporation’s predecessor-in-interest, Westinghouse.
After developing mesothelioma, Schiffer and his wife sued numerous entities, including CBS, which successfully moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Schiffer failed to submit evidence that he was exposed to asbestos-containing materials.
Reprinted courtesy
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Laura C. Williams, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’
January 24, 2022 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLPOn January 11, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022), finding that an insurer had a duty to defend its insured in a construction defect case where the underlying complaint alleged damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured.
Siplast, Inc. (Siplast) had contracted with the Archdiocese of New York (the Archdiocese) to install a roof membrane system at a high school in the Bronx, New York. Id. at *1. As part of the contract, Siplast guaranteed that the roof membrane system would remain in a watertight condition for at least twenty years. Id. at *2. If it did not, Siplast would repair the roof membrane system at its own expense. Id.
Several years after the installation, the Archdiocese observed water damage in the ceiling tiles at the high school. Id. The Archdiocese contacted Siplast, who attempted to repair the damage and prevent further leaks; however, leaks and resultant damage continued to occur. Id. Siplast subsequently refused to make any more improvements to the roof. Id.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances
August 19, 2015 —
David W. Evans & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel.
Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine
September 13, 2021 —
Peter Roth – The Surety & Fidelity Association of AmericaSeptember 9, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) –
The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the decision of The Supreme Court of The State of Washington to reverse the lower court ruling in the case of Lake Hills Investments, LLC vs. Rushforth Construction Co. As argued by SFAA, the Supreme Court found the contractor should not be responsible for damage caused by the defective design provided by the owner even where the contractor was responsible for certain defective work. In addition, the contractor is not completely barred from asserting this defense if the defects were caused by a combination of deficient performance by the contractor and deficient design, and proportional liability should be determined.
The SFAA, along with the National Electrical Contractors Association Puget Sound Chapter (NECA), Mechanical Contractors Association of Western Washington (MCAWW) and SMACNA-Western Washington (SMACNA), issued an Amici Curiae in support of Petitioner AP Rushforth Construction Co., Inc. d/b/a AP Rushforth, and Adolfson & Peterson, Inc.’s (collectively “AP”) Petition for Discretionary Review. In the brief they argued the Court should grant the Petition because the decision by the lower court is contrary to precedent of limiting a contractor’s liability when the owner’s defective plans and specifications caused the defective work, and upsets settled expectations of allocation of risk and liability between contractors, owners and architects (among others) on construction projects. This allocation of risk and the principle of limiting the contractor’s liability for defective work based on defective plans and specifications is long settled doctrine in Washington State and throughout the country, a doctrine based on the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in U.S. vs. Spearin more than 100 years ago.
The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. www.surety.org
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Roth, SFAAMr. Roth may be contacted at
proth@surety.org
Hong Kong Popping Housing Bubbles London Can’t Handle
July 30, 2014 —
Frederik Balfour – BloombergTake a look at the world’s dizzying surges in the price of housing for 12 months at the end of June: London, up 20 percent. Manhattan, 18 percent. Sydney, 15.4 percent.
Then there are Singapore and Hong Kong: down 3.7 percent and 0.6 percent.
Prompted by concerns over potential property bubbles and affordability for the middle class, the governments of the two Asian cities have been reining in home prices by imposing measures including mortgage caps, taxes on property flippers, and levies on foreign buyers as high as 15 percent.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Frederik Balfour, BloombergMr. Balfour may be contacted at
fbalfour@bloomberg.net
