Close Enough Only Counts in Horseshoes and Hand Grenades
March 08, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn
State Farm General Insurance Company v. Oetiker, Inc., Case No. B302348 (December 18, 2020), a manufacturer sued in subrogation action under the Right to Repair Act almost got away. Almost.
The Oetiker Case
James and Jennifer Philson’s home was substantially completed, and a notice of completion was recorded, in 2004. In 2016, the Philsons tendered a claim to their homeowner’s insurance carrier, State Farm General Insurance Company, after their home experienced significant water damage due to a defective stainless steel ear clamp.
In 2018, after paying the Philson’s claim, State Farm filed a subrogation action against the manufacturer of the ear clamp, Oetiker, Inc. State Farm’s complaint, which included causes of action for negligence, strict products liability and breach of implied warranty, alleged that the home was “damaged by a water leak from the failure of a defective stainless steel ear claim on a water PEX fitting” and that the ear clamp was “defective when it left the control of [Oetiker].”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Determining Occurrence for Injury Under Commercial General Liability Policy Without Applying “Trigger Theory”
July 19, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOftentimes an occurrence in a commercial general liability policy is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” It is this occurrence that causes the bodily injury or property damage that may be covered by the policy.
An interesting non-construction case determined an occurrence under a commercial general liability policy occurred when the negligent act occurred irrespective of the date of discovery or the date the claim was discovered or asserted. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy No. J046137 v. Pierson, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1288c (Fla. 4thDCA 2021). This is interesting because the appellate court did NOT apply a “trigger theory” to first determine the occurrence’s policy period. The appellate court found it did not need to determine which “trigger theory” applied to determine the occurrence for the injury and relied on a cited case: “trigger theories are generally used in the context of deciding when damage occurred ‘in cases involving progressive damages, such as latent defects, toxic spills, and asbestosis’ because the time between the ‘injury-causing event (such as defective construction, a fuel leak, or exposure to asbestos), the injury itself, and the injury’s discovery or manifestation can be so far apart.” Pierson, supra, citing and quoting Spartan Petroleum Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 162 F.3d 805, 808 (4th Cir. 1998).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Standard of Care
December 16, 2019 —
Jay Gregory - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogOne of the key concepts at the heart of Board complaints and civil claims against a design professional is whether or not that design professional complied with the applicable standard of care. In order to prevail on such a claim, the claimant must establish (typically with the aid of expert testimony) that the design professional deviated from the standard of care. On the other side of the coin, to defend a design professional against a professional malpractice claim, defense counsel attempts to establish that – contrary to the claimant’s allegations – the design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. Obviously, it becomes very important in such a claim situation to determine what the standard of care is that applies to the conduct of the defendant design professional. Often, this is easier said than done. There is no dictionary definition or handy guidebook that identifies the precise standard of care that applies in any given situation. The “standard of care” is a concept and, as such, is flexible and open to interpretation. Traditionally, the standard of care is expressed as being that level of service or competence generally employed by average or prudent practitioners under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locale. In other words, to meet the standard of care a design professional must generally follow the pack; he or she need not be perfect, exemplary, outstanding, or even superior – it is sufficient merely for the designer to do that which a reasonably prudent practitioner would do under similar circumstances. The negative or reverse definition also applies, to meet the standard of care, a practitioner must refrain from doing what a reasonably prudent practitioner would have refrained from doing.
Although we have this ready definition of the standard of care, in any given dispute it is practically inevitable that the parties will have markedly different opinions as to: (1) what the standard of care required of the designer; and (2) whether the defendant design professional complied with that requirement. The claimant bringing a claim against a design professional typically will be able to find an expert reasonably qualified (at least on paper) who will offer an opinion that the defendant failed to comply with the standard of care. It is just as likely that the counsel for the defendant design professional will be able to find his or her own expert who will counter the opinion of the claimant’s expert and maintain that the defendant design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. What’s a jury to think?
The concept of standard of care is intertwined with the legal concept of negligence. In the vast majority of law suits against design professionals, a claimant (known as the plaintiff) will assert a claim for negligence against the design professional now known as the defendant.1 As every first year law student learns while studying the field of “Torts,” negligence has four subparts. In order for a defendant to be found negligent, the claimant must establish four elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. In other words, to establish a claim against a defendant design professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care but breached that duty and, as a result, caused the plaintiff to suffer damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jay Gregory, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Gregory may be contacted at
jgregory@grsm.com
Renee Mortimer Recognized as "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by DTCI
December 13, 2022 —
Renee Mortimer - Lewis BrisboisHighland, Ind. (November 21, 2022) - Northwest Indiana Managing Partner Renee J. Mortimer was recently named "Defense Lawyer of the Year" by the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana (DTCI). She was officially recognized at a Board & Officers dinner the evening before the DTCI's annual conference, which took place in Michigan City, Indianapolis from November 17 to 18.
The DTCI gives out three awards every year as part of its annual conference, including "Defense Lawyer of the Year," "Diplomat," and "Outstanding Young Lawyer." This year, two recipients received the "Diplomat" recognition
"I am honored to receive this recognition from my peers and look forward to continuing my work with the DTCI," said Ms. Mortimer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Renee Mortimer, Lewis BrisboisMs. Mortimer may be contacted at
Renee.Mortimer@lewisbrisbois.com
The Credibility of Your Expert (Including Your Delay Expert) Matters in Construction Disputes
October 03, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHere is a quote from a judge in an order after the bench trial of a complex construction dispute between a prime contractor and subcontractor on a federal project:
The evidence received in this case demonstrates the dynamic nature of complicated construction projects. At every step, the details matter, and coordination and cooperation among the companies tasked with performing the job is essential. Thankfully, as even this case shows, most disagreements that arise as projects evolve are handled during construction, far away from a courthouse, by the professionals who know best how to achieve the ultimate goal of a completed project.
U.S. f/u/b/o McKenney’s, Inc. v. Leebcor Services, LLC, 2022 WL 3549980, *1 (E.D. Va. 2022).
This is a true statement. A statement that parties should remember as they navigate the nuances of a complicated construction project and dispute.
The facts of the case, however, would hardly be construed as a win for either party. Something else for parties to consider as they navigate the nuances of a complicated construction project and dispute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
BWBO Celebrating Attorney Award and Two New Partners
July 14, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFCongratulations is due to Nicole Whyte of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP (BWBO) for being recognized as one of America’s Top 100 Attorneys by America’s Top 100, which identifies the top 100 attorneys in each state. In an email release, the firm stated, “We are pleased to celebrate this lifetime achievement and it is an honor to have Ms. Whyte listed alongside her esteemed peers.”
Furthermore, BWBO announced that two of their attorneys have been promoted to partner: Alex Giannetto and Benjamin Price. “Mr. Giannetto believes that hard work, dedication, caring about clients and work product, and surrounding himself with good people, has helped him become successful in his profession,” as stated in an email release. “To be successful you have to surround yourself with successful people,” Mr. Price stated. “A combination of humility, confidence, and hard work is also important.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2016 Updates to CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Retail Leasing Practice Books Now Available
November 10, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogFor a number of years we have been honored to be asked by California’s Continuing Education of the Bar (“CEB”) to serve as update authors for several of their well-regarded construction and real estate practice books. Updates to two of those books were published in October and November:
- The 2016 Update to the CEB’s California Mechanics Liens and Related Construction Remedies was published in October. Covering both private and public works, the practice guide details the statutory payment remedies for unpaid work, including, mechanics liens, stop payment notices and construction bonds. Wendel Rosen served as update author for Chapters 2 and 3 which covers private works projects.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com
Pennsylvania Superior Court Tightens Requirements for Co-Worker Affidavits in Asbestos Cases
November 26, 2014 — Jerrold P. Anders & Tonya M. Harris – White and Williams LLP
In Krauss v. Trane US Inc., 2014 Pa. Super. 241, --- A.3d --- (October 22, 2014), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a witness affidavit does not create a genuine issue of fact to defeat summary judgment when it reflects only a presumption and belief that certain products contained asbestos. Moreover, when an affidavit fails to demonstrate plaintiff’s frequent, regular, and proximate exposure to a specific defendant’s asbestos-containing product, summary judgment will be granted.
The Executor of the Estate of Henry M. Krauss filed two lawsuits against forty-nine defendants in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiff alleged that Mr. Krauss, a bricklayer from 1978 to 1983, was occupationally exposed to asbestos and developed mesothelioma. Various defendants moved for summary judgment based on insufficient product identification. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the co-worker affidavits failed to show that: (1) Mr. Krauss worked in proximity to the defendants’ products; (2) the products contained asbestos during the relevant period; or (3) Mr. Krauss inhaled asbestos fibers from the products.
Reprinted courtesy of Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and Tonya M. Harris, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Harris may be contacted at harrist@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
