Client Alert: Design Immunity Affirmative Defense Not Available to Public Entities Absent Evidence of Pre-Accident Discretionary Approval of the Plan or Design
April 15, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin & Melinda M. Carrido – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn April 8, 2014, in Martinez v. County of Ventura, Case No. B24476, the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal reversed the jury's defense verdict for the County of Ventura, holding that the County's evidence in support of its Design Immunity defense to a public property dangerous condition claim was insufficient as a matter of law.
Plaintiff filed suit against the County of Ventura (the "County") after sustaining paraplegic injuries when his motorcycle struck an asphalt berm abutting a raised drain (the top-hat drain system) on a road in the County. The drain system consisted of a heavy steel cover on three legs elevated eight to ten inches off the ground, with a sloped asphalt berm to channel water into the drain.
Plaintiff alleged that the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property pursuant to California Government Code section 835. Under this Section, a public entity is liable for "injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury sustained, and the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the condition a sufficient time before the injury to have taken preventative measures." The jury found the top-hat drain system constituted a dangerous condition of public property.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Melinda M. Carrido, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Carrido may be contacted at mcarrido@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Harmon Towers Case to Last into 2014
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFDon’t expect a fast resolution to the Harmon Tower case in Las Vegas. The latest schedule sets trial for the construction defect claims in January 2014. Previously, these claims were going to be heard during the trial set to start in June 2013. Now the June trial will be over payment issues only.
Don’t expect the building to come down soon either. While CityCenter claims the building could come down in an earthquake, Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez had determined that as the structural testing was not random; its results cannot be extrapolated through the entire structure. As a result, CityCenter has elected to do more testing, holding off on demolishing the building. They are appealing Gonzalez’s order to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Charting Your Contractual Rights With Respect To The Coronavirus
April 06, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAs more and more information is being learned, and more and more industries are being impacted, it is likely that the construction industry will follow suit. And, while impacts with the global supply chain may not yet be realized, impacts could begin with labor supply and, frankly, employers’ safety protocols dealing with the coronavirus. One suggestion that should be implemented is a detailed chart, similar to the below, where you are charting rights and obligations under your contracts dealing with force majeure, notice, and project suspensions. This is step one to make sure you are making prudent decisions, preserving rights, and making sure contractual obligations are being met. Be proactive, not reactive.
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
The A, B and C’s of Contracting and Self-Performing Work Under California’s Contractor’s License Law
July 19, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe California Contractors State License Board issues licenses in three general classifications:
- Class A – General Engineering Contractors;
- Class B – General Building Contractors; and
- Class C – Specialty Contractors of which there are currently 42 different Class C specialty contractors license types.
Each of these license classifications has separate contracting rules, and rules regarding when work can be self-performed, which for many can be confusing.
Minor Work Exception
One important (albeit “minor”) exception is that no contractor’s license is required no matter what type of work is being performed if the project has a value of less than $500. Known as the “minor work exception,” the exception is a project-based, not work-based, exception. Thus, for example, if a project owner is remodeling their kitchen at a cost of $6,000 and the cost of doing the flooring is only $300, the person doing the flooring would need to have a contractor’s license in the appropriate classification since the aggregate cost of the work is $500 or more.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
2019 Promotions - New Partners at Haight
January 15, 2019 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight proudly announces the promotion of Renata Hoddinott, Sarah Marsey and Annette Mijianovic to Partner in January 2019.
Renata and Sarah joined Haight’s San Francisco office in 2016. Renata relocated from a litigation firm in the Los Angeles area. She focuses her practice on professional liability, general liability, risk management & insurance law and transportation law.
Before coming to Haight, Sarah was with a respected trial firm in Anchorage, Alaska. She handles a variety of complex matters in appellate law, food safety, construction law and general liability.
Annette has been with Haight’s Los Angeles office for almost 12 years. Annette joined the firm as a summer clerk in 2007 and has continued to build her practice handling cases related to commercial litigation, products liability and transportation law.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Renata L. Hoddinott,
Sarah A. Marsey and
Annette F. Mijanovic
Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com
Ms. Marsey may be contacted at smarsey@hbblaw.com
Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice
April 25, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogGenerally, I think restraint in litigation is a good thing. Don’t go crazy on your claims, don’t go nut-so in your discovery, and don’t present your case at trial in a way that causes the judge and/or jury to raise their eyebrows or shake their heads in disbelief. But, as with nearly everything, there’s always an exception. One of which is: don’t hold back on a claim because you “think” you might be able to bring it later, because you might not be able to as the next case, 5th and LA v. Western Waterproofing Company, Inc., 87 Cal.App.5th 781 (2023), demonstrates.
The 5th and LA Case
At the outset, let me first say how much I enjoyed reading this case based on the writing alone. The case, as the 2nd District Court of Appeals states, involves “a second lawsuit about an increasingly leaky roof.”
In 2012, property owner 5th and LA hired roofing contractor Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. to remove and recoat a parking lot that served also served as the roof over retail and office space below. Western completed its work in July 2012 and almost immediately 5th and LA noticed water that the coating was failing causing water leaks to the interior of the building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Hawaii Federal District Court Compels Appraisal
December 03, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Hawaii federal district court denied the insurers' motion to dismiss on forum non convenient grounds and granted the insured's motion to compel arbitration. BRE Hotels and Resorts LCC, et al. v. Ace Am Ins. Co., et al., 2024 U,.S. Dist. LEXIS 163852 (D. Haw. Sept. 11, 2024).
BRE Hotels & Resorts LLC (BRE) owned the Grand Wailea Resort on Maui and the Turtle Bay Resort on Oahu. Both hotels were damaged by a rainstorm on March 9, 2021. Estimated losses exceeded $55 million. BRE filed a claim with its sixteen insurers. BRE sought $46 million in four categories: business interruption losses at the Grand Wailea ($29.6 million); damaged tiles at the Grand Wailea ($8.3 million); furniture, fixtures, and equipment at Turtel Bay ($6.2 million); and an assortment of ancillary issues at both properties ($1.9 million).
The insurers investigated and took issued with BRE's estimates. The insurers contended that most of the tiles suffered from an independent defect and were not damaged by the storm, that the insurance policies did not cover the replacement of undamaged furniture, and that the claimed business interruption losses were too high. The insurers paid $4 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
