Municipalities Owe a Duty to Pedestrians Regardless of Whether a Sidewalk Presents an “Open and Obvious” Hazardous Condition. (WA)
February 25, 2014 —
Natasha Khachatourians – Scheer & Zehnder LLP Liability NewsletterIssue: Does a municipality owe a duty to pedestrians to keep sidewalks reasonably safe for their intended use even if the condition of the sidewalk is an open and obvious hazard? YES
Facts: Plaintiff Nanci Millson liked to walk in Lynden, Washington. While plaintiff regularly walked through her neighborhood and knew that various areas of the sidewalk were cracked and lifted, she continued to walk through her neighborhood nonetheless. Plaintiff felt that the sidewalks closer to her neighborhood were in better condition and when she reached an area a block away from her home, she picked up speed even though she was in an area of sidewalk she previously had not walked before. Plaintiff became distracted, tripped on an elevated sidewalk and fell, suffering various injuries.
Plaintiff sued the City of Lynden (“City”) for negligently failing to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. The City argued that the tripping hazard was “open and obvious”, and the trial court granted the City summary judgment. The issue before the Court of Appeals was whether an “open and obvious” condition is a matter of law to be decided by the court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natasha Khachatourians, Scheer & Zehnder LLP Ms. Khachatourians may be contacted at
natashak@scheerlaw.com
Construction Contract Clauses Which Go Bump in the Night – Part 1
November 10, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogScope, time and cost provisions may be the most important clauses in your construction contract but they’re not the only ones which can impact your bottom line. The first in a multi-part series, here are some other important construction contract clauses you may (or may not realize you should) be losing sleep over.
Provision: Incorporation and Flow-Down Provisions
- Typical Provision: “The term ‘Contract Documents’ shall include, without limitation, the Prime Contract, drawings, specifications and other agreements between Contractor and Owner, insofar as they relate in any way, directly or indirectly, to Subcontractor’s Work under this Agreement, and are hereby incorporated by reference. Subcontractor agrees to be bound to Contractor in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to Owner under the Contract Documents. Where, in the Contract Documents, reference is made to Contractor, and the work and specifications therein pertain to Subcontractor’s trade, craft, or type of work, such work or specifications shall be interpreted to apply to Subcontractor rather than Contractor.”
- What it Means: An incorporation provision literally “incorporates” another document or documents into a contract by merely referring to them by title or description and it is not uncommon for a lower-tiered contractor to never see those documents.
A flow-down provision requires a lower-tiered contractor to comply with all obligations which a higher-tiered contractor, typically a direct contractor, owes to a higher-tiered party, typically, the owner. The intent of the provision to ensure that a lower-tiered subcontractor has no greater rights against a direct contractor has against the owner.
- What You Can Do: Lower-tiered contractors should obtain a copy of all documents to be incorporated into their contract and review them to ensure that they understand the obligations and any limitations to their rights.
Lower-tiered contractors should also seek to include language requiring that a higher-tiered contractor assume toward the lower-tiered contractor all obligations and limitations on their rights that the owner assumes toward or is subject to with respect of the general contractor.
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
Deference Given To Procuring Public Agency Regarding Material Deviation
April 10, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesDeference will be given to a procuring public agency in a bid protest, particularly when the issue involves whether a bid is non-responsive and constitutes a material deviation from the solicitation. You do not believe me? Perhaps you will after this holding in Biscayne Marine Partners, LLC v. City of Miami, Florida, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D467a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019):
Consequently, no principle of law is clearly established…as to any obligation of the trial court (and, by analogy, an administrative hearing officer) [in a bid protest] to decide or to defer [whether a bid constitutes a material deviation from the solicitation]. If anything, the existing and clearly established principle of law inclines toward judicial deference in public agency competitive bidding disputes when the agency has exercised it discretion absent illegality, fraud, oppression or misconduct.
I do not know about you, but that last underlined sentence is pretty strong language regarding judicial deference!
In this case, Miami (the procuring public agency) issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the redevelopment and lease of waterfront property, for the operation of a marina, boatyard, restaurant, wet slips, and a dry storage facility on the property. Miami issued five addenda to the RFP. There were three bidders.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Privileged Communications With a Testifying Client/Expert
June 10, 2019 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistIn
In re City of Dickinson, 568 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2019), the Supreme Court of Texas recently assessed whether a client’s emails with its counsel were subject to disclosure after the client was designated as a testifying expert witness. In re City of Dickinson involved a coverage dispute between a policyholder and its insurer. The policyholder moved for summary judgment on the issue of causation, essentially alleging that its insurer did not pay all damages caused by Hurricane Ike. In responding to the motion, the insurer relied upon an affidavit by one of its employees, a claims examiner, that included both factual testimony and expert witness testimony.
The policyholder subsequently filed a motion to compel, seeking the production of emails between the claims examiner and the insurer’s counsel that were generated while the affidavit was being drafted. The emails contained numerous revisions of the affidavit. The insurer objected, asserting that the emails were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were generated in the course of the rendition of legal services.
The trial court granted the motion to compel, ordering production. Ultimately, after a series of appeals, the Supreme Court had to decide whether the documents in dispute were subject to discovery. In resolving this issue, the court examined the rules pertaining to expert disclosures. As noted by the court, the rules authorize the production of all documents provided to a testifying expert witness. Thus, the court was faced with determining if its rules required the disclosure of documents that are also subject to the attorney-client privilege.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and WilliamsMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Policy Reformed to Add New Building Owner as Additional Insured
July 10, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe lower court correctly reformed the policy to replace the prior owner with the new owner as an additional insured under the policy. Wesco Ins. Co. v. Fulmont Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2650 (N. Y. App. Div. May 11, 2023).
Beyond was sued as owner of the building in a personal injury lawsuit. The former owners leased the building to the tenant who included the then-owners as additional insureds under the tenant's policy. When the deed to the building was transferred to Beyond, the additional insured endorsement in the tenant's policy was not updated to reflect the change in ownership.
Beyond's insurer, Wesco, tendered the lawsuit to the tenant's insurer, Fulmont. Coverage was denied because Beyond was not an additional insured under the tenant's policy.
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
Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Ruling On Certificates Of Merit And “Gist Of Action” May Make It More Difficult For An Architect Or Engineer To Seek An Early Dismissal
January 07, 2015 —
Jerrold P. Anders and Michael W. Jervis - White and Williams LLPIn Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., the Pennsylvania Supreme Court clarified the gist of the action doctrine that distinguishes between tort and contract claims. In doing this, the Court also ruled that a Certificate of Merit in a professional liability claim is necessary only if the plaintiff is in a direct client relationship with the licensed professional. This clarification of the Certificate of Merit requirement may limit the ability of architects and engineers to obtain an early dismissal in lawsuits.
Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co. involves a common scenario. The Brunos filed a claim with their homeowners’ insurer after discovering mold in their home during remodeling. The policy included an endorsement providing coverage for mold. As part of the claim adjustment, Erie hired an engineer to inspect the mold and to provide an opinion on its severity to determine the extent of remediation required. The engineer hired by Erie reported to Mr. Bruno that the mold was harmless, that concern over health problems due to mold was merely a “media frenzy,” and that the Brunos should continue with their renovations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jerrold P. Anders, White and Williams LLP and
Michael W. Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Government Partial Shutdown – Picking Up the Pieces
February 27, 2019 —
Jacob W. Scott - Now that the partial shutdown has ended (though with the specter of another just around the corner), contractors are asking, “What now?” and “What did that cost me?” Although every case is fact-specific, following are some guidelines for moving forward after the shutdown.
Following up on our previous guidance, contractors should make sure that any court, board, or agency filings made during the shutdown were received and properly docketed. If there is any question whether a filing was received, file it again as soon as possible with proof of the earlier attempt to file. The busiest tribunals, such as the federal courts, the Court of Federal Claims, the Boards of Contract Appeals, and the Government Accountability Office, remained open, or at least open to accept filings, and all indications are that filings made during the shutdown were received and acknowledged. But for some of the other tribunals or agencies, such as the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Office of Hearings and Appeals and the SBA Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, prudence dictates double-checking that all filings were received. In many cases, non-statutory deadlines have been or will be adjusted by the court, board, or agency.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jacob W. Scott, Smith CurrieMr. Scott may be contacted at
jwscott@smithcurrie.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
