Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says
October 22, 2014 —
Patrick G. Lee – BloombergSecret changes by Trinity Industries Inc. to its guardrail systems were found to have cheated the U.S. government, exposing the company to $1 billion in damages and penalties and sending shares plummeting as states question the safety of the product.
The east Texas jury’s verdict comes as scrutiny of the highway-safety product called the ET-Plus intensifies across the country after it’s been blamed for multiple deaths. The Federal Highway Administration this month asked all states to start submitting information on crashes involving the ET-Plus to the agency’s safety office.
The agency will evaluate the findings of the case and “consider whether it affects the continued eligibility of the ET-Plus,” Brian Farber, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said in an e-mail.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick G. Lee, BloombergMr. Lee may be contacted at
plee315@bloomberg.net
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
NTSB Pittsburgh Bridge Probe Update Sheds Light on Collapse Sequence
June 06, 2022 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordThe National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued an update in its investigation of the Jan. 28 collapse of Pittsburgh's Fern Hollow Bridge that provides additional information about how the collapse proceeded, but does not discuss why the accident occurred. That finding of a probable cause isn't expected until sometime in 2023.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim
June 18, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an earlier posting I discussed the difference between first-party spoliation of evidence and third-party spoliation of evidence.
There is NO independent cause of action for first-party spoliation of evidence because that can be dealt with directly in the underlying lawsuit. This deals with the assertion that an actual party to a lawsuit spoiled evidence.
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
Victoria Kajo Named One of KNOW Women's 100 Women to KNOW in America for 2024
May 13, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomLos Angeles, Calif. (April 30, 2024) – Los Angeles Partner Victoria Kajo has been named to global media company KNOW Women's 2024 100 Women to KNOW in America list, which honors the top 100 female leaders across North America. The honorees were recognized at the annual KNOW Women Summit, held from April 21-23 at The Palomar Hotel in Phoenix, Arizona.
The annual 100 Women to KNOW in America award, presented by JPMorgan Chase, recognizes women entrepreneurs, executives, creatives, and philanthropists who "exemplify what it means to be high achieving and ambitious on the next level and who continue to pour into their communities as they do so," according to KNOW Women. Ms. Kajo was selected as one of this year's honorees following a nomination and interview process.
Ms. Kajo is a member of Lewis Brisbois' Professional Liability Practice. She has extensive experience with professional liability litigation, having defended lawyers, design professionals and real estate professionals against claims of alleged negligent acts and omissions in the performance of their professional services. Ms. Kajo also has broad experience in general civil litigation matters involving errors and omissions, real estate, wrongful foreclosures, labor and employment law, civil rights, fraud, personal injury, breach of contract and unlawful detainer matters, amongst others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review
November 26, 2014 —
Angela S. Haskins & Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPA California Court of Appeal expressed its concern over the due process implications of reviewing a trial court's decision that incorporated reasons that were not documented due to the absence of a court reporter. In Maxwell v. Dolezal (No. B254893, filed 11/4/14), the court cautioned that although the lack of a transcript did not preclude its review of an order sustaining a demurrer, the case was an exception because the operative complaint and demurrer were sufficient to permit effective appellate review.
The plaintiff in Maxwell, acting in pro per, had filed an action for invasion of privacy and breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had used his photograph and website without his consent and that he did not receive the money, food and housing in exchange for the intellectual property rights per their agreement. The defendant demurred on the grounds that the complaint was uncertain and it could not be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract was written, oral, or implied. At the hearing on the demurrer, no court reporter was present. Nonetheless, the trial court's minute order explicitly sustained the demurrer "[f]or the reasons stated in open court," without further elaborating. The trial court also denied the plaintiff further leave to amend on the ground that he was unable to articulate in open court a reasonable basis for any additional allegations that would remedy the deficiencies. The court of appeal noted that it was "profoundly concerned about the due process implications of a proceeding in which the court, aware that no record will be made, incorporates within its ruling reasons that are not documented for the litigants or the reviewing court."
Reprinted courtesy of
Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peru’s Former President and His Wife to Stay in Jail After Losing Appeal
August 10, 2017 —
John Quigley - BloombergFormer President Ollanta Humala and his wife Nadine Heredia will remain in jail while they are investigated for campaign donations involving Brazilian construction companies and the Venezuelan government, a Peruvian court said Friday.
The couple, who were given pre-trial detention three weeks ago, had asked the appeal court judges to change the order for one requiring them not to leave the country and to appear regularly before the authorities.
The couple turned themselves in on July 13 after Judge Richard Concepcion ordered 18 months of preventive detention for suspected money laundering. Concepcion had said there was sufficient evidence of wrongdoing and grounds to believe Humala and his wife would seek to obstruct the ongoing investigation by the Attorney General’s office.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Quigley, Bloomberg
Fire Consultants Cannot Base Opinions on Speculation
May 20, 2019 —
Christopher Konzelmann - The Subrogation StrategistLarsen v. 401 Main St. Inc., 302 Neb. 454 (2019), involved a fire originating in the basement of the Quart House Pub (Pub) in Plattsmouth, Nebraska that spread to and damaged Plattsmouth Chiropractic Center, Inc., a neighboring business. Fire investigators could not enter the building because the structure was unsafe and demolished. The chiropractic center nevertheless sued the Pub alleging that its failure to maintain and replace basement mechanical equipment caused ignition.
To prove its claim, the plaintiff retained a mechanical engineer who reviewed documents and concluded that the fire “originated from a failure of one of the items of mechanical equipment located in the area of the [basement] boiler.” Importantly, however, the consultant could not determine the root cause of the fire, could not eliminate the possibility that the fire originated in a compressor, and could not rule out the building’s electrical service as the ignition source because it was outside his area of expertise. The consultant nevertheless found that the fire most likely would not have occurred if the Pub had regularly serviced and replaced the equipment when needed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Konzelmann, White and Williams LLPMr. Konzelmann may be contacted at
konzelmannc@whiteandwilliams.com
