Multiple Occurrences Found For Claims Against Supplier of Asbestos Products
May 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court found that various claims for bodily injury against a supplier of asbestos products arose from multiple occurrences, increasing indemnity amounts available under the policy. Westfield Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45437 (N.D. Ohio April 7, 2015).
Mahoning Valley Supply Company (MVS) was sued by numerous claimants who alleged that they had been injured by asbestos-containing products manufactured by third parties, but supplied by MVS. The claimants alleged exposure to asbestos fibers at a variety of job sites, on numerous dates, and under a variety of conditions. Two insurers shared defense and indemnity costs.
In 2013, Continental informed MVS that the three policies issued to MVS were nearly exhausted. Therefore, the parties disputed whether MVS' asbestos claims arose out of a single "occurrence" rather than multiple occurrences. The policies defined "occurrence" as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
San Diego: Compromise Reached in Fee Increases for Affordable Housing
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA San Diego City Council committee has forwarded a revised plan to increase affordable housing in the city, which reduces the linkage fees increases, reported the U-T San Diego. The first proposal would have increased linkage fees by five times, while this new plan doubles current fees.
The Times of San Diego reported that “[t]he fee had been halved in 1996 as an economic stimulus and was supposed to be reviewed annually, but wasn't.” However, Andrea Tevlin, the city of San Diego’s Independent Budget Analyst, estimated that “costs on developers would have jumped 400 percent to more than 700 percent, depending on the type of project.”
The new proposal also contains exemptions for “developers of manufacturing facilities, warehouses and nonprofit hospitals from paying any fees at all,” according to U-T San Diego. “Developers of research and science-related projects would still have to pay fees, but they would be exempt from the proposed increase.”
However, not everyone is satisfied by the compromise. “While the November 2013 proposal went too far, this new proposal doesn’t go far enough,” Tevlin told U-T San Diego. The vote had been deadlocked, 2-2, but will be forwarded to the main council because Republican Lori Zapf, committee chair, could break the tie.
The new plan “created jointly by the San Diego Housing Commission and a group of business leaders called the Jobs Coalition, would increase the linkage fees’ annual yield from $2.2 million to an estimated $3.7 million and allow construction of 37 affordable housing units per year instead of 22,” U-T San Diego reported.
Read the full story, U-T San Diego...
Read the full story, Times of San Diego... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony
October 07, 2019 —
Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation StrategistSeven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida.” On May 23, 2019, however, Florida’s high court did an about-face. In In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the Florida Supreme Court overruled its decision in DeLisle and declared that Florida will now apply the Daubert standard to determine whether scientific evidence is admissible.
The Daubert standard comes from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which held that the longstanding Frye test[1] for admitting expert testimony was superseded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert instructed that federal judges should act as “gatekeepers” to ensure expert testimony is rooted in scientifically valid principles and that those principles are properly applied to the facts at issue. In determining whether scientific evidence should be admitted, Daubert sets forth several factors to consider: the testability of the theory or technique; the peer review and publication of the theory or technique; the error rate for the technique; the standards controlling the technique’s operation; and the general acceptance of the theory or technique.[2] The Daubert standard is generally considered a more onerous test than Frye, precluding expert testimony that might otherwise go to the jury under Frye.[3] Whereas Frye is a single factor test that applies only to new or novel science, Daubert is a multifactor test that applies to all expert testimony.
Since Daubert, a growing number of states have moved away from the Frye test in favor of the Daubert standard; it is now followed by a majority of jurisdictions in the country. In 2013, the Florida State legislature attempted to move Florida in this direction by amending the Florida Evidence Code to codify the Daubert standard. But because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with the power to make procedural rules and it was unclear whether the Daubert standard was a procedural or substantive rule, it was uncertain whether the 2013 Daubert amendments were controlling law. Then in 2017, in In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC16-181, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined adopting the Daubert amendments to the extent they were procedural. This decision signaled that, if faced with the Daubert standard on appeal from a litigated case, the Florida Supreme Court would reaffirm that Frye – not Daubert – controlled the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida state courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLPMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
No Duty to Indemnify When Discovery Shows Faulty Workmanship Damages Insured’s Own Work
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFOur post last week addressed the duty to defend when alleged faulty workmanship caused loss to property adjacent to where the insured was working. See Pamerin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wis. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012) [post here]. Today, we report on recent developments in the same case where the court determined, despite earlier finding the insurer owed a defense, it had no duty to indemnify. Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Constr., Inc., 2012 Wisc. App. LEXIS 793 (Wis. Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2012).
Hendricks contracted to “prepare the site and supply and install concrete, tamped concrete, and colored concrete” at several service stations. The owner sued Hendricks, alleging the concrete “was defective and/or the work performed was not done in a workman-like manner and resulted in damages, and will require replacement.”
Pekin Insurance Company agreed to defend Hendricks subject to a reservation of rights.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
UPDATE: Texas Federal Court Permanently Enjoins U.S. Department of Labor “Persuader Rule” Requiring Law Firms and Other Consultants to Disclose Work Performed for Employers on Union Organization Efforts
December 08, 2016 —
Aaron C. Schlesinger & Gregory R. Begg – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.As an update to our prior alert, on November 16, 2016, a federal judge in Texas issued a permanent injunction blocking the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) “persuader rule” – a preliminary injunction had been granted this past June.
In rendering the permanent injunction, the court adopted the reasoning of its prior June 27, 2016 decision that granted a nationwide preliminary injunction on the rule. In the earlier decision, the court held that a temporary injunction was appropriate because the parties challenging the rule were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim […].
Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York State Legislature Passes Legislation Expanding Wrongful Death Litigation
July 18, 2022 —
Lisa M. Rolle & Justyn Verzillo - Traub LiebermanIn early June, New York State Legislature passed legislation, often referred to as “The Grieving Families Act” (A.6770/S.74-A), which expands New York’s Wrongful Death Statute. This legislation is pending approval from Governor Kathy Hochul and has the ability to drastically impact wrongful death litigation by expanding how parties can bring an action, as well as expanding on recoverable compensation.
Pursuant to the existing statute (EPTL §5-4.1), the statute of limitations requires commencement of an action within two years after the decedent’s death. The proposed Grieving Families Act expands the statute of limitations for a wrongful death action to three years and six months after the decedent’s death.
Further, under the existing statute (EPTL §11-3.3), recovery in a wrongful death action is restricted to distributees (the intended beneficiaries under the will). The proposed legislation expands the parties permitted to bring a wrongful death action, replacing the term distributees with surviving close family members. These may include, but are not limited to, spouse or domestic partner, issue, parents, grandparents, step-parents, and siblings, leaving it to the finder of fact to determine which persons are close family members of the decedent based upon the specific circumstances relating to the person’s relationship with decedent. It remains to be seen what the burden of proof will be for the surviving close family members, as well as what process will be instituted with respect to the finder of fact. Presumably, the finder of fact will be a Judge.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and
Justyn Verzillo, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Verzillo may be contacted at jverzillo@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eleventh Circuit Finds No “Property Damage” Where Defective Component Failed to Cause Damage to Other Non-Defective Components
October 11, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo Meta - White and WilliamsIn Florida, damage caused by faulty workmanship constitutes “property damage;” however, the cost of repairing or removing defective work does not. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Auchter Company, 673 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (Auchter). But what happens when the cost of repairing or removing defective work results in loss of use of the tangible property which is not physically injured?
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was recently faced with this question in Tricon Development of Brevard, Inc. v. Nautilus Insurance Company, No. 21-11199, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27317 (11th Cir. Sep. 10, 2021). Tricon arose out of the construction of a condominium. Tricon was hired to serve as general contractor for the project and hired a subcontractor to fabricate and install metal railings. The railings installed by the subcontractor were defective and damaged, improperly installed, and failed to meet the project’s specifications. Tricon filed an insurance claim with Nautilus Insurance Company, the subcontractor’s commercial general liability insurer, for the cost to remove and replace the railings.[1]
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Margo Meta, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When a Request for Equitable Adjustment Should Be Treated as a Claim Under the Contract Disputes Act
August 29, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn federal contracting, contractors are sometimes torn about submitting a request for equitable adjustment (known as an “REA” under 48 C.F.R. 252.243-7002) or submitting a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act (41 U.S.C. s. 7103), the latter requiring a final decision by the contracting officer and starts the clock with respect to interest and preserving rights. It is also sometimes not easy for the contracting officer receiving an REA to determine whether the REA is actually a claim under the Contract Disputes Act requiring more immediate action. This recent take by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hits the nail on the head:
We recognize that contracting officers will sometimes face the difficult challenge of determining whether a request for equitable adjustment is also a claim. Contractors must choose between submitting a claim—which starts the interest clock but requires the contracting officer to issue a final decision within 60 days—and submitting a mere request for equitable adjustment—which does not start the interest clock but gives the contractor more time to negotiate a settlement and possibly avoid hefty legal fees. The overlap between these two types of documents might create room for gamesmanship. For example, a contractor could submit a document that is a claim—starting the interest clock—but appears to be a mere request for equitable adjustment—causing the contracting officer to not issue a final decision within the 60-day deadline and allowing interest to accrue for months or years. But the government has tools to address this challenge: The contracting officer can communicate to the contractor that she is going to treat the document as a claim and issue a final decision within 60 days. Or the government can explicitly require the contractor to propose settlement terms and attempt to settle disputes before submitting a claim to the contracting officer for a final decision.
Zafer Construction Company v. U.S., 2022 WL 2793596, *5 (Fed.Cir. 2022).
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
