Decades of WCC Seminar at the Disneyland Resort
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFOne of the many perks of attending the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar each year is its location at the Disneyland Hotel. What better excuse to take an afternoon or day or two to visit the happiest place on Earth? Prior to 2001, attendees only had the Disneyland Park to explore. But the beginning of 2001 brought the addition of the California Adventure Theme Park and Downtown Disney. Now when you want a break you can take a stroll through Downtown Disney and shop, eat, or watch some street performers. While California Adventure still has plenty for children to do, it also caters to the twenty-one-and-over-but-still-child-at heart with wine tasting and craft beers available at the park. Disneyland remains a fixture for nostalgia with the Sleeping Beauty Castle, but has updated itself with its addition of Star Wars and Marvel attractions.
West Coast Casualty has special Disneyland ticket rates for attendees. Please see their
invitation for more details.
If you’re interested in one of Disneyland Resort’s sit-down restaurants, a reservation is highly desirable. You may
make your reservation online or call Disney Dining at (714) 781-DINE. Staying at the Disneyland Resort? Disney provides their hotel guests with preferred access reservations (call Disney Dining for more information). If you’re looking for a fine dining experience, you’ll enjoy Carthay Circle Restaurant at California Adventure, Catal Restaurant at Downtown Disney, Napa Rose at the Grand Californian Hotel, or Steakhouse 55 at the Disneyland Hotel. If you’re a sports fan, check out ESPN Zone in Downtown Disney. For a one-of-a-kind Disney experience, have lunch or dinner at the Blue Bayou at Disneyland, where the dining room is located within the Pirates of the Caribbean ride.
You may also want to check Disneyland Resort’s
Entertainment schedule. For a live musical show (included in the cost of admission to California Adventure Park), check out Frozen – Live at the Hyperion. For an illuminating experience, you’ll want to stay for the Paint the Night Parade at the California Adventure Park, which features one million brilliant lights and many of your favorite Disney characters. If you’re a Pixar lover, you won’t want to miss Disneyland Park’s Together Forever – A Pixar Nighttime Spectacular. It’s a fireworks display like only Disney can create, including dazzling projections, pyrotechnics and music from the movies.
If you wish to skip the crowds and just relax, then
the Madara Spa at Disney’s Grand Californian Hotel may be your choice. The Madara Spa theme is “the mystery of the East meeting the science of the West with boundaries ceasing to exist.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Couple Sues for Construction Defects in Manufactured Home
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA West Virginia couple has sued the manufacturer of their home for construction defects and damage. Darrell and Teri Pearson claim that the home they purchased from Giles Industries was defective. They further claim that Kitchen’s Construction failed to set the home up properly and that the firm did not repair damaged sections of home. The suit also names the firm that sold the home and others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Unpredictable Opinion Regarding Construction Lien (Reinstatement??)
January 17, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHere comes the discussion of an appeal I was intimately involved in dealing with a construction lien. See Suntech Plumbing and Mechanical Corp. v. Bella Isla, LLC, 2022 WL 14672765 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). Unfortunately, it was a losing result on my end but not a losing result to the issue at-hand. You should ask what in the world does this mean. I will tell you.
Here is the fact pattern. A subcontractor files a construction lien foreclosure lawsuit against an owner for unpaid contract balance. In the same lawsuit, the subcontractor sues the general contractor for breach of contract and unjust enrichment associated with an approximate three-year delay on a construction project. The project was scheduled to be completed in 2019. It was not. The project was pushed into COVID and into 2022. (The subcontractor did not sue the general contractor for amounts subject to the lien foreclosure claim.) The general contractor, assuming the defense of the owner, moved to stay the lawsuit pending the outcome of arbitration based on an arbitration provision in the subcontract. The subcontractor did not dispute the arbitration provision, but argued that arbitration provision should not extend to the owner that was (a) not bound by the subcontract, (b) would not be a party to the arbitration, and (c) the amounts pled against the general contractor did not include the amounts subject of the lien foreclosure lawsuit. At a minimum, the lawsuit should be stayed, not dismissed. Nevertheless, the trial court dismissed the entire lawsuit in an order that states that it is a final order with language that the lien may be “reinstated” after the outcome of the arbitration (that the owner is not a party to).
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
Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits
January 28, 2019 —
David R. Cook, Jr. - Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLPA recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits.
One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Jr., Autry, Hall, & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Owner’s Claims Based on Contractual One-Year Claims Limitations Period
October 04, 2021 —
Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn a recent unpublished decision – Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.– the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, held that a one-year contractual claim limitations clause was valid and enforceable. The Tadych decision is important because it reiterates the strict approach courts will take to a claim limitations clause less than the statutory six years for breach of contract claims prescribed by RCW 4.16.040(1). In other words, when the parties agree to shorten the limitations period, the agreement will be enforced barring any procedural or substantive unconscionability.
In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract provided a one-year claim limitations clause in which claims could be raised, and that all claims not raised in the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Ingram may be contacted at
cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com
When Employer’s Liability Coverage May Be Limited in New York
June 28, 2021 —
Robert S. Nobel & Craig Rokuson - Traub LiebermanNew York recognizes that coverage under Workers’ Compensation (“WC”) and Employer’s Liability (“EL”) policies is generally unlimited. See Tully Const. Co. v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co., 131 A.D.3d 598 (2d Dept. 2015); Oneida Ltd. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 263 A.D.2d 825, 694 N.Y.S.2d 221 (3d Dept. 1999). However, there is case holding that EL coverage may be limited in certain instances, such as when the primary EL carrier is listed as scheduled underlying insurance on an excess policy.
In Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pennsylvania, 43 A.D.3d 666, 841 N.Y.S.2d 288 (1st Dept. 2007), an employee of General Industrial Service Corporation (“General”), a subcontractor on a construction project, sought to recover under New York’s Labor Law against the project’s owner and construction manager. Those defendants, in turn, brought a third-party action for indemnification against General. The employee’s personal injury claim was ultimately settled for $2.5 million. After the settlement, the excess insurer, Liberty, filed suit against the primary employer’s liability insurers, The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania and American International Group of Companies (collectively, “AIG”), which had refused to participate in the defense or settlement of the underlying personal injury litigation. Although the issue of whether the plaintiff in the underling action had sustained a “grave injury” (necessary to support the common law indemnity claim against General and trigger coverage under the Employer’s Lability policy) had not yet been determined, the court held that “[i]n the event the existence of a grave injury is proven, AIG’s liability will be limited to $1 million.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert S. Nobel, Traub Lieberman and
Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Nobel may be contacted at rnobel@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole
August 06, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistArkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]
In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Farewell Capsule Tower, Tokyo’s Oddest Building
April 25, 2022 —
Reed Stevenson - BloombergAnyone who has seen Tokyo's Nakagin Capsule Tower will remember it. Studded with grey cubes, the striking building carries an obvious architectural message: this is a modular habitat.
Built half a century ago during Japan’s dizzying ascent as an economic power, the 140-unit complex has been left behind by the times, overshadowed by taller and sleeker skyscrapers that overlook the city of 14 million.
Once demolition officially starts April 12, scaffolding will surround the two towers that make up the building. The capsules will then be plucked off one by one, most likely behind protective sheets of plastic because they contain asbestos.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reed Stevenson, Bloomberg
