Four White and Williams Lawyers Recognized as "Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers®
September 19, 2022 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is proud to announce that Chuck Eppolito, Michael Kassak, Anthony Miscioscia and Christian Singewald have been recognized by U.S. News – Best Lawyers® as a “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practices. "Lawyer of the Year" recognitions are awarded to individual lawyers with the highest overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic location.
Chuck Eppolito was named in the area of Litigation - Heath Care in Philadelphia, PA. His practice consists primarily of medical malpractice defense as well as other insurance-related defense, including general negligence, electrical engineering and product liability issues in utilities cases. Chuck's clients include hospitals and physicians throughout Pennsylvania, utility companies and insurance carriers, including primary, excess and reinsurance, throughout the nation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Don’t Just Document- Document Right!
February 06, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have stated to clients on many occasions that paper is a lawyer’s best friend. Because of a recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court, I should modify that to the correct paper is a lawyer’s best friend. In Commonwealth v. AMEC Civil, LLC, AMEC sued the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) seeking more than $21 million in damages. The Mecklenburg County Circuit Court granted AMEC almost all of its damages and found that AMEC’s notice of intent to make a claim was proper under the Virginia Code even if it was not in the proper form.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Coverage Issues: When You Need Your Own Lawyer in a Construction Defect Suit
October 16, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFWhen an insurer hires an attorney on behalf of a client in a construction defect suit, that attorney is the client’s lawyer, but as Mike Curry writes on the website of Pendleton Wilson Hennessey & Crow, PC, a point may come when you need to hire your own additional attorney. Even though an insurance company client may refer to the lawyer as “the insurance carrier’s attorney,” Mr. Curry cites the words of the Colorado Bar Association’s ethics committee, “the insured is the client to whom the lawyer’s duty of loyalty is owed, regardless of any retention agreement the lawyer may have with the carrier.”
Mr. Curry then offers the example of what happens when the insurance company advises its client that it may not cover. “You presumably call your attorney and ask him to explain what’s going on, what the letter means, and what to do next.” All the attorney can say is “I cannot offer legal advice on coverage issues.”
This is the limitation of what Mr. Curry refers to as “the tripartite relationship.” The attorney has been retained for issues related to the construction defect dispute between the insured and the plaintiff. Not between the insurer and its insured. The attorney has, as he points out, a fiduciary obligation to the insurance company.
When coverage issues arise, “an independent attorney — one you hire — can help you with the coverage issues that your insurance-assigned attorney simply cannot address.” He further notes that “personal counsel owes no fiduciary obligation to the insurance company,” and can be “utilized to persuade the carrier to provide coverage or settle the case.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fraud Claims and Breach Of Warranty Claims Against Manufacturer
March 04, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case touches upon two issues that are noteworthy when considering fraud claims and breach of warranty claims against a manufacturer. Below contains a discussion on these claims.
Independent Tort Doctrine
“Florida’s independent tort doctrine provides that a party may not recover in tort for a contract dispute unless the tort is independent of any breach of contract.” MidAmerica C2L Inc. v. Siemens Energy, Inc., 2024 WL 414620, *6 (M.D.Fla. 2024). This means tort allegations and claims MUST be separate and distinct from performance under the contract. Id. (citation omitted).
In MidAmerica C2L, a plaintiff sued a manufacturer relating to sophisticated equipment for a coal gasification plant. The parties entered into different agreements for the equipment and a license where the plaintiff could use the manufacturer’s patented technology for its coal gasification plants. A dispute arose and the plaintiff sued the manufacturer under various legal theories. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment.
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
Surety Bond Now a Valid Performance Guarantee for NC Developers (guest post)
June 09, 2016 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaWelcome summer days! Today we have a guest post by Todd Bryant, president and founder of
Bryant Surety Bonds. He is a surety bonds expert with years of experience in helping contractors get bonded and start their business. While design professionals generally don’t have to deal with performance bonds directly, they are often at the front lines of advising owners as to various Requests for Proposals submitted by hopeful contractors. In that spirit, be sure to read how the new law changes security requirements. Take it away, Todd!
Last year wrapped up with some good news for North Carolina subdivision developers:
House Bill 721 confirmed that construction bonds are, in fact, a viable form of performance guarantee. Previous legislation was ambiguous on this point, but the new bill– which took effect last October– sought to clear up the confusion. Although the new rules have been in effect for eight months, there’s been scant coverage of the changes, and what they mean for developers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Claim for Vandalism Loss Survives Motion to Dismiss
October 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court ruled that the insured's claim for vandalism of his house by a renter and for bad faith survived the insurer's motion to dismiss. Wehrenberg v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103758 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 7, 2015).
The insured's home was insured by a homeowner's policy issued by Metropolitan. The insured rented his home to Alphonso Hyman in October 2011. In lieu of rent, Hyman was to pay the mortgage company the equivalent of his rent each month.
In early 2012, Hyman stopped making the monthly rent/mortgage payments. The insured went to the home and found the locks had been changed. Looking in the windows, he saw the interior had been gutted. When the insured reached Hyman, Hyman said he was a contractor and was fixing the structural problems and would put the house back together. He also promised to make up late payments to the mortgage company. The insured did not report what he found to Metropolitan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion
October 19, 2020 —
Kerianne E. Kane & David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer was not obligated to pay damages associated with a hydrochloric acid spill based on a pollution exclusion in the policy.
In Burroughs Diesel, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America,1 a trucking company sued its property insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) when it refused to pay a claim for a storage tank leak which resulted in over 5,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid entering the property and causing significant damage to buildings, vehicles, tools, and equipment. The acid was initially dispensed in liquid form, but quickly became a cloud that engulfed the property. Travelers denied coverage for the claim based on the pollution exclusion because “acids” fell within the policy’s definition of “pollutants.”
The trucking company sued Travelers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for refusing to pay the claim. The trucking company argued that coverage was warranted because there is an exception to the pollution exclusion if “the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by any of the ‘specified causes of loss,’” and the hydrochloric acid cloud was a form of “smoke,” which is a specified cause of loss covered by the policy. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Travelers, finding that the trucking company failed to demonstrate that an exception to the pollution exclusion applied. The trucking company appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at dgj@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New California "Construction" Legislation
November 08, 2018 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerGovernor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate Bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings late last month. These Bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to be caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists the repair of which were deferred by the property manager, despite indications of water damage.
SENATE BILL 721 ESTABLISHES HEIGHTENED “LOAD-BEARING” INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
On August 21, 2018, the California State Senate passed SB 721, one of two bills by Senator Jerry Hill introduced this year seeking to address the safety of multifamily rental residences. Now that the Governor has signed the Bill, a new section will be added to the California Health and Safety Code, requiring that every 6 years, destructive testing be performed on at least 15% of each type of load-bearing, wood framed exterior elevated element (such as balconies, walkways, and stair landings) in apartment buildings with 3 or more units. Interestingly, prior to being passed by the State Senate, SB 721 was revised in June 2018, such that the inspection requirements do not apply to common interest developments (i.e., condominiums).
As set forth in the new Health and Safety Code Section 17973:
"the purpose of the inspection is to determine that exterior elevated elements and their associated waterproofing elements are in a generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from any hazardous condition caused by fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered."
The inspection must be paid for by the building owner and performed by a licensed contractor, architect, or civil or structural engineer, or a certified building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association. Emergency repairs identified by the inspector must be made immediately. For non-emergency repairs, a permit must be applied for within 120 days and the repair completed within 120 days of the permit’s issuance. If repairs are not completed within 180 days, civil penalties of $100-$500 per day may be imposed.
The required inspection must be completed by January 1, 2025 and every 6 years thereafter, unless an equivalent inspection was performed during the 3 years prior to January 1, 2019, the effective date of the new law. For a building converted to condominiums that will be sold after January 1, 2019, the inspection required by Health and Safety Code Section 17973, must be performed prior to the first close of escrow.
SENATE BILL 1465 SETS CONTRACTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Governor also signed SB 1465, adding Sections 7071.20, 7071.21, and 7071.22 to the California Business and Professions Code. The new law requires that a contractor licensed with the Contractors’ State License Board "report to the registrar in writing within 90 days after the licensee has knowledge of any civil action resulting in a final judgment, executed settlement agreement, or final arbitration award in which the licensee is named as a defendant or crossdefendant, filed on or after January 1, 2019," that meets certain and specific criteria, including that it is over $1 million and arises out of an action for damages to a property or person allegedly caused by specified construction activities of the contractor on a multifamily rental residential structure.
Where more than one contractor was named as a defendant or cross-defendant, each of the contractors apportioned more than $15,000 in liability must report the action. Importantly, the new statute also imposes similar reporting requirements on insurers of contractors. SB 1465 also addresses an impacted party’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements.
COMMENT
Both SB 721 and SB 1465 are potentially significant and seek “legislative reform” to address construction issues by placing a greater burden on apartment owners as well as builders and subcontractors. How pragmatic and what impact they will have on the industry is obviously developing. If you are interested in receiving further detail concerning the Bills, please contact us. We are analyzing the new legislation and its intent and will be providing our ongoing comments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. CHELSEA L. ZWART, ESQ., CGDRBChelsea L. Zwart may be contacted at
czwart@cgdrblaw.com
