The Benefits of Trash Talking: A Cautionary Tale of Demolition Gone Wrong
September 02, 2024 —
Joshua Levy, Anne O'Meara & Kimberly Gutierrez - Construction ExecutiveThat sinking feeling has crossed everyone’s mind at some point: "Did I accidentally throw out...?” It can happen to anyone, from valuable jewelry to uncashed checks or even (in the case of one contractor) to fire-pump control cabinets.
Demolishing the wrong equipment is a concern construction and demolition contractors should review before beginning any project. Recently, one general contractor and its demolition subcontractor would have benefitted from a more detailed “trash” talking session, which could have helped them avoid a dumpster-fire of a legal dispute.
In this case, the general contractor was contracted to renovate a hangar for a military base. The company subcontracted the demolition work to a local, family-owned contractor to demolish aspects of the hangar’s fire-suppression room. The two companies met many times, from planning to daily field walk-downs. They discussed that any equipment that was tagged with bright orange tags would remain in the fire-suppression room. The contractor also reviewed the demolition plans with the demolition company, detailing what should and should not be removed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Levy, Anne O'Meara & Kimberly Gutierrez, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
San Diego Appellate Team Prevails in Premises Liability Appeal
December 06, 2021 —
Corinne Bertsche, Jeffry Miller & Tracy Forbath - Lewis BrisboisSan Diego, Calif. (October 28, 2021) - San Diego Appellate Practice Partners Jeffry A. Miller and Corinne C. Bertsche, along with Associate Tracy D. Forbath, recently obtained a win on appeal when California's Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District, Division Four affirmed the trial court’s grant of a client homeowners association’s motion for summary judgment. In the underlying matter, the plaintiff alleged claims for premises liability and negligence for injuries he sustained when tripping over an uplift of two misaligned adjacent slabs of concrete sidewalk, measuring 1.25 inches and located next to a condominium complex.
The appellate court agreed that the defect in question was a trivial defect as a matter of law, despite the plaintiff’s arguments that there was a triable issue of material fact as to whether the uplift’s dangerousness was exacerbated by the presence of aggravating factors. The appellate court found that the plaintiff’s expert declaration did not support the alleged aggravating factors with admissible evidence, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.
Reprinted courtesy of
Corinne Bertsche, Lewis Brisbois,
Jeffry Miller, Lewis Brisbois and
Tracy Forbath, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bertsche may be contacted at Corinne.Bertsche@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Miller may be contacted at Jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Forbath may be contacted at Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don’t Put All Your Eggs in the Silent-Cyber Basket
August 07, 2022 —
William P. Sowers, Jr. & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently gave another reminder why cyber insurance should be part of any comprehensive insurance portfolio. In Construction Financial Administration Services, LLC v. Federal Insurance Company, No. 19-0020 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022), the court rejected a policyholder’s attempt to find coverage under its professional liability insurance for a social engineering incident that defrauded over $1 million.
Construction Financial Administrative Services, which goes by CFAS, disburses funds to contractors. One of its clients, SWF Constructors, was hacked, and a bad actor posing as the client asked CFAS to distribute $600,000 to a sham third party. John Follmer, an executive at CFAS and the only person authorized to approve distribution of funds, approved it. The next day, the bad actor, again posing as the client, asked Follmer to transfer an additional $700,000. Follmer approved that distribution too.
Reprinted courtesy of
William P. Sowers, Jr., Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Insurance Commissioner Lacks Authority to Regulate Formula for Estimating Replacement Cost Value
April 15, 2015 —
Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Assn. of Cal. Insurance Companies v. Jones ( No. B248622, filed 4/8/15), a California appeals court held that California’s Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones lacked the authority to promulgate California Code of Regulations, title 10, section 2695.183, which set out specific requirements for estimating replacement cost as part of any application or renewal for homeowners insurance.
The regulation was promulgated in 2010 in response to complaints from homeowners who lost their homes in the wildfires in Southern California in 2003, 2007, and 2008, and who discovered that they did not have enough insurance to cover the full cost of repairing or rebuilding their homes because the insurers’ estimates of replacement value were too low when they purchased the insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Voids Settlement Agreement in Construction Defect Case
September 01, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA U.S. District Court Judge in Florida has ruled in favor of a company that sought to void a settlement agreement. The case, Water v. HDR Engineering, involved claims of construction defects at Florida’s C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir. The Tampa Bay Water Authority attributed these to both HDR Engineering’s design and Bernard Construction Company which had built the embankment. Bernard Construction filed a complaint against their subcontractor, McDonald.
Tampa Bay Water settled with Bernard Construction and McDonald, in an agreement that set a minimum and maximum settlement, but also would “prohibit Barnard and McDonald from presenting any evidence on several claims and positions of TBW, to require Barnard to call certain witnesses at trial, to preclude Barnard and McDonald from calling other witnesses, and to restrict the filing of trial and post-trial motions.” HDR Engineering moved to void the agreement as collusive.
The judge that the agreement¬? contained “133 paragraphs of ‘Agreed Facts’ that the parties stipulated would survive any order declaring the Settlement Agreement void or unenforceable.” He characterized these as stipulating “that Barnard neither caused nor contributed to TBW’s damages.” HDR motioned that a summary judgment be given to Barnard Engineering.
The court found that “the evidence identified by TBW is patently insufficient to survive summary judgment.” Further, TBW’s expert initially held Barnard responsible for “lenses, pockets, streaks and layers within the embankment,” but then later withdrew this assigning the responsibility to HDR. Further, the court notes that, “TBW’s arguments that lenses, pockets, streaks, and layers in the soil wedge caused or contributed to its damages and that Barnard is liable for those damages have been foreclosed by the Agreed Facts.”
As TBW failed to provide sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment, the court granted summary judgment, mooted the claim against McDonald, and terminated the agreement between TBW and the other parties.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will There Be Construction Defect Legislation Introduced in the 2019 Colorado Legislative Session?
March 18, 2019 —
David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogWith the 2019 Colorado legislative session well underway, the construction industry is waiting with bated breath to see what the Democrat controlled legislature might do with respect to construction defect legislation. In recent years, having a split legislature has prevented any attempts to roll back positive changes in the law, either from the legislature or Colorado courts, that have been hailed by the construction community.
This year, odds are good that we will see at least one bill similar to two introduced last year that would hinder the ability to have disputes decided by binding arbitration. While not full frontal assaults on the Colorado Supreme Court decision in the Vallagio case, HB18-1261, the “Colorado Arbitration Fairness Act,” and HB 18-1262, the “Arbitration Services Provider Transparency Act,” would have negatively impacted the ability to resolve any type of case through arbitration. Anything that prevents the resolution of construction defect cases through arbitration will increase the judgments and settlements in such cases, ultimately increasing the costs of construction and for insurance for those in the industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action
March 26, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result.
Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda.
At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Contractor License Bonds to Increase in 2016
December 02, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogThe post, which originally appeared on
The Surety Bond Insider, was written by Jon Gottschalk, a member of the SuretyBonds.com Educational Outreach team. on
SuretyBonds.com helps contractors fulfill their bonding requirements.
The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) is requiring all California contractors to purchase a $15,000 bond by January 1, 2016— a $2,500 increase from the $12,500 amount that was previously required. The additional $2,500 was previously accounted for by an additional requirement to obtain a contractor’s license. Those applying for the license had to post the $12,500 surety bond and proof of financial solvency in the amount of $2,500. Essentially, contractors were required to show that their current assets were greater than their liabilities by no less than $2,500. By increasing the bond amount to include that additional $2,500, the CSLB has removed the burden of proving financial solvency from those who wish to obtain their license.
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
