CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges
August 26, 2015 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Lee v. Hanley (S220775 – Filed 8/20/2015), the California Supreme Court clarified the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 by holding that its limitations period applies to claims against attorneys “whose merits necessarily depend on proof that an attorney violated a professional obligation in the course of providing professional services.” Although it resolved a district split by finding that the statute governs for non-legal malpractice claims against attorneys including those of non-clients, by having the statute’s applicability “turn on the conduct alleged and ultimately proven, not on the way the complaint was styled,” this 5-2 decision also increased the specter of creative pleading and lengthy litigation.
In Lee, the client had advanced $120,000 to cover attorney’s fees, costs and expert witness fees for the underlying litigation. After the case settled, the attorney advised the client that she had a credit balance of approximately $46,000. In response to her demand for a refund, the attorney then advised the client that she did not have a credit balance. More than one year later, the client filed suit to recover the $46,000, plus interest. The trial court sustained the attorney’s demurrer based on the one-year statute of limitations in section 340.6. The appellate court, however, reversed, reasoning that the client’s claim could be construed as one for conversion, in which case section 340.6 would not apply.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Boston Building Boom Seems Sustainable
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAccording to the analytics and advisory firm PPR, the Boston-area market is “ungodly tight.” So even with all the building planned for the area, it’s likely to make the market normal and not lead to a glut. PPR predicts that the building boom may cool off in 2016, with the next mayoral administration.
Some of the condo real estate has been fetching multi-million prices. Sue Hawkes, president and CEO of The Collaborative Cos. Points out that there are about 1,500 units in Boston priced in excess of $2 million. She wonders about future buyers in the luxury market. “Where are all these people going to come from?”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Court Holds that Demolition Exclusion Does Not Apply and Carrier Has Duty to Defend Additional Insureds
September 02, 2024 —
Craig Rokuson - Traub LiebermanIn the recent case of
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Trisura Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101953 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2024), the court had occasion to consider the classic additional insured fact pattern of a construction accident. Travelers insured the general contractor and provided a defense to the general contractor as well as its wholly owned subsidiary. Trisura insured the subcontractor, who employed the injured worker. Travelers brought suit, alleging that Trisura is obligated to defend and indemnify the general contractor, its subsidiary, the owner of the building (The City of New York), and the tenant.
Trisura denied any obligation to provide coverage due to the application of the “Demolition Exclusion” to the Trisura policy, which provides, in part, that there is no coverage for injury or damage arising out of the demolition of any building or structure which has original ground height in excess of three stories. The accident occurred during the interior demolition of the fifth floor of the building. The court held that the Demolition Exclusion applies only when there is a complete tearing down, razing, or destruction of an entire building. As the accident occurred during interior demolition, the exclusion did not apply.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub LiebermanMr. Rokuson may be contacted at
crokuson@tlsslaw.com
Court Strikes Expert Opinion That Surety Acted as a “De Facto Contractor”
November 27, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesDesignating and admitting experts is a vital component of any construction dispute. Many construction disputes require experts. Many construction disputes can only be won with the role of an expert. Thus, experts and construction disputes go hand-in-hand. No doubt about it! Time needs to be spent on developing the right expert opinions to support your burden of proof. This means you want to designate the right expert that can credibly and reliably render an expert opinion.
It is common for one party to move to strike the testimony and expert opinions of another party. This is referred to as a Daubert motion. Sometimes the motion is about gamesmanship. Sometimes it is to see how the judge rules on the issue. Sometimes there is a legitimate reason associated with the expert opinion. And, sometimes, it is a combination of the above. Regardless of the reason, parties know the weight expert opinions can have and, therefore, treat the opinions seriously prompting the Daubert motion.
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
Toll Brothers Named #1 Home Builder on Fortune Magazine's 2023 World's Most Admired Companies® List
February 06, 2023 —
Toll Brothers, Inc.FORT WASHINGTON, Pa., Feb. 01, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Toll Brothers, Inc. (NYSE:TOL) (www.TollBrothers.com), the nation's leading builder of luxury homes, has been named the #1 Most Admired Home Builder in the 2023 Fortune magazine survey of the World's Most Admired Companies, the eighth year the company has achieved this honor.
To determine the best-regarded companies, Fortune and its partner Korn Ferry conducted the 2023 survey with 645 of the world's highest-revenue companies across 52 industries and 27 countries. Executives, directors, and Wall Street analysts were asked to rate companies in their own industries on nine criteria, ranging from investment value, financial soundness and quality of management, to quality of products, innovation, social responsibility and people management.
"We are proud to once again be honored as the #1 Home Builder on the Fortune World's Most Admired Companies list," said Douglas C. Yearley, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Toll Brothers. "All of us at Toll Brothers are focused on upholding our reputation for quality, value, and service built over the past 56 years. I would like to thank every Toll Brothers employee for their commitment to excellence and to serving our customers. We appreciate this tremendous recognition within the home building industry and the larger business community."
ABOUT TOLL BROTHERS
Toll Brothers, Inc., a Fortune 500 Company, is the nation's leading builder of luxury homes. The Company was founded 56 years ago in 1967 and became a public company in 1986. Its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TOL." The Company serves first-time, move-up, empty-nester, active-adult, and second-home buyers, as well as urban and suburban renters. Toll Brothers builds in over 60 markets in 24 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, as well as in the District of Columbia. The Company operates its own architectural, engineering, mortgage, title, land development, golf course development, smart home technology, and landscape subsidiaries. The Company also operates its own lumber distribution, house component assembly, and manufacturing operations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cause Still Unclear in March Retaining Wall Collapse on $900M NJ Interchange
June 07, 2021 —
Stephanie Loder - Engineering News-RecordA probe continues by construction engineer Hardesty and Hanover LLC into what caused the late March collapse of a retaining wall that is part of one of New Jersey's largest roadbuilding projects—the already late-running effort called Direct Connection, which aims to untangle the convoluted interchange of north-south I-295 and east-west Route 42 in Camden County.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephanie Loder, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Washington Supreme Court Finds Agent’s Representations in Certificate of Insurance Bind Insurance Company to Additional Insured Coverage
February 03, 2020 —
Jason Taylor - Traub LiebermanIn T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., 450 P.3d 150 (Wash. 2019) the Washington Supreme Court addressed whether an insurance company is bound by its agent’s written representation—made in a certificate of insurance—that a particular corporation is an additional insured under a given policy. The question arose in a case where: (1) the Ninth Circuit had already ruled that the agent acted with apparent authority, but (2) the agent’s representation turned out to be inconsistent with the policy and (3) the certificate of insurance included additional text broadly disclaiming the certificate’s ability to “amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by” the policy. According to the Court, under Washington law the answer is yes: an insurance company is bound by the representation of its agent in those circumstances. Otherwise, the Court reasoned, an insurance company’s representations would be meaningless and it could mislead without consequence.
At the heart of this case were two T-Mobiles entities: T-Mobile USA and T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”), which were distinct legal entities. T-Mobile NE engaged a contractor to construct a cell phone tower on a rooftop in New York City. The contract between T-Mobile NE and the contractor required the contractor to obtain a general liability insurance policy, to annually provide T-Mobile NE “with certificates of insurance evidencing [that policy’s] coverage,” and to name T-Mobile NE as an additional insured under the policy. T-Mobile USA was not a party to the contract, but was nonetheless aware of it and approved the contract as to form.
The contractor obtained the required insurance policy from Selective. The policy provided that a third party would automatically become an “additional insured” under the policy if the contractor and the third party entered into their own contract that required the contractor to add the third party to its insurance policy as an additional insured. Because T-Mobile USA did not have a contract with the contractor, it did not automatically become an additional insured under the policy. Nevertheless, over the course of several years, Selective’s agent issued a series of certificates of insurance to “T-Mobile USA Inc., its Subsidiaries and Affiliates” that stated that those entities were “included as an additional insured [under the policy] with respect to” certain areas of coverage. The agent signed those certificates as Selective’s “Authorized Representative.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Dust Obscures Eleventh Circuit’s Ruling on “Direct Physical Loss”
October 12, 2020 —
Walter J. Andrews, Michael S. Levine & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn August 18, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a District Court’s 2018 ruling that Sparta Insurance Company need not cover a south Florida restaurant’s lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. But, in doing so, the appeals court appears to deviate from even its own understanding of “direct physical loss” under controlling Florida law.
In the underlying coverage action, the insured, Mama Jo’s Inc. operating as Berries in the Grove, sought coverage under its “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for business income loss and incurred extra expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant.
Reprinted courtesy of
Walter J. Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at wandrews@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
