Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?
November 19, 2021 —
Michael T. Kennedy Jr. - BERDING|WEILOne of the most common features in construction defect cases is the Case Management Order (“CMO”) or Pre-Trial Order (“PTO”) to govern pre-trial and mediation procedures. CMOs and PTOs arose in the days when the HOA would sue the developer, the developer would cross-complaint against the subcontractors, and each defendant and cross-defendant might have 2 or 3 insurance carriers defending, each of whom may retain their own panel counsel. In a large case there may have been 20 parties and 30 defense attorneys. In order to avoid the cost and chaos of all of those parties propounding their own discovery, and in order to prepare these cases for mediation well before trial and the associated costs, it became standard practice in California to include provisions in the CMO to stay all discovery until just before trial.
Plaintiff would provide a Defect List or Statement of Claims and the parties experts would meet and exchange information as part of the mediation process. All of the information exchanged would be subject to mediation privileges and inadmissible at trial. The benefit of this practice was that the parties (and carriers) would avoid the cost of formal discovery and allow the experts to discuss compromised scopes of repair to help settle the case while being able to take a more aggressive position at trial. The disadvantages are that each party uses its privileged initial expert reports to stake out negotiating positions more extreme than what they would put on at trial, with each side losing credibility with the other in assessing the value of the case, and for those cases that did not settle, the parties would be faced with having to do all of the depositions and discovery in the last 60 days, or delaying trial, or both.
Over the last 10 or 15 years with the advent of wrap-up insurance policies, these cases now usually involve 2 sides instead of 20; only the HOA and the developer remain in the case. However, old habits die hard, and the standard CMO/PTO hasn’t evolved with other aspects of these cases. The practice of staying all discovery and exchanging information only under mediation privileges remains, and as a result insurance carriers don’t receive the admissible evidence that they need to determine coverage and evaluate the real settlement value of the case until just before trial. On the plaintiff’s side, if most of the experts’ work is done under the guise of mediation privilege, those costs may not be recoverable. Outside the context of mediation, costs incurred in investigation of the defects and preparation of a scope and cost of repair are recoverable.
This reflexive claim of mediation privilege over all information exchanged during the case has outlived its usefulness. The CMO can and should remain to regulate formal discovery and to help the parties prepare for mediation, but regulated discovery should be opened early in the case. In California, the SB800 process already provides for the exchange of admissible information during the prelitigation right to repair process. Continuing that exchange during the early litigation allows the parties to continue to prepare for mediation, but waiving privileges had advantages for both sides.
A senior claims manager once commented that Plaintiff’s mediation-protected Statement of Claims “might as well be a stack of blank paper” for all of its usefulness to the carrier in assessing the value of the case. If the Plaintiff and it expects are free to inflate their claims early in the case without having to worry about every supporting those claims in front of a jury, they have little or no credibility. And if those claims are inflated or not “real,” not only can the carrier not properly assess the verdict range and settlement value of the case, but it may also be hampered in making a coverage determination. Simply put, if the exchange of real information through formal discovery is put off until just before trial, the defense cannot be ready to settle until then. Worse, the cost of defense goes through the roof in the last 60 days before trial as the lawyers’ scramble to take all of the depositions and to all of the other work that had been stayed for the previous year or two.
The Plaintiff is faced with the same question of credibility of defense experts where they are free to take a “low ball” negotiating position without having to support that position through cross-examination in front of the jury. Just as the carrier behind the defense attorney needs the Plaintiff’s “real” evidence to assess the claim, so does the HIOA Board of Directors behind the Plaintiff’s counsel. Additionally, in California as in most states, the cost of experts’ preparation for mediation may not be recoverable as costs or damages, but investigation of the defects and preparation of the scope and cost of repair is recoverable.
The biggest challenge is resolving construction defect claims for both sides is how to resolve these cases quickly while keeping costs under control. Practices that worked 20 years ago are no longer applicable with changes in insurance, and in light of some of the bad habits that arise when all of the information exchanged was confidential.
The CMO/PTO process can still be useful to regulate the discovery and mediation schedule given the volume of documents and other information to be exchanged but exchanging “real” information in a form that may come into evidence at trial should foster earlier resolution, resulting in cost savings for the parties. The CMO can provide for the parties to respond to controlled discovery, and the exchange of expert reports and potentially depositions can and should be done earlier in the case, well before the eve of trial. The parties can then assess the true value of each case and prepare for more substantive mediation without waiting until they are on the figurative courthouse steps.
Construction defect cases have a pattern, and it is tempting for busy lawyers to just put each case through the same algorithms that they have used for years. However, these cases have evolved and those of us handling these cases need to reevaluate our approach to these cases. Taking aggressive negotiating positions that no longer have any credibility with the other side has become counterproductive, and the exchange of real evidence earlier in the case would better serve our clients and carriers.
BERDING|WEIL is the largest and most experienced construction defect and common interest development law firm in California. For more information, please visit https://www.berding-weil.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael T. Kennedy Jr., BERDING|WEILMr. Kennedy may be contacted at
mkennedy@berdingweil.com
Chutes and Ladders...and Contracts.
November 25, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA contractor which designed and constructed a hydroelectric plant in Guatemala sued under the Federal Arbitration Act in federal court in Florida to overturn a project-related arbitration decision, “on the basis that the Tribunal had exceeded its powers.” That petition was denied based upon Eleventh Circuit precedent which foreclosed that challenge under the FAA for an arbitration conducted “under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards,” a.k.a., the “New York Convention.”
The U. S. 11th Circuit initially affirmed the lower court decision, but then upon an en banc rehearing reversed: holding that in a New York Convention case where the arbitration seat is in the U. S., or where United States law governs the arbitration conduct, “Chapter 1 of the FAA provides the grounds for vacatur of the arbitral award. … § 208 of the FAA provides that ‘Chapter 1 applies to actions and proceedings brought under [Chapter 2] to the extent that chapter is not in conflict with [Chapter 2] or the [New York] Convention as ratified by the United States.’ …Chapter 1 of the FAA… thus acts as a gapfiller and provides the vacatur grounds for an international arbitration award otherwise governed by Chapter 2.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements
March 19, 2024 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIt has long been the law in Washington that contracting parties are free to draft contractual indemnity agreements to allocate risk arising from performance of the work, and Courts will generally enforce those agreements as written. This well-settled principle was recently reaffirmed in King County v. CPM Development Corp., dba ICON Materials[1] a decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, wherein one party to an indemnity agreement attempted to evade its contractual obligations by arguing that certain common law indemnity principles supersede the written terms. This appeal followed a multi-week jury trial from which the client and Ahlers Cressman and Sleight legal team, including Lindsay Watkins, Klien Hilliard, and Christina Granquist, obtained a seven-figure judgment in the client’s favor, including an award of all attorneys’ fees and costs.
ICON was the general contractor on a Vashon Island Highway Pavement project for King County. Part of the work on the project involved hauling away and disposing of ground milled asphalt (the “millings”) at King County-approved sites. ICON and D&R Excavating Inc., (“D&R”) executed a subcontract for D&R to perform that work. The subcontract incorporated the contract between ICON and King County, including the obligation to stockpile millings only at approved sites. D&R, however, did not obtain the requisite approvals from King County, and placed the millings at various sites on the Island, including locations that King County explicitly rejected.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com
Home Buyers will Pay More for Solar
February 05, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing reported that a study’s results “found that homebuyers are willing to pay more for homes that have installed solar photovoltaic (PV) energy systems.” The team of researchers led by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Berkeley Laboratory “estimates a price premium of approximately $4 per watt of PV installed. For a typical PV system, the research team found that this translates into a price premium of $15,000.”
Furthermore, according to the NAHB, the study “suggests that the presence of energy-efficient home features is among the most important concerns for prospective home buyers.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Super Lawyers in 2016
February 16, 2016 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight is pleased to announce that the following lawyers have been named 2016 California Super Lawyers ®:
William G. Baumgaertner
Bruce Cleeland
Peter A. Dubrawski
Angela S. Haskins
Michael J. Leahy
Michael C. Parme
Jennifer K. Saunders
Additionally, Gregory M. Smith has been named a 2016 Super Lawyers ® Rising Star. Super Lawyers ® is a rating service of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA “5-alarm fire burned down a residential building under construction in the Montrose area” of Houston, Texas, reported Click 2 Houston. Almost 200 emergency personnel were on the scene.
Captain Ruy Lozano told Click 2 Houston that “firefighters worked to contain the blaze, before the imminent collapse because the fire suppression systems were not yet in place for the under-construction building.”
ABC News reported that fire fighters rescued Curtis Reissig, a construction worker from the fire. “It’s burning my eyes, my throat. I can’t breathe and I can’t hardly see anything,” Reissig told ABC News. “I could see a window. I went to that window. Trying to open that window in a panic. I couldn’t get the thing open. Smoke was getting heavier, just trying to get some air.”
ABC News reported that Reissig jumped down from a fifth story balcony to a ledge below, where “firefighters pulled him to safety.”
Read the full story at Click 2 Houston...
Read the full story at ABC News... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Certificates of Insurance May Confer Coverage
December 30, 2019 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCCertificates of insurance are a common tool used in the construction industry to provide proof of insurance coverage. The legal effect of certificates of insurance has been a source of debate in Washington. Insurance companies have argued that certificates of insurance are “informational only” and do not alter the terms of the applicable insurance policy. Insurance companies have taken the position that if a certificate of insurance provides for coverage that is different than what the policy provides, the insurance company is only bound to provide what the policy provides.
The Washington State Supreme Court weighed in on this issue in an opinion issued on October 10, 2019, and held that an insurance company is bound by the terms of its certificate of insurance – even if it conflicts with the policy. In T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Insurance Company of America, Selective’s agent issued a certificate of insurance to “T-Mobile USA, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliates” and stated that those entities were “included as additional insured” under the policy. The certificate of insurance was issued by Selective’s agent when T-Mobile’s contractor purchased an insurance policy from Selective for a cell tower project. The contractor’s agreement for the project was with T-Mobile Northeast – not T-Mobile USA. The contract between T-Mobile Northeast and the contractor stated that T-Mobile Northeast would be an additional insured. The Selective insurance policy stated that any third party would automatically be an additional insured if the contractor was required to name the third party as an additional insured. The contract did not provide that T-Mobile USA would be an additional insured.
A property owner damaged by the cell tower project sued T-Mobile USA. T-Mobile USA tendered the claim to Selective. Selective denied the claim because the contract between the contractor and T-Mobile Northeast did not require the contractor to name T-Mobile USA as an additional insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Haight has been named by Best Law Firms® as a Tier 1, 2 and 3 National Firm in Three Practice Areas in 2024
November 27, 2023 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight Brown & Bonesteel LLP is listed in the
Best Law Firms® (2024 Edition) with metro rankings in the following areas:
Los Angeles
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
- Metropolitan Tier 3
- Workers’ Compensation Law – Claimants
Orange County
- Metropolitan Tier 1
- Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
