Appellate Attorney’s Fees and the Significant Issues Test
June 29, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe significant issues test to determine the prevailing party in construction lien actions (which, by the way, also applies to breach of contract actions) applies to appellate attorney’s fees too! Under this test, the trial court has discretion to determine which party prevailed on the significant issues of the case for purposes of attorney’s fees. The trial court also has discretion to determine that neither party was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees.
In a recent decision, Bauer v. Ready Windows Sales & Service Corp., 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1417a (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), there were competing motions for appellate attorney’s fees. Both parties believed they should be deemed the prevailing party under Florida Statute s. 713.29 (statute that authorizes prevailing party attorney’s fees under Florida’s Construction Lien Law). The appellate court held that neither party was the prevailing party under the significant issues test: “[W]e conclude that each party lost on their appeal, while each party successfully defended that part of the judgment in their favor on the other party’s cross-appeal. Because both parties prevailed on significant issues, this Court finds that appellate fees are not warranted for either party.”
Bauer, supra. Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Virginia Chinese Drywall “property damage” caused by an “occurrence” and number of “occurrences”
August 04, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Dragas Management Corp. v. Hanover Insurance Co., No. 2:10cv547 (E.D. Va. July 21, 2011), claimant residential home general contractor and developer DMC filed for arbitration against insured drywall supply and install subcontractor Porter-Blaine seeking damages for (1) the replacement of defective Chinese drywall, and (2) the repair of resulting property to other components of the DMC homes and homeowners’ personal property in seventy-four homes. Porter-Blaine’s CGL insurer Citizens and excess insurer Hanover defended Porter-Blaine in the DMC arbitration.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alaska Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade
February 28, 2022 —
American Society of Civil EngineersJUNEAU, Alaska — The Alaska Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today released preliminary findings from the 2021 Report Card for Alaska's Infrastructure, with the full report slated to be released in coming weeks. Alaska civil engineers gave 12 categories of infrastructure an overall grade of a 'C-' meaning the state's infrastructure is in mediocre condition and requires attention. Alaska has consistently maintained its transportation infrastructure, solid waste and energy sectors despite omnipresent environmental threats, seismic events, permafrost and shore erosion. However, some sectors such as drinking water, wastewater, and Alaska's marine highways have fallen behind due to a lack of funding to keep up with current and future needs. Civil engineers graded aviation (C), bridges (B-), dams (C), drinking water (D), energy (C-), marine highways (D), ports and harbors (D+), rail (C), roads (C), solid waste (C), transit (B-) and wastewater (D).
"Our systems and state agencies have demonstrated commendable resilience in the face of seismic events and other natural disasters," said David Gamez, co-chair, 2021 Report Card for Alaska's Infrastructure. "Unfortunately, we face many other threats, ranging from shore erosion to permafrost, major temperature fluctuations and avalanches. We must keep our foot on the gas to address current and future challenges to prevent power outages, road closures, suspended drinking water services, and many more vital services."
To view the report card and all 12 categories, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/alaska/.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings
December 02, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Seventh Circuit found that the insurer was obligated to pay for siding of a building that was not damaged by hail so that it matched the replaced damaged portions of the siding. Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. 23607 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019).
A hail and wind storm damaged buildings owned by Windridge. The storm physically damaged the aluminum siding on the buildings' sought and west sides. Philadelphia Indemnity, Windridge's insurer, contended that it was only required to replace the siding on those sides. Windridge argued that replacement siding that matched the undamaged north and east elevations was no longer available, so Philadelphia had to replace the siding on all four sides of the buildings to that all of the siding matched.
Windridge sued and moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that matching was required. The only sensible result was to treat the damage as having occurred to the building's siding as a whole.
The policy was a replacement-cost policy. Philadelphia promised to "pay for direct physical 'loss' to 'Covered Property' caused by or resulting from" the storm, with the amount of loss being "the cost to replace the lost or damaged property with other property . . . of comparable material and quality . . . and . . . used for the same purpose." The loss payment provision offered four different measures for loss, leaving Philadelphia free to choose the least expensive: (1) pay the value of the lost or damaged property; (2) pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property; (3) take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier
September 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP blog on Construction Law, even though the Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated (NRS) Chapter 40 requires a general contractor “to provide pre-litigation notice (followed by an opportunity to repair) to a subcontractor or supplier the general contractor believes to be responsible” for the issue prior to filing suit, the Nevada Supreme Court “determined that NRS Chapter 40 imposes no such requirement upon a subcontractor.”
In Barrett v. Eighth Judicial District Court, “the court reasoned that ‘while the statutes’ and, indeed, chapter’s purpose is, in part, to allow defendants an initial opportunity to repair, the Legislature chose to carry out that purpose in the manner provided by the statutes, and [the Supreme Court] will not read into the statutes a notice requirement between a subcontractor and another subcontractor or supplier where none exist.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Declines to Create Exception to Privette Doctrine for “Known Hazards”
September 13, 2021 —
Tracy D. Forbath - Lewis BrisboisIn Gonzalez v. Mathis (Aug. 19, 2021, S247677) __ Cal.5th___, the California Supreme Court reversed an appellate decision holding that a landowner may be liable to an independent contractor, or the contractor’s workers, for injuries resulting from “known hazards,” as running contrary to the Privette doctrine.
In Gonzalez, the contractor, who specialized in washing skylights, slipped and fell while accessing the landowner’s particularly hard to reach skylight from a narrow retaining wall that was allegedly covered in loose gravel and slippery. (Slip opn., p. 3.) While the trial court initially granted the landowner summary judgment pursuant to the Privette doctrine, the appellate court reversed and held that the landowner had a responsibility to take reasonable safety precautions where there was a known safety hazard on the landowner’s premises. (Id. at p. 6.) Whether the landowner could have taken various safety precautions also raised disputed issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. (Ibid.)
However, the California Supreme Court concluded that no broad, third exception to the Privette doctrine lies; “unless a landowner retains control over any part of the contractor’s work and negligently exercises that retained control in a manner that affirmatively contributes to the injury [citation], it will not be liable to an independent contractor or its workers for an injury resulting from a known hazard on the premises.” (Slip opn., p. 2.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tracy D. Forbath, Lewis BrisboisMs. Forbath may be contacted at
Tracy.Forbath@lewisbrisbois.com
Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?
February 08, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMaguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal).
In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond. The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor. The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute. Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor. The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract. Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.
[A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal. Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal.
Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
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
Duty to Defend For Accident Exists, But Not Duty to Indeminfy
March 05, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Seventh Circuit found there was a duty to defend the additional insured under the policy, but not a duty to indemnify. Kmart Corp. v. Footstar, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1775 (7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2015).
By agreement, Footstar operated the footwear department in hundreds of Kmart stores around the country. Footstar's footwear departments were in designated areas of the Kmart stores. Section 18.1 of the Master Agreement required Footstar to defend and indemnify Kmart from "all damage . . . arising out of Footstar's performance or failure to perform under this Agreement." The same section also required Footstar to obtain additional insurance coverage for Kmart.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
