Congratulations 2019 DE, MA, NJ, NY and PA Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
December 09, 2019 —
White and Williams LLPFifteen White and Williams lawyers have been named by Super Lawyers as a Delaware, New Jersey or Pennsylvania "Super Lawyer" while eight received "Rising Star" designations. Each lawyer who received the distinction competed in a rigorous selection process which took into consideration peer recognition and professional achievement. The lawyers named to this year's Super Lawyer list represent a multitude of practices throughout the firm.
Super Lawyers 2019
John Balaguer, PI Defense: Med Mal
David Chaffin, Business Litigation
Kevin Cottone, PI Defense: Med Mal
Steven Coury, Real Estate: Business
John Eagan, Tax: Business
Randy Friedberg, Intellectual Property
Bridget La Rosa, Estate Planning & Probate
Christopher Leise, Civil Litigation: Defense
Randy Maniloff, Insurance Coverage
David Marion, Business Litigation
John McCarrick, Insurance Coverage
Peter Mooney, Business Litigation
Michael Olsan, Insurance Coverage
John Orlando, General Litigation
Wesley Payne, Insurance Coverage
Daryn Rush, Insurance Coverage
Anthony Salvino, Workers’ Comp
Patricia Santelle, Insurance Coverage
Jay Shapiro, Business Litigation
Heidi Sorvino, Bankruptcy: Business
Craig Stewart, Business Litigation
Andrew Susko, Civil Litigation: Defense
Robert Wright, Insurance Coverage
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
The Secret to an OSHA Inspection
December 02, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorWouldn’t it be nice to know ahead of time what an OSHA inspector will be looking for when he comes to your work site? Well, I know the secret. And, it’s not really a secret. Just look at OSHA’s top ten citation standards and it becomes quite clear.
In 2015, OSHA’s top ten most frequently cited violations are:
1. Fall protection (C)
2. Hazard communication
3. Scaffolding (C)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Benefits and Pitfalls of Partnerships Between Companies
December 21, 2016 —
Aarni Heiskanen – AEC BusinessTo bring innovations to the market, companies almost always need partnerships. Partnerships can offer scalability, productivity, and open up new markets. However, partnerships are not easy to establish and manage.
The benefits of partnering
Construction companies have always done joint ventures. The reason has been to simply be able to bid for and deliver a project that would be too big for one company at that specific moment. Partnering allows you to become larger than you are and to get work that would otherwise be out of your reach. It also lets you spread the risk in a demanding project among the members.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aarni@aepartners.fi
Eleventh Circuit Upholds Coverage for Environmental Damage from Sewage, Concluding It is Not a “Pollutant”
May 24, 2018 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn April 20, 2018, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed an Alabama district court decision finding that an “absolute pollution exclusion” did not bar coverage for environmental property damage and injuries from a sewage leak. Evanston Ins. Co. v. J&J Cable Constr., LLC, No. 17-11188, 2018 WL 1887459, (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2018).
J&J Cable was hired to install underground electrical conduit in a subdivision when it struck and broke the sewer pipe to two homes. As a result, sewage backed up into the homes causing property damage and personal injuries. The commercial general liability policy at issue contained an “absolute pollution exclusion,” which sought to bar coverage for “bodily injury” and “property damage” arising out of the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.” The insurer relied on an earlier Alabama federal district court decision, which precluded coverage for liability from lead paint exposure, concluding that lead was a pollutant under a similar exclusion. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed, recognizing that insurance is a state law issue and opting instead to rely on binding state court precedent. The Eleventh Circuit, therefore, found that the decision in U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Armstrong, 479 So. 2d 1164 (Ala. 1985), by the state’s highest court, the Alabama Supreme Court, governed. That case made a distinction between industrial waste and residential sewage. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit found that the “absolute pollution exclusion” did not preclude coverage for liability for injuries caused by sewage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters , Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Alexander D. Russo , Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@huntonak.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Court of Appeals: Absolution Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Workplace Coal-Tar Pitch Exposure Claims
January 10, 2018 —
Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterOn December 28, 2017, the Ohio Court of Appeals (Eighth District) held in GrafTech International, Ltd., et al. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., et al., No. 105258 that coverage for alleged injurious exposures to coal tar pitch was barred by a liability insurance policy’s absolute pollution exclusion. Applying Ohio law, the court concluded that Pacific Employers had no duty to defend GrafTech or pay defense costs in connection with claims by dozens of workers at Alcoa smelting plants that they were exposed to hazardous substances in GrafTech products supplied to Alcoa as early as 1942.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Another Reminder to ALWAYS Show up for Court
July 20, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed the need to always respond to a lawsuit on multiple occasions here at Construction Law Musings. However, I keep reading cases where the defendant fails to appear either by pleading or in person. Such action is never a good idea as demonstrated once again in the case of Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Precision Constr. & Mgmt. Group, LLC, a case out of the Eastern District of Virginia.
The basic facts are not a surprise and are taken from the magistrates report that was adopted by the District Court. Balfour Beatty and Precision entered into a subcontract for some electrical work at a project located in Loudoun County. The subcontract included an attorney fees provision and provided for liquidated damages for late performance and the typical damages for default. The project began in July of 2016 with substantial completion July 5, 2018. Precision failed to supply sufficient manpower and sent a letter to Precision stating the same. After an agreement between the parties regarding supplementation by Balfour Beatty and to the accompanying back charge, Balfour Beatty informed Precision by letter that it would be liable for any liquidated damages. The Owner began assessing liquidated damages and Balfour Beatty subsequently terminated the subcontract and discovered defective work by Precision.
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
Toxic Drywall Not Covered Under Homeowner’s Policy
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Duphuys of Baton Rouge Louisiana found themselves needing to argue both sides of an issue, according to the judge in Duphuy v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company. The Duphuys alleged that the drywall in their home “emits odorous gases that cause damage to air-condition and refrigerator coils, copper tubing, electrical wiring, computer wiring, and other household items.” Additionally, they reported damage to “their home’s insulation, trimwork, floors, cabinets, carpets, and other items” which they maintained were “covered under the ‘ensuing loss’ portion of their policy.”
Their insurer declined coverage, stating that the damages were not a “direct, physical loss,” and even if they were “four different exclusions independently exclude coverage, even if such loss occurred.” The policy excludes defective building materials, latent defects, pollutants, and corrosion damage. The court noted that “ambiguities in policy exclusions are construed to afford coverage to the insured.”
The court did determine that the Duphuys were not in “a situation where the plaintiffs caused the risk for which they now seek coverage.” The judge cited an earlier case, In re Chinese Drywall, “a case with substantially similar facts and construing the same policy” and in that case, “property damage” was determined to “include the loss of use of tangible property.” The court’s conclusion was that the Duphuys “suffered a direct, physical loss triggering coverage under their policy.”
Unfortunately for the Duphuys, at this point the judge noted that while they had a “direct, physical loss,” the exclusions put them “in the tough predicament of claiming the drywall is neither defective nor its off-gassing corrosive or a pollutant, but nonetheless damage-causing.”
In the earlier Chinese Drywall case, the judge found that “faulty and defective materials” “constitutes a physical thing tainted by imperfection or impairment.” The case “found the drywall served its intended purpose as a room divider and insulator but nonetheless qualified under the exclusion, analogizing the drywall to building components containing asbestos that courts have previously determined fit under the same exclusion.” In the current case, the judge concluded that the drywall was “outside the realm of coverage under the policy.”
The court also found that it had to apply the corrosion exclusion, noting that the plaintiffs tried to evade this by stating, “simplistically and somewhat disingenuously, that the damage is not caused by corrosion but by the drywall itself.” The plaintiffs are, however, parties to another Chinese drywall case, Payton v. Knauf Gips KG, in which “they directly alleged that ‘sulfides and other noxious gases, such as those emitted from [Chinese] drywall, cause corrosion and damage to personal property.’” As the court pointed out, the Duphuys could not claim in one case that the corrosion was caused by gases emitted by the drywall and in another claim it was the drywall itself. “They hope their more ambiguous allegations will be resolved in their favor and unlock the doors to discovery.”
The court quickly noted that “the remaining damage allegations are too vague and conclusory to construe” and permitted “exploration of the latent defect and pollution exclusions.”
The judge concluded that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient facts to establish coverage under the ensuing loss provision, stating that the “plaintiffs must allege, at the very least, how the drywall causes damage to the trimwork, carpet, etc., not simply that it does so.” Given the court’s determinations in the case, the plaintiffs’ motion was dismissed.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steven Cvitanovic Recognized in JD Supra's 2017 Readers' Choice Awards
April 05, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPJD Supra named Partner Steven Cvitanovic among the Top 10 Authors in the construction industry in its 2017 Readers’ Choice Awards, which recognizes the excellence and achievement of firms and authors who published their substantive work on JD Supra in 2016.
JD Supra editors chose the 25 industries and topics covered in these awards for their timeliness as well as their proven, ongoing importance. In each category, one firm and ten authors were recognized for consistently achieving the highest readership and engagement for all of 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at
scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
