Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole
July 30, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistArkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]
In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Arizona Is the No. 1 Merit Shop Construction State, According to ABC’s 2020 Scorecard
February 15, 2021 —
ABC - Construction ExecutiveAssociated Builders and Contractors released its
2020 Merit Shop Scorecard, an annual ranking based on state policies and programs that encourage workforce development, strengthen career and technical education, grow careers in construction, and promote fair and open competition for taxpayer-funded construction projects.
Arizona topped the rankings for the first time this year based on the state’s promotion of free enterprise and investment in tomorrow’s construction workforce, a top priority for ABC. Georgia followed Arizona in second place this year, up from fifth in 2019. Florida, a year-to-year high performer, remained in the top five after two years in the top rank in 2018 and 2019.
“A foundational pillar of ABC is building the next generation of craft professionals, and the top states in this year’s rankings lead the country in workforce development policies,” said Ben Brubeck, ABC’s vice president of regulatory, labor and state affairs. “The merit shop contractor can flourish in free enterprise environments created in states like Arizona and Florida, which has positive ripple effects on a state’s overall economic growth.”
Reprinted courtesy of
ABC, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Contract Basics: Attorney Fee Provisions
November 13, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed the need for
attorney fee provisions in your construction contracts in prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, but thought it merited a restatement of the reasons for the inclusion of such fee provisions (and changing of such provisions when presented) here with the second of my
construction contract basics posts.
Why would you want such a provision? The answer is that without it, or a statute specifically allowing for such fees, a Virginia court will not award your attorney fees without such a provision. Virginia, and a lot of other states, follow the so-called “American Rule” when it comes to attorney fees and costs. In short, that rule states that the parties to litigation pay their own way unless they agree otherwise. While it may seem unfair to make a successful litigant pay for the privilege of being right, that is the rule in Virginia. Throw in the fact that Virginia courts
strictly construe construction contracts and voila we have a situation where without a provision in the contract stating that one party or both will be able to collect attorney fees should that contractor or subcontractor prevail, a construction professional that gets sued (whether rightly or wrongly) will be left with a hefty attorney fees bill and no way to recoup those fees through the courts or any other method.
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
California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even
April 20, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogEarlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed.
The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case
To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . .
Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200).
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
Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee
November 23, 2016 —
Renata L. Hoddinott & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn a case which was the subject of our Alert dated October 31, 2016 (click here for prior alert), the Court of Appeal of the State of California – Second Appellate District on November 17, 2016 issued a modification to the opinion in Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc. (10/26/16 – Case No. B268937) with no change in judgment. In Khosh, the Court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant under the Privette doctrine where plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant affirmatively contributed to his injuries.
Reprinted courtesy of
Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Expert Medical Science Causation Testimony Improperly Excluded under Daubert; ID of Sole Cause of Medical Condition Not Required
April 15, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin & Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn April 4, 2014, in Messick v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendant Pharmaceutical Corporation because the district court improperly excluded expert testimony. The three-judge panel held that the district court erred by excluding causation testimony offered by Plaintiff's expert it found to be irrelevant and unreliable.
Plaintiff was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. In response to her development of osteoporosis after chemotherapy, Plaintiff treated with the drug Zometa for several months in 2002. Zometa is a bisphosphonate, a class of drug commonly used to treat multiple myeloma. Such drugs are generally used to reduce or eliminate the possibility of skeletal-related degeneration and injuries to which cancer patients are particularly susceptible. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation produces Zometa, which was approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002. In 2005 after encountering issues with her jaw, it was discovered that Plaintiff had osteonecrosis near three of her teeth. The oral specialists treating Plaintiff did so under the assumption that she was suffering from bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaw ("BRONJ"), a condition recognized by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons ("AAOMS"). Plaintiff's BRONJ healed in 2008 - three years after beginning treatment.
Thereafter, Plaintiff brought suit against Novartis for strict products liability, negligent manufacture, negligent failure to warn, breach of express and implied warranty, and loss of consortium. In support of her claims, Plaintiff offered her expert's testimony on ONJ and BRONJ, and on the causal link between plaintiff's bisphosphonate treatment and later development of BRONJ. Novartis filed a Daubert motion to exclude the specific causation testimony of Plaintiff's experts and a motion seeking summary judgment. The district court granted both motions on the basis that Plaintiff's expert testimony was irrelevant and unreliable.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects
July 23, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Board of Equalization tower in Sacramento, California has gone through $60 million in repairs to deal with issues such as bats, floods, leaky windows, mold, and glass panels that would “pop off the building with no warning and shatter on the sidewalk,” according to Insurance News. However, an additional $115 million in repairs are planned to deal with “crumbling core plumbing” and “concrete-and-glass exterior,” among other problems.
Now, “a Sacramento attorney filed a $50 million tort claim this month, a first step toward suing the tax-collecting department on behalf of employees who say their bosses downplayed the building's ailments and put workers' health at risk.”
"Even though my lawyers told me not to say this, I don't think it's safe," board Chairman Jerome Horton told Insurance News.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Incorporation by Reference in Your Design Services Contract– What Does this Mean, and Are You at Risk? (Law Note)
June 19, 2023 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaHas an Owner ever asked you to sign his contract before you started work on a new design project? Rhetorical question– this happens all the time, right? Especially in commercial work, developers or owners typically are not happy to simply agree to your Proposal for Services, but instead want you to sign *their* contract.
There are some risks with that you should be aware of — one of which is the seemingly arcane and legalistic language that reads something like this:
“The Developer’s contract with Owner is hereby incorporated by reference.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
