CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

September 03, 2019 — Amy E. Vulpio - Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
In In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), the court confirmed what many asbestos defendants and their insurers long suspected: that “the withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock” and other defendants. This “startling pattern of misrepresentation” included plaintiffs’ attorneys who, out of “perverted ethical duty,” counseled their clients to file claims against multiple trusts without valid factual grounds for so doing. Such “double dipping” and other abuse not only harms asbestos defendants and insurers, but also dilutes recoveries for legitimate claims. Now – five years after Garlock – the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a coordinated initiative to fight asbestos trust fraud and mismanagement. However, a series of recent bankruptcy court rulings suggests that this initiative stumbled out of the gate by focusing on the wrong issues. Asbestos defendants and their insurers can learn from the DOJ’s missteps. In November 2017, invoking Garlock, 20 state attorneys general wrote to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to devote DOJ resources to fighting asbestos trust abuse. A September 13, 2018 DOJ press release announced an initiative to increase the transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts. Through its United States Trustee Program (UST), the DOJ objected to the debtors’ proposed legal representative for future claims (FCR) in several Chapter 11 cases involving asbestos liabilities: Lawrence Fitzpatrick in Duro Dyne and James L. Patton, Jr. in Maremont, Fairbanks and Imerys Talc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amy E. Vulpio, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Vulpio may be contacted at vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Replevin Actions: What You Should Know

November 08, 2021 — Craig H. O'Neill - White and Williams LLP
A contractor client of White and Williams recently found itself in a prickly situation. They had default terminated a subcontractor on a major commercial project and withheld payment to that subcontractor on an outstanding invoice as permitted under the terms of the subcontract until the project was completed. Clearly irate over being terminated, the subcontractor walked-off of the project with thousands of dollars’ worth of project materials and equipment that had been paid for by the owner. While on some projects this may amount to nothing more than an annoyance or inconvenience, in this case it was a significant problem because some of the wrongfully removed materials were custom manufactured overseas and not easily replaceable. The client therefore needed to take immediate action to retrieve the stolen materials so that the project would not be delayed. Specifically, it needed to file a replevin action against the subcontractor. A replevin action is a little known but powerful area of the law. In its simplest terms, replevin is a procedure whereby seized goods may be provisionally restored to their owner pending the outcome of an action to determine the rights of the parties concerned. The requirements of a replevin action differ by jurisdiction. For example, in Pennsylvania, the Rules of Civil Procedure devote an entire section to replevin actions and spell out in precise detail the steps that must be taken. While you should be sure to strictly comply with the rules in your jurisdiction, here are a few general points to keep in mind:

• Where to File: A replevin action is typically commenced by filing a complaint in the appropriate jurisdiction. Generally speaking, it is best to file the action in the jurisdiction where the improperly seized materials are being held. If that location is unknown, you can also typically file the action in the jurisdiction where the project is located.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Craig H. O'Neill, White and Williams LLP
Mr. O'Neill may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Recent Federal Court Decision Favors Class Action Defendants

October 26, 2020 — Amber Karns & Dan Pipitone - Construction Executive
The commercial construction contracting and subcontracting industry in general is unique under the law for industry professionals, as they’re typically limited to wage and hour litigation under provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The majority of FLSA cases seek class action status or collective classification, while other FLSA litigation is initiated by individuals seeking damages. For the former, past and current employees can opt into class action litigation and seek collective damages against a construction company. The looming financial burden of class action or collective litigation against construction companies consume time, money and resources to the extent it’s often advisable for Defendants to negotiate an unfair settlement. Yet, thanks to a recent federal court decision on March 27, 2020, the legal maneuvering behind unreasonable Plaintiff demands may soon be counter-balanced by the class action Defendants’ right to due process review. A recent legal opinion in a recent FLSA case has potentially wide-ranging implications for Defendant employers mired in future class action litigation. Moreover, as the FLSA applies to all employers, this decision potentially applies to all ownership groups representing the commercial construction industry, extending to partners, contractors and subcontractors. Reprinted courtesy of Amber Karns & Dan Pipitone, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Pipitone may be contacted at dpipitone@munsch.com Ms. Karns may be contacted at akarns@munsch.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The Vallagio HOA Appeals the Decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals

August 04, 2015 — David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation
As highlighted in our most recent post, the Colorado Court of Appeals’ Vallagio decision upheld a declaration provision that prohibited the amendment of a mandatory arbitration clause without the consent of the developer/declarant. Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al., 2015COA65 (Colo. App. May 7, 2015). This case protects a developer/declarant’s ability to arbitrate construction defect claims with a well-crafted declaration that requires declarant consent in order to amend the mandatory arbitration provisions for construction defect actions. However, the Vallagio ruling still hangs in the balance while the Colorado Supreme Court considers the condominium association’s petition for certiorari review, filed June 18, 2015. In its petition, the association argues that the declarant consent requirement violates public policy and four separate sections of the Colorado Common Interest Act (“CCIOA”). For instance, the association argued in the courts below that a declarant consent requirement violates section 217 of CCIOA, which governs unit owners’ voting percentage requirements and provides that declarations may not require more than 67% affirmative vote for amendments. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, reasoning that other provisions of section 217 contemplate consent requirements by parties other than unit owners, such as first mortgagees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---

Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian Wins Summary Judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court

November 29, 2021 — Bradley T. Guldalian - Traub Lieberman
On September 20, 2021, Traub Lieberman Partner Bradley T. Guldalian secured summary judgment in Pinellas County Circuit Court in St. Petersburg, Florida, on behalf of a Homeowner who invited an acquaintance to his house to assist him with hanging a gutter on his roof. While he was assisting the Homeowner installing the gutter, the Plaintiff fell from a ladder and sustained a comminuted left intertrochanteric (hip) fracture. The Plaintiff was taken to the hospital, where he underwent open reduction, internal fixation of his left hip fracture. He was hospitalized for five days and released in wheelchair. He incurred more than $70,000 in medical bills and was confined to a wheelchair for two months. The Plaintiff filed a negligence action against the Homeowner alleging he improperly set up the ladder causing it to become unstable, thereby creating a dangerous condition on the premises which proximately caused his fall. The Plaintiff claimed the Homeowner breached the duty he owed the Plaintiff to provide safe and stable equipment for his use. After engaging in discovery, Mr. Guldalian moved for summary judgment arguing that because the Plaintiff could not explain in his deposition why he fell from the ladder, the Plaintiff could not establish—as a matter of law—the Homeowner was negligent, did anything, or failed to do something, that proximately caused his injury. In support of his argument, Mr. Guldalian submitted the affidavit of an investigator who inspected the ladder after the Plaintiff’s fall and found no defect in, on, or about the ladder, and affirmed that the area where the ladder was set up had no raised or defective areas which could have caused the ladder to become unstable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bradley T. Guldalian, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Guldalian may be contacted at bguldalian@tlsslaw.com

---

Key Takeaways For Employers in the Aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Halt to OSHA’s Vax/Testing Mandate

January 24, 2022 — Laura H. Corvo - White and Williams LLP
Political pundits and legal scholars have been engaged in frenzied debate trying to decipher the fallout of the United States Supreme Court’s decision that stopped stopped the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (OSHA) from enforcing its Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) which mandated that employers with 100 or more employees require workers to show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. The Court’s decision prevents OSHA from enforcing its ETS until all legal challenges have been heard. Because the Court concluded that those legal challenges are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their argument that OSHA does not have the statutory authority to issue its vaccine and testing mandates, there is significant doubt that they will ever come to fruition. While the pundits and scholars have now had their say, employers, who are struggling to manage a highly contagious variant, a tight labor market, and employees with divergent and staunch views on vaccination, are also left wondering what the Court’s decision means for them and what they should be doing. Here are some key takeaways for employers in the aftermath of the Court’s decision. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laura H. Corvo, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Corvo may be contacted at corvol@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers® and Rising Stars

February 21, 2022 — Traub Lieberman
Traub Lieberman is pleased to announce that two Partners from the Chicago, IL office have been selected to the 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers list. In addition, three Partners have been named to the 2022 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. 2022 Illinois Super Lawyers

• Brian Bassett – Insurance Coverage
• Dana Rice – Insurance Coverage

2022 Super Lawyers Rising Stars

• Brandt Allen – Insurance Coverage
• Jessica Kull – Civil Litigation: Defense
• Jeremy Macklin – Insurance Coverage

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Traub Lieberman

---

TRI Pointe Merges with Weyerhaeuser’s Real Estate Company

July 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Big Builder, “TRI Pointe settled--expectedly--on its mammoth $2.8 billion deal to acquire Weyerhaeuser's five home building operations in the Northwest, California/Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and the Mid-Atlantic regions, a talent-rich operator group, 27,000 building lots, and power brand names via a complex Reverse Morris Trust financial transaction.” This now makes TRI Pointe “one of the top 10 largest public homebuilders in the United States by equity market capitalization based on the closing price of TRI Pointe common stock on July 8, 2014,” according to their press statement, as quoted in Big Builder. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---