White and Williams Ranked in Top Tiers of "Best Law Firms"
November 08, 2021 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law, Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law and Media Law. Our Boston, Delaware, New Jersey, New York City and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas.
National Tier 1
Insurance Law
National Tier 2
Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
National Tier 3
Media Law
Metropolitan Tier 1
Boston
Insurance Law
Litigation - Insurance
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Dispute Waged Over Design of San Francisco Subway Job
July 30, 2019 —
Erica Berardi - Engineering News-RecordContractor Tutor Perini Corp. is clashing with the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency over what the firm says are alleged design flaws that may push past December the completion of the already-delayed $1.6-billion Central Subway Project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Erica Berardi, ENRMs. Berardi may be contacted at
BerardiE@enr.com
Seven Trends That Impact Commercial Construction Litigation in 2021
March 29, 2021 —
Jeffrey Kozek & E. Mitchell Swann - Construction Executive2021 stands to bring sizeable change to the commercial construction industry as trends that had been on the horizon meet the impact of the pandemic. That means it will be even more important for architects, engineers, contractors and owners to prioritize revisiting their project plans as the industry adapts so that they can better reduce their likelihood of facing litigation down the line.
While many in the industry will struggle to react to the ongoing environment, building stronger contractual understanding and preparedness to adapt could be the difference in being able to complete the work and move onto the next project in a timely manner. Meanwhile, contractors are using a wider usage of technologies for improved project communication and efficiency.
In the coming year, there are seven trends will have the greatest impact on commercial construction.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey Kozek and E. Mitchell Swann, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Power & Energy - Emerging Insurance Coverage Cases of Interest
November 30, 2020 —
David G. Jordan & Tiffany Casanova - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Power & Energy sector faces a multitude of risks that impact output and profitability, requiring sound risk management and robust insurance programs. As of recent, like most industries, there have been significant challenges facing the industry in light of COVID-19. These issues, including decreased product demand as well as supply- side issues, have been well documented. However, other issues continue to impact Power & Energy providers, with significant insurance coverage implications that are worthy of note. Below is a summary of three open cases of interest, where declaratory relief has been sought by energy providers’ insurance carriers, seeking an avoidance of coverage.
1. Fracking Dispute and “Intentional Acts”
In the Texas case of The James River Insurance Co. v. Clearpoint Chemicals LLC et al., No. 4:20-cv-0076 (N.D.Tex), James River Insurance Company (“James River”) is asking a federal district court to declare that it does not owe defense or indemnity to its insured for acts it defines as both intentional and/or malicious acts.
Reprinted courtesy of
David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Casanova may be contacted at TCasanova@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Duty To Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part
May 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of a duty to defend, but reversed, in part, the insurer's duty to indemnify. Carithers v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5540 (11th Cir. April 7, 2015).
After discovering a number of defects in their home, the Carithers sued their homebuilder, Cronk Duch Miller & Associates. Cronk Duch's insurer, Mid-Continent Casualty Company, refused to defend.The parties entered into a consent judgment for $90,000 in favor of the Carithers. Cronk Duch then assigned to the Carithers the right to collect the judgment from Mid-Continent.
The Carithers then sued Mid-Continent. Florida law applied. Mid-Continent has issued four policies to Cronk Duch from March 2005 to October 2008. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the duty to defend issue. The underlying complaint alleged that the defects could not have been discovered until 2010, after the last policy period. The district court rejected Mid-Continent's argument that property damage occurred when it was discovered or when it reasonably could have been discovered. Therefore, summary judgment on the duty to defend was granted to the Carithers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Firm Seeks to Squash Subpoena in Coverage CD Case
May 20, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the New Jersey Law Journal, the insurance firm Carroll McNulty & Kull was “subpoenaed in connection with an out-of-state coverage dispute stemming from construction litigation that yielded a $55 million verdict," and "is fighting a demand that it hand over its file.”
Carroll McNulty & Kull told the New Jersey Law Journal that “the subpoena ‘is a transparent attempt to obtain documents ordinarily protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.”
The New Jersey Law Journal reported that the subpoena “seeks ‘your entire file for the time period beginning Oct. 1, 2012, and ending June 19, 2014, pertaining in any manner to insurance policies issued by Crum and Forster Specialty Insurance Company.’ Included in the demand are ‘all handwritten or electronically stored notes; electronic and other communications,’ ‘emails and all attachments to those emails, time records, and bills,’ and ‘any documents and materials reviewed.’”
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan has been assigned the motion to quash.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
That Boilerplate Language May Just Land You in Hot Water
December 17, 2015 —
Kevin Brodehl – California Construction Law BlogThe following post originally appeared in my partner
Kevin Brodehl‘s informative blog,
Money and Dirt. If you’re involved in real estate investment, development and/or secured lending in California, it’s a must read. While Kevin’s post below discusses a case involving a real estate purchase agreement, it applies equally to construction contracts, perhaps even more so, since I can’t think of any other type of contract in which indemnity and integration clauses are as common, or as integral.
Almost all real estate purchase and sale agreements contain provisions relating to integration and indemnity.
In the “boilerplate” worldview, these provisions are standard, generic, and basically all the same — integration clauses prohibit extrinsic evidence that would contradict the terms of the agreement, and indemnity clauses force the seller to protect the buyer from third party claims arising after closing.
But a recently published opinion by the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division Three in Santa Ana) — Hot Rods, LLC v. Northrop Grunman Systems Corp. — clarifies that integration and indemnity clauses can have vastly different effects depending on how they are drafted.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin Brodehl, California Construction Law BlogMr. Brodehl may be contacted at
kbrodehl@wendel.com
