Asbestos Client Alert: Court’s Exclusive Gatekeeper Role May not be Ignored or Shifted to a Jury
February 07, 2014 —
Lee Marshall and Chandra L. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn Estate of Henry Barabin v. AstenJohnson, Inc., - F.3d -, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 774, 2014 WL 129884 (9th Cir., Jan. 15, 2014) en banc, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a $10.2 million judgment in the Plaintiffs’ favor in a case where Plaintiff alleged that occupational exposure to asbestos from dryer felts caused his mesothelioma. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by neglecting its duty as a “gatekeeper” under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), and Federal Rule of Evidence 702, by improperly admitting expert testimony at trial without first determining its reliability. The en banc court held that admitting the testimony on the debated theory that “each asbestos fiber causes mesothelioma” was prejudicial error and the court remanded the case for a new trial. The court also held that a reviewing court has the authority to make Daubert findings based on the record established by the district court, but in the instant case, the record was “too sparse” to determine whether the expert testimony was relevant and reliable or not.
This ruling is a victory for the defense in that it reaffirms the federal court’s exclusive gatekeeper role and holds that the role may not be ignored or shifted to a jury. Unfortunately, the court did not go so far as to evaluate the inherent reliability of expert opinions based on the theory that “each asbestos exposure causes mesothelioma.” As such, it did not provide guidance as to what specific foundational requirements are required to admit, or exclude, these types of opinions under a Daubert analysis.
In Barabin, Plaintiff alleged he was exposed to asbestos while working at a paper mill with dryer felts manufactured and supplied by Defendants. The issue was whether the dryer felts substantially contributed to Barabin’s development of mesothelioma, a determination that required expert testimony.
Reprinted Courtesy of Lee Marshall, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP and
Chandra L. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP
Mr. Lee may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com and Ms. Moore may be contacted at cmoore@hbblaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homeowner Sues Brick Manufacturer for Spalling Bricks
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA Columbia, South Carolina homeowner has sued Kinney Brick Co., alleging that the bricks used in his home were defective and are now crumbling. The lawsuit alleges that the manufacturer and the distributor were both aware that the bricks would retain moisture and crumble.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts From an Owners’ Perspective
July 25, 2022 —
ConsensusDocsThe Construction Owners Association of America
(COAA) is the largest association of construction owners in the United States. COAA just held its Spring Connect conference in downtown Baltimore on the University of Maryland, Baltimore (UMB) campus. One session featured “What I Love and Hate About Updating My Contracts from an Owners’ Perspective.”
ConsensusDocs’ Executive Director & Senior Counsel Brian Perlberg spoke on a panel with Joe Cleves of Taft Law and Pen Wolf from the Cleveland Clinic.
Pen Wolf from Cleveland Clinic outlined the process he used to update his contracts recently. The Cleveland Clinic builds facilities annually and owns different facilities at different locations. The clinic employs over 75,000 employees. For an owner with a broad reach like the Cleveland Clinic, Wolf recommended using outside counsel with construction expertise to update contracts. He concluded that while it was a significant effort, the endeavor to update the Clinic’s contracts was absolutely worth the time commitment and expense. Wolf shared that updating the Clinic’s contracts has generated positive reviews internally and externally. Now their written agreements better reflect their business practices in their construction design and construction program.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
ConsensusDocs
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Ahlers & Cressman’s Top 10 Construction Industry Contract Provisions
July 02, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJames R. Lynch of Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC, has published the first two parts of the four-part “Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions” series: “As a powerful mechanism to control contract risk, increase predictability, and reduce the cost and complexity of potential disputes, we frequently recommend that our clients’ contracts include a mutual waiver of consequential damages.”
The first part “explains the significance of such a clause and the risk a contractor assumes without it,” while the second part discusses “the various categories of damages flowing from a breach of contract and conclude[s] with examples of how parties can limit these damages to reflect their agreed allocation of risk.”
Read the full story, Part 1...
Read the full story, Part 2... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety
January 02, 2024 —
Joel P. Williams - White and Williams LLPThe Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work.
The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLPMr. Williams may be contacted at
williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com
Additional Insured Not Entitled to Indemnity Coverage For Damage Caused by Named Insured
February 23, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe additional insured unsuccessfully sought to recover damages to its building caused by the named insured. Brit UW, Ltd. v. Tripar, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2462 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2017).
Davis Russell Real Estate and Management LLC hired Tripar, Inc., a general contractor, to renovate a 12-unit apartment building. The entire roof was to be replaced by a roofing subcontractor. Davis Russell drafted a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) that governed the project. Tripar was to obtain a CGL policy and provide a certificate of insurance evidencing the coverage. Davis Russell was to be named as an additional insured.
Tripar's insurance broker prepared a certificate of insurance reflecting that a CGL policy was issued to Tripar by Brit UW, Ltd. But the certificate clearly stated that it was not issued by the insurer and that it did not alter coverage. The certificate of insurance further stated that it conferred no rights upon the holder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Insurer Rejecting Construction Defect Claim Must Share in Defense Costs
March 02, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiOne insurer, who accepted the tender of defense in a construction defect case, successfully moved for summary judgment against the second insurer, who denied the insured's tender. Interstate Fire & Cas. v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 2019 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5800 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 25,2019).
Standard Waterproofing Corporation was hired by the construction manager, G Builders, to perform waterproofing work as part of condominium conversion project. After the project was completed,the condominium occupants experienced water damage in their units. The Condominium Board retained an engineer who reported numerous issues of water infiltration relating to Standard's work.
The Condominium Board filed suit against the construction manager, who filed a third party complaint against Standard. Standard tendered to four different insurers, including plaintiff Interstate and defendant Aspen. Interstate agreed to defend, while Aspen and the other two insurers declined. Aspen argued there were no allegations of an occurrence resulting in property damage during its policy periods. Interstate filed for declaratory relief against Aspen and Standard.
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
