Karen Campbell, Kristen Perkins to Speak at CLM 2020 Annual Conference in Dallas
March 02, 2020 —
Karen Campbell & Kristen Perkins - Lewis BrisboisNew York Partner Karen L. Campbell and Fort Lauderdale Partner Kristen D. Perkins will both speak at the upcoming CLM 2020 Annual Conference taking place March 18 to 20 at the Gaylord Texan Resort outside Dallas, Texas.
On March 19 at 2:00 p.m., Ms. Perkins will join a panel discussion titled “Predictive Analytics – You Don’t Need a Crystal Ball to Predict the Future,” exploring how predictive analytics affects litigation management programs, including case budgets, case cycle times, and claims outcomes. The panelists will also look at how machine learning picks up on nuances or anomalies that can affect analytics and give attendees a clearer picture on expected case parameters, and how that information can empower claims professionals during firm selection.
Then, on March 20 at 10:40 a.m., Ms. Campbell will join a roundtable discussion titled “How to Calculate Damages and Defend in Serious Injury Cases,” covering the calculation of both economic and non-economic damages, as well as trends and recent verdicts involving punitive damages and assessing the various types of third-party liability.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karen Campbell, Lewis Brisbois and
Kristen Perkins, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Campbell may be contacted at Karen.Campbell@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Perkins may be contacted at Kristen.Perkins@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Change Order Bill Becomes Law: RCW 39.04.360
July 08, 2024 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCA new statute (RCW 39.04.360) became effective on June 6, 2024, and it applies to extra work performed by contractors and subcontractors on public and private projects in Washington State. The intent of the original bill was to allow contractors and subcontractors to get paid sooner for undisputed additional work. The statute does not apply to private residential projects of 12 units or less. The statute allows for recovery of interest for contractors/subcontractors at 1% per month (12% per year) on the value of the additional work if the statute is violated.
Here are the requirements of the new statute:
- Public and private owners must issue a change order for the undisputed amount of additional work performed by a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier no later than 30 days after the work is satisfactorily completed and the change is requested by the contractor.
- General contractors, and subcontractors with lower-tier subs, must issue a change order to their subcontractors impacted by the change within 10 days after receipt of the approved change order from the owner/upper-tier contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Supreme Court of Washington State Upholds SFAA Position on Spearin Doctrine
September 13, 2021 —
Peter Roth – The Surety & Fidelity Association of AmericaSeptember 9, 2021 (WASHINGTON, DC) –
The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) commends the decision of The Supreme Court of The State of Washington to reverse the lower court ruling in the case of Lake Hills Investments, LLC vs. Rushforth Construction Co. As argued by SFAA, the Supreme Court found the contractor should not be responsible for damage caused by the defective design provided by the owner even where the contractor was responsible for certain defective work. In addition, the contractor is not completely barred from asserting this defense if the defects were caused by a combination of deficient performance by the contractor and deficient design, and proportional liability should be determined.
The SFAA, along with the National Electrical Contractors Association Puget Sound Chapter (NECA), Mechanical Contractors Association of Western Washington (MCAWW) and SMACNA-Western Washington (SMACNA), issued an Amici Curiae in support of Petitioner AP Rushforth Construction Co., Inc. d/b/a AP Rushforth, and Adolfson & Peterson, Inc.’s (collectively “AP”) Petition for Discretionary Review. In the brief they argued the Court should grant the Petition because the decision by the lower court is contrary to precedent of limiting a contractor’s liability when the owner’s defective plans and specifications caused the defective work, and upsets settled expectations of allocation of risk and liability between contractors, owners and architects (among others) on construction projects. This allocation of risk and the principle of limiting the contractor’s liability for defective work based on defective plans and specifications is long settled doctrine in Washington State and throughout the country, a doctrine based on the US Supreme Court’s landmark decision in U.S. vs. Spearin more than 100 years ago.
The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a trade association of more than 425 insurance companies that write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. SFAA is licensed as a rating or advisory organization in all states and it has been designated by state insurance departments as a statistical agent for the reporting of fidelity and surety experience. www.surety.org
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Roth, SFAAMr. Roth may be contacted at
proth@surety.org
Monumental Museum Makeover Comes In For Landing
May 28, 2024 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordAfter more than 40 years of chronicling the nation’s storied exploration of the sky and heavens, the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., was, in a word, tired.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massachusetts Judge Holds That Insurer Breached Its Duty To Defend Lawsuit After Chemical Spill
October 16, 2018 —
Lawrence J. Bracken, II & Alexander D. Russo - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts recently ruled that Ace Property and Casualty Insurance Co. breached its duty to defend its insured in a lawsuit brought by Plaistow Project, LLC, after a family owned laundromat leaked chemicals onto Plaistow Project’s property. Plaistow Project, LLC v. ACE Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-11385-IT, 2018 WL 4357480, (D. Mass. Sept. 13, 2018). Plaistow Project sued State Line Laundry Services in state court, and ACE denied coverage under the pollution exclusion in State Line Laundry’s insurance policy. Plaistow Project then settled with State Line Laundry. Under the settlement terms, Plaistow Project was assigned State Line Laundry’s rights against ACE.
In the subsequent coverage litigation, Plaistow Project alleged that ACE had breached its duty to defend State Line Laundry under its insurance policy. ACE argued that (1) the burden was on the policyholder to demonstrate that the policy’s “sudden and accidental” exception applied to the policy’s pollution exclusion; and (2) the policyholder could not show the “sudden and accidental” exception applied based on the complaint.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence J. Bracken, II, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Alexander D. Russo, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Bracken, may be contacted at lbracken@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Russo may be contacted at arusso@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Jury Finds Presence of SARS-CoV-2 Virus Causes “Physical Loss or Damage” to Property, Awards Over $48 Million to Baylor College of Medicine
September 26, 2022 —
Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Texas jury has found that the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus on the property of Baylor College of Medicine (BCM) caused “physical loss or damage” and resulting economic loss, triggering coverage under BCM’s commercial property insurance program. The jury awarded BCM over $48 million following a three-day trial; the award consisted of $42.8 million in business interruption, $3.3 million in extra expense, and $2.3 million in damage to research projects.
The verdict came after the court denied the insurers’ pre-trial motion for summary judgment, rejecting the insurers’ contention that a virus cannot—as a matter of law—cause physical loss or damage to property. In denying the motion, the court held that whether the presence of the virus causes physical loss or damage presents a question of fact for the jury to resolve; a copy of the order rejecting the insurers’ summary judgment argument can be found
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Last, but NOT Least: Why You Should Take a Closer Look at Your Next Indemnification Clause
March 09, 2020 —
Aimee Cook Oleson - Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogIndemnification clauses appear in nearly every agreement, but they are often overlooked as mere boilerplate provisions after the parties have painstakingly negotiated all of the other terms. It is not uncommon for parties to simply re-use the indemnity language from a prior agreement without considering whether it is a good fit for their current project. This can be a big mistake that may lead to ambiguities and uncertainties if a dispute arises down the road. A standard or canned indemnification clause might work to undo all of the effort that has gone into properly allocating risk. These clauses often contain language such as “notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein,” or the like, which can alter and override other provisions in the agreement.
Indemnification clauses are arguably the most important part of an agreement when an accident or dispute arises on a project. Therefore, they deserve an extra look before finalizing an agreement. Here are a few issues to keep in mind when reviewing your next indemnification clause:
- Have you included all necessary parties?
- Any party who could face potential liability should be included as an indemnified party. This often includes entities and persons related to the contracting parties, not just the parties themselves.
- A well drafted indemnity clause will ensure that all parties are liable for the result of their own work and negligence and that of any party that they have hired to work on a project. This includes employees, agents, subcontractors, or any other similar party.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aimee Cook Oleson, Sheppard MullinMs. Oleson may be contacted at
AOleson@sheppardmullin.com
Eleventh Circuit’s Noteworthy Discussion on Bad Faith Insurance Claims
November 01, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s opinion in Pelaez v. Government Employees Insurance Company, 2021 WL 4258821 (11th Cir. 2021) is a non-construction case that discusses the standard for pursuing a bad faith claim against an insurer. This case dealt with an automobile accident. While the facts of the case are interesting and will be discussed, the takeaway is the Eleventh Circuit’s noteworthy discussion on the standard for bad faith claims and how they should be evaluated. This discussion is included below–with citations–because while the term “bad faith” is oftentimes thrown around when it comes to insurance carriers, there is indeed an evaluative standard that is applied to determine whether an insurance carrier acted in bad faith.
In Pelaez, a high school student driving a car crashed with a motorcycle. The motorcycle driver was seriously injured and airlifted to the hospital. The accident was reported to the automobile liability insurer of the driver of the car. The insurer through its investigation initially believed the motorcycle driver was contributory negligent. Eleven days after the crash, after learning additional information, the insurer tendered its bodily injury policy limits of $50,00 to the motorcycle driver even though it never received a settlement demand. The insurer sent a tender package to the motorcycle driver’s lawyer that included a $50,000 check for the bodily injury claim and a proposed release. The accompanying letter told the attorney to contact the insurer with any questions about the release and to edit the proposed release with suggested changes. The insurer also wanted to inspect the motorcycle in furtherance of adjusting the property damage claim which also had a policy limit of $50,000. A location of where the motorcycle could be inspected was never provided.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
