Best Lawyers® Recognizes 49 White and Williams Attorneys
September 16, 2024 —
White and Williams LLPThirty-eight White and Williams lawyers were recognized in Best Lawyers in America® 2025. Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers® employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services.
In addition, eleven lawyers were recognized as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. This recognition is given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States.
The firm is also pleased to announce Best Lawyers® has recognized three attorneys as "Lawyer of the Year” including: Chuck Eppolito, Litigation - Health Care, Philadelphia, who focuses his practice on medical malpractice defense as well as other insurance-related defense; William D. Kennedy, Litigation – Insurance, Philadelphia, who focuses his practice on complex claims of injury and damage arising in both the professional and general liability contexts; and, Michael O. Kassak, Litigation – Insurance, Cherry Hill, who focuses his practice on large complex commercial matters including insurance coverage and healthcare disputes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
California Mediation Confidentiality May Apply to Third Party “Participants” Retained to Provide Analysis
November 02, 2017 —
Tony Carucci - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogCalifornia Evidence Code section 1119 governs the general admissibility of oral and written communications generated during the mediation process. Section 1119(a) provides that “[n]o evidence of anything said or any admission made
for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . is admissible or subject to discovery, and disclosure of the evidence shall not be compelled, in any . . . civil action . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, section 1119(b) bars discovery or admission in evidence of any “writing . . . prepared
for the purpose of, in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation . . . .” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(b) (emphasis added). Finally, section 1119(c) provides that “[a]ll communications, negotiations, or settlement discussions by and between
participants in the course of a mediation . . . shall remain confidential.” Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(c) (emphasis added).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Reversing Itself, Alabama Supreme Court Finds Construction Defect is An Occurrence
April 08, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Alabama Supreme Court withdrew is prior opinion and authored a new decision finding that construction defects are an "occurrence." Owners Ins. Co. v. Jim Carr Homebuilder, No. 1120764 (Ala. March 28, 2014) [decision here].
Jim Carr Homebuilder (JCH) contracted to build a home for the Johnsons. After completion of the construction and moving in, the Johnsons noticed several problems with the house, including water leaking through the roof, walls, and floors, resulting in water damage to those and other areas of the house. When JCH was unable to satisfactorily fix the problems, the Johnsons sued, alleging breach of contract, fraud, and negligence.
Owners, JCH's insurer, defended under a reservation of rights. The matter went to arbitration, where an award of $600,000 was made to the Johnsons.
Owners filed a declaratory judgment action against the Johnsons and JCH. Owners argued that the property damage upon which the award was based was not the result of an "occurrence." The trial court determined that the entire arbitration award was covered under the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
TARP Funds Demolish Homes in Detroit to Lift Prices: Mortgages
March 07, 2014 —
Brian Louis and Jeff Green - BloombergIn Flint, once a thriving auto-industry hub, excavators with long metal arms and shovels have begun tearing down 1,500 dilapidated homes in an attempt to lift the housing market.
The demolitions in this Michigan city of about 100,000 people are part of the stepped up efforts by officials in several Midwestern states to rid their blighted neighborhoods of decayed housing that’s depressing prices. The funding for the excavator work comes from a surprising source -- the Hardest Hit Fund of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, created in 2008 to stabilize to the financial system.
The $7.6 billion Hardest Hit Fund was intended to help troubled property owners avoid foreclosure and keep their homes. As foreclosures fall in most parts of the country, the fund is using the unspent $3.2 billion to remedy the crisis of abandoned homes. In Detroit alone, 70,000 dwellings, or about 19 percent of the total, may need to be torn down, according to the city.
Mr. Louis may be contacted at blouis1@bloomberg.net. Mr. Green may be contacted at jgreen16@bloomberg.net.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Louis and Jeff Green, Bloomberg
One World Trade Center Due to Be America’s Tallest and World’s Priciest
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFAs One World Trade Center rises, so does the price tag. After construction delays and cost overruns, the cost of the building at the site of the September 11 attacks has risen to $3.8 billion. Part of the expense of the skyscraper is the heavily reinforced base of the building. The elevator shafts are also heavily reinforced, all part of guarding against future terrorist attacks.
In comparison, the world’s tallest tower, the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, cost only $1.5 billion, less than half the cost of One World Trade Center. As a result, the Port Authority does not see the building as being profitable in near future. In order to fund it, the agency is raising tolls on bridge and tunnel traffic.
Currently, about the half the unfinished building is leased. Construction is expected to conclude in 2013.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.
Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.
The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”
Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”
The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”
Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”
The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.
Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.
Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”
The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Unfair Risk Allocation on Design-Build Projects
June 13, 2022 —
Brian Perlberg, Executive Director of ConsensusDocs Coalition & AGC Senior CounselThe AGC annual convention included a session entitled “Who’s on the Hook for Design Defects in Design-Build Projects.”
Fox Rothschild’s Dirk Haire, Les Synder of Infrastructure Construction Brightline West, and David Hecker of Kiewit presented. Attendees crowded into a standing-only room because more and more builders are facing design liability, especially design-builders on large infrastructure projects. The presentation highlighted how some owners abuse the submittal process on design-build jobs to make changes without compensating the builder with more time, money, or both. One project took a sample of owner comments and extrapolated that just one project generated over 15,000 submittals and generated over 110,000 comments of “concern” or “preference.”
Certain owner-representatives and attorneys for owners have oversold the risk allocation transfer aspect of design-build. The Spearin Doctrine protects a builder from design documents containing errors by entitling them to receive equitable compensation. The design-build project delivery method erodes potential Spearin protections. Ways that an owner may retain some design responsibility and bring Spearin protections back into play for a builder include the following:
- Accuracy of reports prepared by owner’s outside consultants
- Owner’s design approval process
- Viability of owner’s stated design and project criteria
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Perlberg, ConsensusDocs
The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.
October 23, 2012 —
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellGene and Diane Melssen d/b/a Melssen Construction (“Melssen”) built a custom home for the Holleys, during which period of time Melssen retained a CGL insurance coverage from Auto Owners Insurance Company. Soon after completion of the house, the Holleys noticed cracks in the drywall and, eventually, large cracks developed in the exterior stucco and basement slab. Thereafter, the Holleys contacted Melssen, the structural engineer, an attorney, and Auto-Owners, which assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the claim.
In April 2008, the Holleys sent Melssen a statutory notice of claim pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5 (“NOC”). In this NOC, the Holleys claimed approximately $300,000 in damages related to design and construction defects. The Holleys also provided a list of claimed damages and estimated repairs, accompanied by two reports from the Holleys’ consultant regarding the claimed design and construction defects. In June 2008, Melssen tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to Auto-Owners. While Auto-Owners did not deny the claim at that time, it did not inspect the property or otherwise adjust the claim. Thereafter, in October 2008, Auto-Owners sent Melssen a letter denying coverage on the basis that the damage occurred outside of the applicable policy period.
Ultimately, Melssen settled the claims against it for $140,000.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
