Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials
November 04, 2019 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationIn 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy.
In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract.
In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016
February 23, 2016 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPJanuary 21, 2016 - The Best Lawyers in America® 2016, is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys earning this honor for 2016 include the following:
William G. Baumgaertner - Personal Injury Litigation
Denis J. Moriarty - Insurance Law
Since its inception in 1983, Best Lawyers has become regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Because Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 39,000 leading attorneys cast almost 3.1 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas, and because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Atlantic City Faces Downward Spiral With Revel’s Demise
August 13, 2014 —
Terrence Dopp – BloombergThe shuttering next month of Revel, the $2.6 billion hotel and casino that was meant to usher in a new era of opulence in Atlantic City when it opened in 2012, is set to quicken the seaside community’s downward spiral.
Five years after the longest recession since the 1930s, hotel rooms sit vacant and revenue keeps falling in what was once the second-largest U.S. casino market. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s turnaround plan for the municipality, begun in 2011 and hinged on Revel’s success, hasn’t delivered, prompting Moody’s Investors Service to cut the city’s $245 million of general-obligation debt to junk last month.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Terrence Dopp, BloombergMr Dopp may be contacted at
tdopp@bloomberg.net
Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.
The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”
Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.
After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.
La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.
La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”
The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”
The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.
As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stick to Your Guns on Price and Pricing with Construction Contracts
December 20, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn recent posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the need for clarity of contract, trusting your gut, and assuring that your contract has the necessities. All of these bits of advice (along with my usual advice of working with an experienced construction attorney) are true with regard to commercial construction contracts and apply ten fold in a residential construction (read working for a single/family owner on their house). With a residential project, you, as a construction contractor, are likely to be dealing with the difficult combination of an owner with little or no experience relating to how a construction project is supposed to work and an owner that is emotionally invested in the project because it is their home.
Because of the above, and the fact that your project is likely the biggest single investment that the owner has made outside of possibly a prior house, the residential owner will likely be looking over your shoulder and may very well attempt to negotiate down some of the costs that they perceive as the project moves forward. In short, the average person 1. does not know how much the project truly costs the contractor, and 2. feels that because they hold the cash, they can and should have some control over the individual costs of the construction thus making those costs, and by extension, their contract, negotiable right up until the end.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
“Freelance Isn’t Free” New Regulations Adopted in New York City Requiring Written Contracts with Independent Contractors
June 15, 2017 —
Kevin J. O'Connor - Peckar & Abramson. P.C.Attacks on employers for alleged misclassification of workers—particularly independent contractors—are continuing unabated, and the risk of liability for employers operating in New York City just increased. New York City has just adopted sweeping regulations requiring written contracts with certain freelancers and independent contractors. Anyone doing business in that jurisdiction should take notice and take action to comply with the law.
New York City’s “Freelance Isn’t Free Act,” N.Y.C. Administrative Code §§ 20-927 et seq. (“FIFA”) went into effect on May 15, 2017. This new law substantially regulates the relationship between a business and an independent contractor or “freelancer” working in New York City.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. O'Connor, Peckar & Abramson. P.C.Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at
koconnor@pecklaw.com
The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business
August 03, 2020 —
Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & FearsOver the past few months, guidance on how to create a safer, low-risk workplace has frequently changed. Fortunately, the state of California has finally reached a point where comprehensive and concrete advice is now available.
On June 24, 2020, the California Statewide Industry Guidance to Reduce Risk website was updated. In addition to providing industry-specific guidance and opening checklists for approximately 40 different industries, the website now unambiguously requires all businesses—regardless of which “phase” they reopen—to follow a five-step protocol (as described in greater detail throughout this article):
- Perform a detailed risk assessment and create a site-specific protection plan.
- Train employees on how to limit the spread of COVID-19. This includes how to screen themselves for symptoms and when to stay home.
- Set up individual control measures and screenings.
- Put disinfection protocols in place.
- Establish physical distancing guidelines
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”
June 21, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court.
The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well.
Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote:
“The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
