Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Listed in the Best Lawyers in America© 2017
September 01, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that eight of the firm’s attorneys were recently selected for inclusion and will be recognized in their respective areas in
The Best Lawyers in America© 2017. They are:
- Michael Cucchissi: Real Estate Law
- Jeffrey M. Dennis: Insurance Law
- Gregory L. Dillion: Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Insurance Law, Litigation- Construction, Litigation- Real Estate
- Joseph A. Ferrentino: Litigation- Construction, Litigation- Real Estate
- Thomas F. Newmeyer: Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Litigation- Real Estate
- John A. O’Hara: Litigation- Construction
- Bonnie T. Roadarmel: Insurance Law
- Carol Sherman Zaist: Commercial Litigation
Beyond the above recognition, Greg Dillion was also named the Best Lawyers® 2017 Construction Law "Lawyer of the Year" in Orange County.
Best Lawyers is the oldest peer-review publication for the legal profession. Attorneys are chosen through intensive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers evaluate their professional peers. Best Lawyers listings are published in almost 70 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Approaching Design-Build Projects to Avoid (or Win) Disputes
August 07, 2023 —
Stuart Eisler - Construction ExecutiveStakeholders engage in design-build projects believing the collaborative nature better aligns parties' interests and reduces overall risk exposure. Each of the lead parties bases this belief on different factors—the owner sees an opportunity to reduce change-order exposure and improve delivery times, the design-builder (or contractor) aims to control design volatility by ensuring project components match budgeted projections, and the designer intends to benefit by greater constructability review from the design-builder team and often additional time to detail designs. Rarely do design-build parties contemplate claims arising while initiating a project.
This being said, design-build projects carry unique, inherent risks due to the award of often fixed-price contracts utilizing incomplete, preliminary designs. As scopes creep and costs balloon, previously harmonious parties experience discord and lurking claims. While the majority of design-build projects are completed without major dispute, there are strategies available to further avoid disputes and prevail in those that are unavoidable.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stuart Eisler, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Public Contract Code 9204 – A New Mandatory Claims Process for Contractors and Subcontractors – and a Possible Trap for the Unwary
March 22, 2017 —
Alex R. Baghdassarian & Joseph S. Sestay – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.New California legislation affecting public works contractors was adopted pursuant to Assembly Bill 626, sponsored by the Union Trade Contractors Association of California and endorsed by various trade and contractor associations including the AGC. AB 626, which was intended to assist contractors in presenting claims against public agencies, affords new opportunities, and some potential pitfalls, to contractors and subcontractors submitting claims to public owners.
The legislation, codified at California Public Contract Code (PCC) section 9204, is effective for public works contracts entered into after January 1, 2017. All public entities (including the CSUS and the UC system), other than certain Departments of the State (CalTrans, High-Speed Rail Authority, Water Resources, Parks and Recreation, Corrections and Rehabilitation, General Services and the Military) are bound by the provisions of PCC Section 9204. PCC 9204 establishes a mandatory pre-litigation process for all claims by contractors on a public works project. It is an attempt to address the reluctance of public owners to promptly and fairly negotiate change orders on projects, putting some teeth to the mandate of existing law under PCC Section 7104, which precludes public owners from shifting to the contractor the risk of addressing differing subsurface and/or concealed hazardous site conditions.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Joseph S. Sestay, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com
Mr. Sestay may be contacted at jsestay@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Disaster-Relief Bill Stalls in Senate
April 22, 2019 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordA partisan squabble over funds to help Puerto Rico continue its long recovery and rebuilding from two hurricanes in 2017 has tied up a wide-ranging spending package on Capitol Hill. At stake in the fight are hundreds of millions of dollars for reconstruction and related work around the U.S.
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, ENR
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Crime Policy Insurance Quotes Falsely Represented the Scope of its Coverage
July 13, 2020 —
Brian J Clifford - Saxe Doernberger & VitaAn Indiana businessman found out the hard way how far his insurance company was willing to go to avoid paying a claim after it misrepresented the coverage of a crime policy it sold to him. The quote for the policy indicated that it included coverage for losses resulting from computer hacking. Despite this representation, when the policyholder’s bank accounts were hacked, the insurer denied coverage on the ground that there was no provision for hacking coverage in the policy. Fortunately, the Indiana Court of Appeals recognized the insured’s right to argue before a jury that the insurer’s quotes falsely represented the scope of its coverage.
In Metal Pro Roofing, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., Richard Cornett, principal of Metal Pro Roofing, LLC and Cornett Restoration, LLC (the “LLCs”), purchased a Cincinnati Insurance Company CinciPlus Crime XC+ Policy (the “Policy”). At the time Mr. Cornett purchased this coverage, and during all subsequent renewals, Cincinnati issued insurance quotes that stated:
Cincinnati can insure your money and securities while at your premises, inside your bank and even off site in the custody of a courier. While you’ve taken precautions to protect your money and securities, you run the risk of loss from employees, robbers, burglars, computer hackers and even physical perils such as fire.
Give yourself peace of mind with Cincinnati’s crime coverage to insure the money and securities you worked so hard to earn.
Crime Expanded Coverage (XC®)Plus Endorsement $125.00.
(Emphasis added.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian J Clifford, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Clifford may be contacted at
bjc@sdvlaw.com
The Prolonged Effects on Commercial Property From Extreme Weather
January 29, 2024 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsAs evidenced by the extraordinary heat in the Southwest, a string of tornadoes in South and Midwest, and heavy rains in California and Florida, 2023 was a banner year for extreme weather. However, 2024 may be no different, which means now is the time for businesses to rethink the way they approach volatile weather, as well as the frequency and severity of storms and natural disasters.
The risks and challenges that businesses face as extreme weather becomes stronger and causes more property damage, requires innovative technology with specialized insurance solutions. Through updated building codes, advancements in technology and meaningful infrastructure improvements, businesses can make a difference in protecting their property and reducing losses.
Stronger Building Codes To Withstand Storms
It is not uncommon to see the destruction that a hurricane or tornado leaves behind. However, stronger building codes are one of the best ways to make sure property can withstand catastrophes. Florida for example implemented changes to its building codes after Hurricane Andrew, and then again in 2007 after the Hurricanes of 2004 and 2005. New construction since then has made houses and buildings significantly more hurricane proof. Buildings constructed 30 years ago were likely built with codes that may have neglected the impact of strong winds from an extreme hurricane or significant rainfall that a storm can bring, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
Montana Court Finds Duty to Defend over Construction Defect Allegation
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe U.S. District Court for Montana recently ruled on a case with underlying construction defect issues. Brian Margolies discussed Lukes v. Mid-Continent on the blog run by his firm, Traub Lieverman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP. In the construction defect case, the homeowner “alleged that the siding warped and pulled away from the house, which allowed for water intrusion and resulting exterior and interior damage.” Further, there were claims that “the insured or its subcontractor failed to install proper flashing, which also allowed for water intrusion.”
The insured was Bernie Rubio, who had a general liability policy from Mid-Continent. Mid-Continent disclaimed coverage, citing sections of the business risk exclusions. The court did not find the clauses ambiguous, but concluded that they didn’t apply to the facts of the case.
While the court concluded that Mid-Continent had a duty to defend, they did not determine if there was a duty to indemnify.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Retaining Wall Contractor Not Responsible for Building Damage
July 20, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled on July 8 in the case of Rollander Enterprises, Inc. v. H.C. Nutting Co. Judge Baily wrote the opinion affirming the decision of the trial court.
The case involved an unfinished condominium complex, the Slopes of Greendale, in Greendale, Indiana. Rollander is a real estate development company incorporated in Ohio. One of the issues in the case was whether the case should be settled in the Indiana courts or be tried in Ohio. The project was owned by a special purpose entity limited liability corporation incorporated in Indiana.
Rollander hired Nutting to determine the geological composition of the site. Nutting’s report described the site as “a medium plastic clay containing pieces of shale and limestone.” The court summarized this as corresponding with “slope instability and landslides.” Rollander then hired Nutting to design the retaining walls, which were constructed by Scherziner Drilling.
After cracking was discovered on State Route 1, the walls were discovered to be inadequate. More dirt was brought in and a system of tie-backs was designed to anchor the walls. Not only were the tie-backs unsightly, local officials would not approve the complex for occupancy. Further, the failure of the wall below one building lead to damage of that building.
The court concluded that since almost all events occurred in Indiana, they rejected Rollander’s contention that the case should be tried in Ohio. Further, the court notes “the last event making Nutting potentially liable on both claims was an injury that occurred in Indiana and consequently, under the lex loci delicti analysis, Indiana law applies.”
Nor did the court find that Nutting was responsible for the damage to the rest of the project, citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling, that “there is no liability in tort to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project with whom the project owner, whether or not technically in privity of contract, is connected through a network or chain of contracts.”
The court concluded:
Because Rollander was in contractual privity with Nutting, and Indy was connected to Nutting through a chain of contracts and no exception applies, the economic loss rule precludes their recovery in tort. Damage to Building B was not damage to "other property," and the negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable on these facts. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by entering judgment on the evidence in favor of Nutting on the Appellants' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
