Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case
April 10, 2023 —
Starr M. Forster - Lewis BrisboisHouston, Texas (March 30, 2023) – The Supreme Court of Texas recently upheld a Thirteenth Court of Appeals’ judgment finding that the plaintiffs in a premises defect case brought against the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) had failed to raise a fact issue regarding the creation of a dangerous condition and, consequently, failed to establish waiver of the defendant’s sovereign immunity.
Daniel K. Christ and Nicole D. Salinas v. Tex. DOT, et al., No. 21-0728, 66 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 306, 2023 Tex. LEXIS 128, at *1 (Feb 10, 2023).
Background
Plaintiffs Daniel Christ and his wife, Nicole Salinas (the Christs), were riding their motorcycle through a construction zone when they collided with a vehicle that crossed into their lane. TxDOT’s traffic control plan for the related construction project called for the placement of concrete barriers between opposing travel lanes; however, once construction on the project began, TxDOT’s contractor determined there was not enough space for the concrete barriers and revised the traffic control plan to substitute yellow stripes and buttons for the concrete barriers. TxDOT never approved the revised traffic control plan in writing; however, TxDOT’s contractor contended TxDOT orally approved of the change. The Christs sued the driver of the other vehicle, TxDOT, and TxDOT’s contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Starr M. Forster, Lewis BrisboisMs. Forster may be contacted at
Starr.Forster@lewisbrisbois.com
An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy
June 12, 2014 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. and Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerThe Second District Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216, immediately affects builders and contractors (collectively “builders”) who are often named as additional insureds (AIs) to contractors’ general liability policies. The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder. The salient aspects of the facts, the Appellate Court’s reasoning, and practical considerations are discussed below.
Transport Insurance Company (Transport) issued a commercial excess and umbrella liability policy (Policy) to Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), naming R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street) as an AI for its distribution of a solvent. The Policy provided that Transport would indemnify and defend the insured for loss caused by property damage if (1) it was not covered by “underlying insurance” but was within the terms of coverage of the Policy, or (2) if the limits of liability of the “underlying insurance” were exhausted during the Policy period due to property damage. The Policy included a Schedule of Underlying Insurance (Schedule) that listed policies issued to Vulcan. Thereafter, Vulcan and Street were named as defendants in several environmental contamination actions (Underlying Actions).
Transport brought a declaratory relief action against Vulcan regarding Transport’s duty to defend. (Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Legacy Vulcan) (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677). The trial court found the term “underlying insurance” ambiguous as it was not expressly defined to include only the policies on the Schedule and could be interpreted to include all primary policies in effect. Vulcan challenged the trial court’s decision by petition for writ of mandate, contending “underlying insurance” only included policies listed on the Schedule. The Court of Appeal found “underlying insurance” ambiguous because it was an expressly qualified term under other Policy provisions but not in the umbrella coverage provision and, thus, it was a generic term that was not limited to policies listed in the Schedule or inclusive of all primary insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
Kacey R. Riccomini
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com, and Ms. Riccomini may be contacted at kriccomini@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations
January 21, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIf you are a construction attorney like me (or anyone that takes cases to court), you deal with statutes of limitation on a daily basis. These statutes seem pretty simple. A party has “X” amount of time in which to file its lawsuit after accural of the cause of action. In a breach of contract suit, the accrual is the date of breach. Easy, right? Wrong, at least in some circumstances.
Take for example, the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. PAE Applied Techs., LLC out of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. In this unpublished opinion the Court looked at “continuous breach” versus “series of separate breaches.” The basic facts are that in 2000 Flour entered into a contract with PAE whereby PAE requested and claims to have received consent from Flour to a 2.3% administrative cost cap on Flour’s work on an Air Force contract. Flour claimed that it did not agree to this cap. In 2002, Flour begain billing PAE for its costs plus the 2.3% administrative markup and billed in this fashion for the first full year. However, in subsequent years and for the next 11 years, Flour billed PAE at a higher markup rate than the 2.3%. PAE disputed the increased markup and paid Flour at the 2.3% rate. Flour periodically protested but made no move to court until it filed suit in March of 2016. After a bench trial, the district court found that Flour had agreed to the cap and found for PAE.
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
What ‘The Curse’ Gets Wrong About Passive House Architecture
April 02, 2024 —
Teresa Xie - BloombergIn the fifth episode of Showtime’s The Curse, two potential buyers are touring a boutique house in Española, a soon-to-be gentrified Santa Fe neighborhood when one of them makes a remark about the temperature. “Sorry, can I get a water? It’s just really hot in here,” he says, airing out his sweat-stained shirt. The quirky home’s architect-slash-developer, played by Emma Stone, says, “Sure!” and without skipping a beat, continues to explain the virtues of her passive house design: The home functions like a thermos, with no need for air conditioning — unless any air escapes the house. Then it takes five to seven hours for the room to recover.
Owning a passive house sounds like a nightmare, right? If you’re buying a one-of-a-kind, mirror-clad spec house from Stone and co-star Nathan Fielder, it may well be. On The Curse, the two play a do-gooder couple attempting to make an HGTV series (with Benny Safdie) about turning regular houses into carbon-neutral passive homes.
Odd things happen to Stone and Fielder over the show’s first season: trouble with the laws of gravity, the trials of a failing marriage and a literal curse from a small child. But the weirdest might be the show’s portrayal of passive house design, an energy-efficient design standard that has been around since the 1970s. Passive building, which has its origins in Europe, relies on advanced construction methods to seal a structure in an airtight envelope, thereby reducing energy consumption for heating and cooling by as much as 75%.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Teresa Xie, Bloomberg
Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
February 26, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPNewmeyer & Dillion, LLP, a premier business and real estate law firm in California and Nevada, is pleased to announce the promotion of three of its attorneys to partnership.
“Clay Tanaka, Eric Rollins, and Jonathan King have proven their ability to provide the highest quality legal services to our clients while embracing the core values of the Firm which make it unique,” said Jeff Dennis, managing partner of Newmeyer & Dillion. “We are proud to welcome them as our new partners.”
The new partners share extensive legal and trial experience, demonstrating quick and creative solutions for their clients.
Newport Beach
Clayton Tanaka
Clay Tanaka is an experienced trial lawyer practicing in both California and Nevada, focusing on construction, real estate, business, insurance disputes and appellate law. As a licensed civil engineer in California, Clay has extensive knowledge of construction practices as well as vast experience in the designs of both residential subdivisions and commercial developments. He has represented developers and general contractors in numerous complex real estate and construction matters through trial, including disputes involving grading, design, boundary and easement disputes, water intrusion and insurance coverage issues. Clay has also represented a variety of businesses in actions involving breach of contract, fraud, and copyright and trademark infringements. He is also fluent in Japanese.
Eric Rollins
Eric Rollins’ practice focuses on the litigation and arbitration covering a broad range of business, real estate, construction, insurance, and land use disputes. Within the construction arena, he regularly handles complex construction matters and insurance coverage issues arising out of construction claims for both residential and commercial builders. In his business and land practice, Eric has litigated a variety of claims in state and federal courts involving breach of contract, negligence, unfair business practices, fraud, business formation, eminent domain, and inverse condemnation. He has experience with all phases of business litigation, including arbitration, mediation, and trial preparation.
Walnut Creek
Jonathan King
Jonathan King’s practice focuses on the representation of developers, builders, and general contractors in construction litigation and has extensive experience defending personal injury allegations in industrial and construction settings. His business cases include litigation of intellectual property infringement, and general business litigation. Jonathan has successfully resolved and defended complex matters in both mediation and binding arbitration settings. Jonathan also obtains federal trademark protection and negotiates licensing agreements for clients.
About Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
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
Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions
June 06, 2022 —
Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction ExecutiveOne of the most important provisions in a construction contract is the indemnity provision. An indemnity provision, which usually includes a requirement to hold harmless and defend another party, is included in nearly all construction contracts. Generally speaking, the upstream party (a general contractor or owner, for example) is attempting to shift risk to a downstream party (the general contractor or a subcontractor). In simple terms, subject to certain parameters, the downstream party is agreeing to be responsible for the upstream parties’ mistakes.
DEFINING INDEMNIFICATION
Insurance brokers focused on development and construction businesses get asked frequently: “If we sign this, are we insured?” It would be great if this could be answered “yes” or “no,” but life is rarely that straightforward. To understand whether a specific indemnification is insurable, we have to drill down on the actual provision. Let’s look at a typical indemnification below:
“To the fullest extent permitted by law the Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the owner, architect, architect’s consultants and agents and employees of any of them from and against any claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from performance of the work whether caused in whole or in part by the contractor, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere might have been a number of problems with San Francisco’s new Bay Bridge, but despite all that, the Contra-Costa Times says that the experts say that there is no reason for panic. And although the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, Mark DeSaulnier, has been a critic of the bridge, he says that he is “convinced the old bridge is unsafe.”
Although DeSaulnier wants an independent review, construction of the bridge has been investigated by what the Times refers to as “dozens of internationally renowned bridge engineers and other experts.” According to the experts, the problems with the bridge fall in to three categories, ranging from the fixable, through the fixed, to those that were never actual problems.
Of the last category, the Oakland Tribune reported in 2005 that construction workers claimed they were told to “conceal shoddy welds to speed up construction,” but the Federal Highway Administration outside experts found no evidence of bad welds. In another case, bad welds were discovered at the factory where a span was being constructed. The process was changed and the bad welds repaired.
Caltrans has delayed the opening of the Bay Bridge to December 10. Earlier plans were to open the bridge in September.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Must Pay for Matching Siding of Insured's Buildings
December 02, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Seventh Circuit found that the insurer was obligated to pay for siding of a building that was not damaged by hail so that it matched the replaced damaged portions of the siding. Windridge of Naperville Condominium Association v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. 23607 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2019).
A hail and wind storm damaged buildings owned by Windridge. The storm physically damaged the aluminum siding on the buildings' sought and west sides. Philadelphia Indemnity, Windridge's insurer, contended that it was only required to replace the siding on those sides. Windridge argued that replacement siding that matched the undamaged north and east elevations was no longer available, so Philadelphia had to replace the siding on all four sides of the buildings to that all of the siding matched.
Windridge sued and moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that matching was required. The only sensible result was to treat the damage as having occurred to the building's siding as a whole.
The policy was a replacement-cost policy. Philadelphia promised to "pay for direct physical 'loss' to 'Covered Property' caused by or resulting from" the storm, with the amount of loss being "the cost to replace the lost or damaged property with other property . . . of comparable material and quality . . . and . . . used for the same purpose." The loss payment provision offered four different measures for loss, leaving Philadelphia free to choose the least expensive: (1) pay the value of the lost or damaged property; (2) pay the cost of repairing or replacing the lost or damaged property; (3) take all or any part of the property at an agreed or appraised value; or (4) repair, rebuild or replace the property with other property of like kind and quality.
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
