New York's Highest Court Says Asbestos Causation Requires Evidence Of Sufficient Exposure To Sustain Liability
May 10, 2022 —
Rafael Vergara & Jhonattan N. Gonzalez - White and WilliamsOn April 26, 2022, the New York Court of Appeals described that in toxic tort cases a plaintiff can only establish liability-creating causation for an adverse health effect with “expert testimony based on generally accepted methodologies.” See
Francis Nemeth v. Brenntag North America (N.Y. Apr. 26, 2022). The suit involved alleged asbestos exposure from talc.
The plaintiff alleged liability for talc contaminated with asbestos that was ultimately used in a commercial talcum powder, Desert Flower, which the decedent applied daily from 1960 to 1971. At trial, the plaintiff proffered two expert witnesses, a geologist, Sean Fitzgerald, who testified about the “glove box test” and a doctor of internal medicine, Dr. Jacqueline Moline. Fitzgerald’s glove box test consisted of agitating a sample of Desert Flower in a Plexiglas chamber. Fitzgerald concluded that the asbestos fibers in the sample of Desert Flower were “significantly releasable” and that the decedent was exposed to thousands to trillions of fibers through repeated use. Dr. Moline concluded Desert Flower was “a substantial contributing factor” to the decedent’s peritoneal mesothelioma. The jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Rafael Vergara, White and Williams and
Jhonattan N. Gonzalez, White and Williams
Mr. Vergara may be contacted at vergarar@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at gonzalezj@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Updates to the CEQA Guidelines Have Been Finalized
February 06, 2019 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) recently posted final adopted text for amendments to the CEQA Guidelines. The result of over five years of development efforts by the Governor’s Office of Planning & Research and CNRA, the amendments are the most comprehensive update to the CEQA Guidelines since 1998. In “Natural Resources Agency Finalizes Updates to the CEQA Guidelines,” Pillsbury environmental attorneys Norman F. Carlin, Kevin Ashe and Eric Moorman explore the wide range of issues covered in the amendments, including the new Vehicle-Miles-Traveled (VMT) methodology for analyzing transportation impacts; use of regulatory standards as significance thresholds; environmental baselines; and numerous procedural and technical improvements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Priority of Liability Insurance Coverage and Horizontal and Vertical Exhaustion
June 22, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesRecently, I participated in a webinar involving the horizontal and vertical exhaustion of insurance coverage. Say what?
This pertains to the PRIORITY of liability insurance coverage and the interface between a general contractor’s (or upstream party’s) primary insurance and the subcontractor’s (or downstream party’s) excess insurance, particularly when the general contractor is required to be indemnified by the subcontractor and named as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s liability policies.
For instance, let’s assume the general contractor has a $2M primary policy and a $5M excess policy. Its subcontractor has a $1M primary and a $5M excess policy. The general contractor is an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policies and the subcontractor is required to contractually indemnify the general contractor. An issue occurs caused by the subcontractor’s negligence resulting in a $5M judgment against the general contractor and the subcontractor.
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
Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case
May 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Superior Court of New Jersey reversed the decision in Frumer v. National Home Insurance Company (NHIC) and the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation (HBW), stating that the mandatory arbitration provision within the Frumer’s home warranty policy was binding.
The Frumers alleged that the construction defects were discovered immediately after moving into their million dollar home. After failing to achieve any results from dealing with the builder, they turned to their home warranty. There was some dispute over claims, and a settlement offer was rejected by the Frumers. The Frumers elected to commence litigation rather than utilize the binding arbitration.
The NHIC and the HBW filed a motion to compel arbitration, however, the motion judge denied the motion: “…the Warranty leaves open the option for [plaintiffs] to commence litigation, which [plaintiffs have] done in this case. The clause also states that ‘the filing of a claim against this limited Warranty shall constitute the election of remedy and shall bar the Homeowner from all other remedies.’ However, the provision does not state that the filing of a claim elects arbitration as the exclusive remedy, and any ambiguity in the language must be inferred against the drafter.”
The NHIC and the HBW appealed the decision. The Superior Court reversed the decision: “Where, such as here, the homeowner files a claim against the warranty for workmanship/systems defects, the warranty clearly and unequivocally establishes binding arbitration as the exclusive remedy. There is, however, no election of remedies for a dispute involving a major structural defect claim. The warranty clearly and unequivocally establishes binding arbitration as the exclusive remedy.”
Charles Curley of Halberstadt Curley in Conshohocken, Pa., the local counsel for National Home and Home Buyers, told the New Jersey Law Journal that “the ruling reaffirms New Jersey’s commitment to enforcing arbitration agreements and requiring people to go to mandatory arbitration when the contracts call for it.”
“At this point, their hope is that the warranty company will do what it's supposed to do — repair covered defects,” Eric McCullough, the Frumer’s lawyer said to the New Jersey Law Journal.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole
July 30, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistArkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]
In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Use Your Instincts when Negotiating a Construction Contract
August 07, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have often discussed the more “mechanical” aspects of contract negotiation and drafting here at Construction Law Musings. However, there is another, less objective (possibly) and more “feel” oriented aspect to construction contracting that can have as big an impact on your construction project. What am I talking about? Your instinct as a construction professional when looking the other party in the eye and getting a feel for the company or individual with whom you are contracting.
Why is this so important? Firstly, and this is a truism, no matter how well drafted your construction contract is (and it should be well drafted and reviewed by an experienced construction attorney), if the other party wishes to “play games” and not honor the terms of that contract, you could still very well end up in litigation with the attendant frustration and expense. Having a great looking, well thought out and at least reasonably “fair” construction contract may make the litigation process somewhat less painful but it does not completely avoid the risk of litigation. If the other party or parties to the contract decide not to pay you or perform as they promised, you are left to enforce whatever contract you have in place.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
NYC Airports Get $500,000 Makeover Contest From Cuomo
October 22, 2014 —
Freeman Klopott and Allyson Versprille – BloombergGovernor Andrew Cuomo is holding a competition for plans to upgrade New York City’s two airports, which consistently rank as the worst in the U.S. for design, cleanliness and delays.
Cuomo announced the $500,000 design contest for John F. Kennedy International and LaGuardia airports at a press briefing in Queens with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who in February caused a stir when he likened LaGuardia to a facility in a third-world country.
“This is the next phase for New York,” Cuomo said today at Vaughn College of Aeronautics and Technology in Flushing, home of LaGuardia.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the airports, is allocating $8 billion to construction at the two facilities and Newark-Liberty International over the next 10 years. That includes $2.2 billion as part of a $3.6 billion redesign of LaGuardia’s 50-year-old central terminal, voted America’s dirtiest and most poorly designed by readers of Travel & Leisure magazine in 2012.
Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net; Ms. Versprille may be contacted at aversprille1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Freeman Klopott and Allyson Versprille, Bloomberg
Arizona Court Affirms Homeowners’ Association’s Right to Sue Over Construction Defects
October 15, 2024 —
Melissa Kenney - White and Williams LLPIn Gallery Community Association v. K. Hovnanian at Gallery LLC, No. 1 CA-CV 23-0375, 2024 Ariz. App. Unpub. LEXIS 696 (Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Arizona (Court of Appeals) discussed whether a homeowners’ association can file an action for breach of the implied warranty of workmanship and habitability arising from construction defects. At issue was whether the implied warranty extended to the areas within the community that the association maintained, including the common areas. The Court of Appeals held that homeowners’ associations can sue builder-vendors for breach of the implied warranty arising from construction defects.
In this case, a homeowners’ association, responsible for managing and maintaining a community of townhomes, sued the developer/builder for alleged construction defects in the common area and exteriors of homes that the association maintained for the homeowners in the community. The alleged defects included the pool cabana and staircase walls in the common areas and the exterior walls, roofs, and staircases on the separately owned townhomes in the community. The builder filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the implied warranty extended to dwelling actions initiated by homeowners – not homeowners’ associations – and that the alleged construction defects at issue were not related to a dwelling. The trial court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals determined that both common law and statutory law authorized the homeowners’ association’s breach of implied warranty claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Kenney, White and WilliamsMs. Kenney may be contacted at
kenneyme@whiteandwilliams.com
