Domtar Update
June 11, 2014 —
Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLPOn May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur—i.e., the permission to appeal—in the controversial subrogation case, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). In its order granting the relief to Liberty Mutual, a workers’ compensation insurer, the Supreme Court set forth the narrow issue to be decided on appeal: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”
In Domtar, Liberty Mutual was caused to incur approximately $35,000 in compensation benefits which it paid on behalf of George Lawrence, an employee of Liberty Mutual’s insured, for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. Mr. Lawrence chose not to file an independent personal injury lawsuit. As a result, in order to recover its lien interests, Liberty Mutual sued the third parties responsible for causing Mr. Lawrence’s work-related injuries directly, having become subrogated to the rights of Mr. Lawrence by virtue of Liberty Mutual’s workers’ compensation expenditure on his behalf.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLPMr. Caplan may be contacted at
caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com
10 Year Anniversary – Congratulations Greg Podolak
November 23, 2016 —
Edwin L. Doernberger – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.2016 marks 10 years of successful practice for SDV Partner, Gregory Podolak. Greg has spent his entire professional career with Saxe, Doernberger & Vita, rising up the ranks from Summer Associate to Managing Partner of SDV’s first satellite office located in Naples, FL. Greg also manages SDV’s Cyber Risk group and is a nationally recognized author and speaker on the topic.
Over the past decade, Greg has been honored with numerous awards, including the Connecticut Law Tribune’s 2015 New Leaders in the Law, and for the past five years in a row has been chosen as a Super Lawyers® Rising Star.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Edwin L. Doernberger, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Doernberger may be contacted at
eld@sdvlaw.com
What to Do Before OSHA Comes Knocking
December 19, 2018 —
Parker Rains - Construction ExecutiveEvery year, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspects workplaces around the country for safety and occupational hazards. In 2017 alone, OSHA conducted 32,408 inspections – more than half of which were unprogrammed inspections.
There are six reasons OSHA might come knocking on the door. They are (in order of priority):
- imminent danger situations;
- severe injuries and illnesses;
- worker complaints;
- referrals;
- targeted inspections; and
- follow-up inspections.
Reprinted courtesy of
Parker Rains, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Rains may be contacted at
prains@fbbins.com
California Supreme Court Finds that When it Comes to Intentional Interference Claims, Public Works Projects are Just Different, Special Even
November 21, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogOriginally published by CDJ on April 20, 2017
Earlier, we reported on a California Court of Appeals decision – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v. American Asphalt South, Inc. – which held for the first time that a second-place bidder on a public works contract could sue a winning bidder who failed to pay its workers prevailing wages, under the business tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.
Fast forward nearly two years, several amicus briefs, and “one doghouse”* later and the California Supreme Court has . . . reversed.
The Roy Allan Slurry Seal Case
To catch you up, or rather, refresh your recollection . . .
Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt South, Inc. was awarded 23 public works contracts totaling more than $14.6 million throughout Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Two of the losing bidders on those projects – Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. and Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. – sued American in each of these counties for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage as well as under the Unfair Practices Act (“UPA”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17000 et seq.) and the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
America’s Bridges and the Need for Bridge Infrastructure Investment
January 07, 2025 —
Lisa D. Love - The Dispute ResolverDuring the October 2024 meeting of the American Bar Association’s Forum on Construction held in Pittsburgh, a city of many bridges, the importance of bridges to our nation’s transportation infrastructure was apparent. Just two years ago, the Forbes Avenue bridge in Pittsburgh collapsed—resulting in several vehicles and a bus falling into a ravine. Ten people were injured in the event. It was later reported that the bridge had received a “poor” rating but was still permitted to remain open to traffic. The event resulted in several lawsuits which, just this past September, the City of Pittsburgh requested $500,000 from the city council to settle. The Forbes Avenue bridge is hardly a unique case and is just one example of the litigation that can ensue if we fail to maintain our aging infrastructure.
The State of Our Nation’s Bridges
As of June 2024, the United States has more than 616,000 bridges located on public roads, including interstate highways, U.S. highways, state and county roads, as well as publicly accessible bridges on federal and tribal lands.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa D. Love, JAMS
Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation
May 25, 2020 —
Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Michael W. Horner - White and Williams LLPThe emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 has created extraordinary circumstances that have significantly impacted how we go about living, working and interacting with one another. The practice of law is no exception.
While most cases have been postponed and some extended indefinitely, the issues and disputes that first triggered the litigation remain. In fact, the burdens created by social distancing and other responses to the COVID-19 outbreak have served to only increase these disputes and create an urgent need in some for quick resolution.
In our previous article, we summarized some of the best practices that should be applied when taking and defending depositions in a remote, virtual setting. That technology can also offer the same benefits for alternative dispute resolutions. If planned properly, the use of technology allows remote mediations to be conducted as seamlessly as in-person mediations and, in some circumstances, affords additional benefits that can achieve the best possible resolution for all sides.
This article summarizes the opportunities technology has created by which parties can attempt to resolve their disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods, even in a time of social distancing.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Victor J. Zarrilli,
Robert G. Devine and
Michael W. Horner
Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Horner may be contacted at hornerm@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Attorneys Call for Better Funding of Court System
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe construction defect law firm Anderson Shoech has a solution to some of the problems with the California courts. They note that cases often work their way through the system more slowly than they did in the past, due to “unprecedented cuts of over $1 billion from the State Court budget.” Prior to the cuts, cases were resolved “within six months to a year.” Under the current conditions, those involved in a lawsuit “would be lucky if their case was heard within 18 months of filing and could expect at least two full years to pass.”
They recommend that California return to appropriately funding the court system. Failure to do so could cause business to go to states “with a functioning and predictable court system.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
