White and Williams LLP Secures Affirmation of Denial to Change Trial Settings Based on Plaintiffs’ Failure to Meet the Texas Causation Standard for Asbestos Cases
July 06, 2020 —
Christian Singewald & Rochelle Gumapac - White and Williams LLPThe Delaware Supreme Court, in a rare split opinion, affirmed the trial court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Request to Change Trial Settings in favor of all defendants, including a major automotive manufacturer represented by White and Williams LLP, in a mesothelioma case with a young decedent who had an alleged economic loss claim exceeding $9,000,000, in Shaw v. American Friction, Inc. et al., No. 86, 2019. This decision operates to dismiss all of Plaintiffs’ claims based on their failure to meet Delaware’s strict expert deadlines and establish a prima facie case under Texas law.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint invoked the application of Texas substantive law and alleged that multiple manufacturers were negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn the decedent of the alleged dangers posed by the use of asbestos-containing products. Plaintiffs’ alleged asbestos exposures from defendants’ products caused Mr. Shaw’s disease and subsequent death.
In 2007, Texas instituted its now well-known causation requirement, which requires the “dose” of asbestos exposure from each defendant’s products to be quantified by an expert. Borg-Warner Corp. v. Flores, 232 S.W.3d 765, 773 (Tex. 2007). Prior to decedent’s death, Plaintiffs’ counsel deposed decedent and his father for product identification purposes. During the depositions, Plaintiffs’ counsel failed to obtain the necessary factual information from his clients for an expert to be able to opine as to alleged exposure doses from any defendant’s product. Despite lacking the requisite information for a prima facie case under Texas law, Plaintiffs sought and were given placement in an expedited trial setting, which had strict, defined deadlines.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christian Singewald, White and Williams LLP and
Rochelle Gumapac, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Gumapac may be contacted at gumapacr@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Installation of Defective Steel Framing
June 26, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's holding that the insurer had no duty to defend claims arising out of the insureds' installation of defective steel framing in an apartment building. Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., No. B245961(Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2014) [decision here].
Regional Steel was a subcontractor for providing reinforced steel to the columns, walls, and floors of an apartment building under construction. Regional used 90 degree and 135 degree seismic hooks as approved by the general contractor, JSM Construction, Inc. The City building inspector issued a correction notice, however, requiring the exclusive use of the 135 degree hooks. Levels one through three had defective tie hooks and required repair. JSM refused to pay Regional's invoices and withheld $545,000. JSM had to make repairs that required opening up numerous locations in the concrete walls, welding reinforcements to the steel placed by Regional, and otherwise strengthening the inadequate installation.
Regional sued JSM for the withheld payment. JSM cross-claimed, asserting breach of contract and breach of express and implied warranties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
New Case Law Update: Mountain Valleys, Chevron Deference and a Long-Awaited Resolution on the Sacketts’ Small Lot
June 12, 2023 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a brief roundup of recent federal court environmental and regulatory law decisions from the federal courts over the past few months, including the much anticipated ruling in Sackett, et ux., v, Environmental Protection Agency.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
Sackett, et ux., v, Environmental Protection Agency
Last year, the Supreme Court issued a significant decision curtailing some of the EPA’s regulatory powers in the Clean Air Act in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency. On May 25, 2023, the Court limited EPA’s—and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ authority—under the Clean Water Act. This, too, is a major environmental ruling. The Court held that the EPA could not classify the wetlands located on the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett as “Waters of the United States” on the basis of the “significant nexus” test devised by Justice Kennedy in his separate opinion in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States. Accordingly, the Court unanimously held that their property was not subject to the EPA’s or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ permitting and enforcement power. In 2004, the Sacketts purchased a small lot near Priest Lake in Bonner County, Idaho, on which to build a home. As related by Justice Alito, once they began to fill in their property with dirt and rocks, they were notified by EPA that their backfilling operation violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) because they were affecting protected wetlands. The Sacketts challenged this action, thus beginning a long legal battle with EPA and the federal government. In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the federal government’s regulatory authority over these wetlands, holding that the CWA covers “adjacent” wetlands having a significant nexus to traditional navigable waters. The Supreme Court decided that this case was suitable for determining whether the Sackett’s wetlands are “waters of the United States” and thus subject to the permitting and regulatory enforcement powers of the EPA and the Corps of Engineers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Insureds' Summary Judgment Motion on Mold Limitation Denied
November 10, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insureds' motion for partial summary judgment on the applicability of the homeowner's mold limitation was denied. R.W.& R. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 131586 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 26, 2016).
The policy imposed a $5,000 limit on losses caused by mold. Plaintiffs discovered that their dishwasher was leaking and reported the loss to Liberty. Liberty's contractor concluded that the bottom of the dishwasher had rusted out, causing water to seep into parts of the kitchen and the laundry/utility room below. The contractor used dehumidifiers to extract moisture from the affected areas and removed damaged cabinetry, drywall and tiling. The contractor discovered mold that it believed predated the dishwasher leak. Although the contractor took steps to remove the mold, its dehumidification efforts exacerbated the problem by dispersing mold spores throughout portions of the house.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
A Primer on Suspension and Debarment for Federal Construction Projects
August 10, 2020 —
Hal J. Perloff - Construction ExecutiveWe’ve all heard the expression that those who deal with the government must turn square corners. This is because the government has a broad array of tools at its disposal to motivate, coax and cajole contractors and federal grant recipients to play by the rules. Those tools include harsh measures such as criminal prosecution and civil false claims act enforcement on the one hand and poor CPARS ratings on the other. A seemingly less severe administrative option available to the government is suspension and debarment. However, any entity that has been suspended or debarred knows that these measures can prove harsh and disruptive.
While the numbers of suspensions and debarments have declined from the all-time high in 2011, there is still significant activity. In its FY 2018 report, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee reported 2444 referrals, 480 suspensions, 1542 proposed debarments and 1334 debarments. The number of referrals for suspension and debarment in FY 2018 is almost exactly the same as the number of GAO bid protests filed that year.
WHAT IS SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT?
Suspension and debarment are the government’s tools to avoid entities it views as a high risk for poor performance, fraud, waste and abuse. Suspension and debarment preclude a business entity or individual from contracting with the government or from receiving grants, loans, loan guarantees or other forms of assistance from the government. A suspension is a temporary exclusion when the government determines immediate action is necessary pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding. A debarment is an exclusion for a defined, reasonable period of time—often three years.
Reprinted courtesy of
Hal J. Perloff, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Perloff may be contacted at
hal.perloff@huschblackwell.com
Form Contracts are Great, but. . .
November 12, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRecently I was discussing the ConsensusDOCs with a colleague and friend and had a revelation. These forms are used often (though somewhat less than their AIA counterparts and less than they should be used). Quick disclaimer: I have been a part of a couple of drafting committees for ConsensusDOCs and am friends with Brian Perlberg, general counsel to the drafting effort.
Some of the reason that these forms are so widely used is that they can be applied in a general way to almost any situation. Both sets of forms have documents for small and large jobs. Both have forms for Contractor/Owner and Contractor/Subcontractor. In short, a form document exists for about any scenario.
I am writing now to let you know that while forms are great, they are just that. . . forms. Like with any set of forms, they need to be “tweaked” for your particular project. In my opinion they both have great clauses in them, and both have some flexibility built in (ConsensusDOCS more at the moment than the AIA forms). At the very least, construction professionals need to use this flexibility to conform the documents to their particular situation and do so within the documents themselves and not with addenda that “strike” or “modify” particular clauses.
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
A Court-Side Seat: Butterflies, Salt Marshes and Methane All Around
November 16, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOur latest summary of some recent developments in the courts and the federal agencies includes a unique case involving salt marshes adjacent to San Francisco Bay.
THE FEDERAL COURTS
A Wolf Among the Butterflies
On October 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of North American Butterfly Association v. Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The National Butterfly Center is a 100-acre wildlife sanctuary located in Texas along the border between the United States and Mexico, and in 2017, the DHS exerted control over a segment of the sanctuary to construct facilities to impede unauthorized entry into the United States. It was alleged that the government failed to provide advance notice to the sanctuary before it entered the sanctuary to build its facilities. The Association filed a lawsuit to halt these actions for several reasons, including constitutional claims and two federal environmental laws (NEPA and the Endangered Species Act), but the lower court dismissed the lawsuit because of the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). That law forecloses the applicability of these laws if the Secretary of DHS issues appropriate declaration. On appeal, the DC Circuit held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed. The plaintiffs had standing to file this lawsuit, but the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the IIRIRA, when invoked, required that the statutory claims be dismissed as well as a constitutional Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim. However, the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim that the government’s actions violated their right to procedural due process must be reviewed. The Center was given no notice of the government’s claims and no opportunity to be heard before these actions were taken. The dissenting judge argued that the court was being asked to review a non-final decision, which it should not do.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013
April 03, 2013 —
William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law GroupDeath of “Type 1” Indemnity in California Construction
For many years the prevalence of the “Type 1” indemnity clause has been the subject of fierce debate within the construction industry. Subcontractors have complained that they are saddled with indemnity obligations that require them to indemnify contractors from construction-related claims for which these subcontractors are truly not responsible. In defense, contractors have argued that they must be entitled to the freedom to set contractual terms to best protect themselves and they point out that subcontractors are certainly free to negotiate better terms or turn down work.
After many years of debate and small legislative inroads in prohibiting Type 1 indemnity in residential projects and where it concerns the “sole negligence”, “willful misconduct” or the “design defects” of others, the California legislature has finally spoken broadly and definitively on the issue of Type 1 indemnity clauses in construction contracts. Under new Civil Code section 2782, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, broad “Type 1” indemnity clauses shall be void and unenforceable in the context of both private and public construction projects in California. Civil Code section 2782 now makes it clear that subcontractors can no longer be required to indemnify against another’s active negligence in connection with construction contracts, whether public or private.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Esq.William L. Porter, Esq. can be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
