Appeal of an Attorney Disqualification Order Results in Partial Automatic Stay of Trial Court Proceedings
October 11, 2017 —
Howard M. Garfield & Renata L. Hoddinott - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn URS Corporation v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture (No. G055271 filed September 26, 2017), Division Three of the Fourth Appellate District dealt with, for the first time, the question of whether an appeal of an attorney disqualification order results in an automatic stay of the trial proceedings and, if so, how far the automatic stay extends.
The underlying action involved a construction dispute between a contractor and subcontractor. During the pendency of that action, one party’s counsel filed a motion to disqualify another party’s counsel based on an alleged misuse of mediation-privilege protected documents. The trial court granted the disqualification motion and the disqualified counsel promptly filed a notice of appeal. The trial court then denied an application to stay proceedings pending the appeal, rejecting the assertion that the appeal automatically stayed the underlying proceedings.
Reprinted courtesy of
Howard M. Garfield, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Garfield may be contacted at hgarfield@hbblaw.com
Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Preparing For and Avoiding Residential Construction Disputes: For Homeowners and Contractors
September 18, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome a great friend. Scott Wolfe Jr. (@scottwolfejr)is a construction attorney in Louisiana, Washington and Oregon, and is the founding member of the construction practice Wolfe Law Group. He authors the Construction Law Monitor. He is also the founder of the mechanic lien and preliminary notice filing service, Zlien, and the author of its Construction Lien Blog.
Residential construction disputes come in all shapes and sizes, but very typically have one thing in common: they can get very nasty.
This is understandable, especially in today’s economy. The homeowner is spending hard-earned money on something very personal to them, their home. They want it done right. The contractor is working on really tight margins, and with a diligent client.
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
Workplace Safety–the Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense
October 02, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorI just attended an Associated Builders and Contractors meeting during which Lueder Construction discussed a fatality on one of its worksite. OSHA fully investigated the incident and did not issue a single citation. This is a testament to the safety plan and training Lueder had in place well before this incident. One defense to an OSHA citation is unpreventable employee misconduct. However, proving this defense requires substantial planning, well before an incident or investigation.
Unpreventable Employee Misconduct Defense
OSHA requires that an employer do everything reasonably within its power to ensure that its personnel do not violate safety standards. But if an employer lives up to that billing and an employee nonetheless fails to use proper equipment or otherwise ignores firmly established safety measures, it seems unfair to hold the employer liable. To address this dilemma, both the Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission and courts have recognized the availability of the unforeseeable employee misconduct defense.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Comply with your Insurance Policy's Conditions Precedent (Post-Loss Obligations)
May 31, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesI am of the opinion that if your property insurer requests a sworn proof of loss, furnish one with the assistance of counsel (preferably). Ignoring the insurer’s request or refusing to comply with insurer’s request is NOT value-added; it is simply placing you at a disadvantage based on the insurer’s argument that you, as the insured, materially breached the policy. I generally find no value having to confront this expected argument. Instead, I find value making an effort to comply with post-loss obligations including the insurer’s request to submit a sworn proof of loss. Working with counsel can help you comply with post-loss obligations (conditions precedent) while not weakening the value or merits of your claim.
By way of example, in Edwards v. Safepoint Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D1086a (Fla. 4th DCA 2021), the insured did not provide its property insurer with the requested sworn proof of loss. The insurer moved for summary judgment that the insured’s failure to submit the sworn proof of loss was a material breach of the policy that rendered the policy ineffective. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed explaining “[a] total failure to comply with policy provisions made a prerequisite to suit under the policy may constitute a breach precluding recovery from the insurer as a matter of law. If, however, the insured cooperates to some degree or provides an explanation for its noncompliance, a fact question is presented for resolution by a jury.” Edwards, supra, quoting Haiman v. Federal Ins. Co., 798 So.2d 811, 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
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
Ahlers, Cressman & Sleight PLLC Ranked Top Washington Law Firm By Construction Executive
July 06, 2020 —
Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight BlogACS is proud to announce that in its review of the top 50 national construction law firms, Construction Executive has ranked ACS as the top 23rd national firm, and first among firms with a majority of their attorneys based in Washington.
Now in its 18th year of publication, Construction Executive is the leading trade magazine about the business of construction. In its June 2020 issue, CE published a comprehensive ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™ featuring breakouts and analysis accompanied by an article in which leading legal experts discuss the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the construction industry. To determine the 2020 ranking, CE asked hundreds of US law firms with a construction practice to complete a survey. Data collected included: 1) 2019 revenues from the firm’s construction practice; 2) number of attorneys in the firm’s construction practice; 3) percentage of firm’s total revenues derived from its construction practice; 4) number of AEC clients; and 5) the year in which the construction practice was established. The ranking was determined by an algorithm that weighted the aforementioned factors in descending order of importance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight BlogMr. Lane may be contacted at
joshua.lane@acslawyers.com
EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule
July 19, 2021 —
Karen Bennett - Lewis BrisboisThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will revise a 2020 final rule clarifying requirements for water quality certification under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 85 Fed. Reg. 42210 (June 2, 2021). CWA Section 401 requires states and tribes to certify that any discharges associated with a federal permit will comply with applicable state or tribal water quality requirements.
In an effort to eliminate 401 certification being used as a tool for delaying or imposing conditions unrelated to protecting water quality on federal permits, the 2020 rule established limits on the scope and timeline for review and required any conditions on certification to be water-quality related. State and Tribal governments and environmental groups challenged the rule, arguing it constrained state and tribal decision-making authority by limiting the term “other appropriate requirements of State law” in CWA Section 401(d) to “water quality requirements” and “point source discharges.”
With EPA’s decision to revise the rule, many believe these same scope and timing limitations will be targets for change. Clients with experience, positive or negative, under the 2020 rule should consider submitting comments by the August 2, 2021 deadline.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Karen Bennett, Lewis BrisboisMs. Bennett may be contacted at
Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers List
January 25, 2021 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPEight Haight attorneys have been selected to the 2021 Southern California Super Lawyers list.
Congratulations to:
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
