Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute

October 24, 2021 — Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Applying Louisiana law, a recent federal court decision exemplifies why policyholders should thoroughly read claims-made policies to understand when notice is due to insurers and truthfully complete policy applications. In Admiral Insurance Company v. Dual Trucking, Inc.,1 the Court determined the insurer, Admiral Insurance Company (“AIC”), owed no duty to defend or indemnify Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC (“DTT”), Dual Trucking of Montana, LLC (“DTM”), and Dual Trucking, Inc. (“DTI”) (collectively, the “Dual Entities”) under two Environmental Impairment Liability Policies (“EIL Policies”) and four Contractor Pollution Liability Policies (“CPL Policies”). The Court justified its decision because the Dual Entities: 1) did not give notice during the 2012-2013 EIL Policy period; 2) had discovered or knew of, but did not disclose, potential pollution conditions before the inception of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy and before the expiration of the extended reporting period of the 2012-2013 EIL Policy; 3) failed to provide AIC with notice during the extended reporting period of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy of claims for which the Dual Entities were seeking coverage; and 4) materially misrepresented known facts on the CPL Policy applications. I. Factual Background. The Dual Entities were Louisiana-based companies that provided oilfield equipment rental services. In 2011, the Dual Entities leased land in Montana under three leases, collectively referred to as “the Bainville site.” Shortly afterward, the Dual Entities applied for, and AIC issued, an EIL Policy and two CPL Policies with a policy period of October 1, 2012, to October 1, 2013. AIC renewed all three policies for the October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, policy period. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. McDonald may be contacted at MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com

U.S. Home Lending Set to Bounce Back in 2015 After Slump

January 21, 2015 — Kathleen M. Howley – Bloomberg
The U.S. mortgage market hit bottom in 2014. Chief economists at Fannie Mae and Moody’s Analytics Inc. as well as the Mortgage Bankers Association all predicted a turnaround this year after a record decline in 2014. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathleen M. Howley, Bloomberg
Ms. Howley may be contacted at kmhowley@bloomberg.net

Be Careful with Continuous Breach and Statute of Limitations

January 21, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
If 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Nine ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers

August 15, 2022 — Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
ACS is very honored and pleased to announce nine members of our firm were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington. Our blog articles usually cover Construction Legal News, but we feel this is a newsworthy accolade to be shared with friends and clients. To become candidates to receiving the Super Lawyer nomination, lawyers are nominated by a peer or identified by research. After completing this first step in the process, Super Lawyers’ research department analyzes 12 indicators, such as experience, honors/awards, verdicts/settlements, and others. As for the third step, there is a peer evaluation by practice area. Finally, for step four, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories. In other words, solo and small firm lawyers are compared only with other solo and small firm lawyers, and large firm lawyers are compared with other large firm lawyers. The process is very selective and only 5 percent of the total lawyers in Washington are nominated as Super Lawyers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Ingram may be contacted at cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com

The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action

April 13, 2020 — Jeffrey M. Dennis & Heather H. Whitehead - Newmeyer Dillion
With the ongoing COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the Coronavirus) pandemic and orders to “stay at home” in place across the United States, most organizations have been and continue to utilize remote arrangements. The software program known as “Zoom Meetings”, has become immensely popular as a means to facilitate meetings amongst employees, team members and other consultants rather than meeting in person. Despite such status, Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (Zoom) has been named as a defendant in one of the first, and certainly the most high-profile, class action lawsuits to be filed in California alleging violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA). The Class Action The complaint filed alleges that Zoom did not protect the personal information of its users as it collected personal information and then shared such information to third parties, including Facebook, without adequate disclosures to users. The allegations specifically refer to Zoom’s boasting about its maintenance of users’ privacy and that they can be trusted with user data. Further, it is noted that there is no disclosure provided in the Zoom Privacy Policy that disclosed that personal information was being shared with Facebook and other third parties. Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion and Heather H. Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Be Careful When Walking Off of a Construction Project

November 24, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I am truly grateful that my buddy Craig Martin (@craigmartin_jd) continues his great posts over at The Construction Contractor Advisor blog. He is always a good cure for writer’s block and once again this week he gave me some inspiration. In his most recent post, Craig discusses a recent Indiana case relating to the ever present issue of termination by a subcontractor for non-payment. In the Indiana case, the court looked at the payment terms and determined that the subcontractor was justified in walking from the project when it was not paid after 60 days per the contract. This result was the correct, if surprising. Why do I say surprising? Because I am always reluctant to recommend that a subcontractor walk from a job for non payment if it is possible to continue. This is not so much for legal reasons (not paying a sub is a clear breach of contract by a general contractor) but practical ones. The practical effect of walking from the job is that the subcontractor is put on the defensive. Instead of arguing later that it performed but was not paid, that subcontractor is put in the position of arguing that the general contractor cannot collect its completion related and other damages because it breached first. This is a more intuitively difficult argument and one that is not as strong as the first. Of course, all of this is contingent on the language in your contract (is there a “pay if paid” or language like that in the Indiana case?). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

California Court of Appeal Finds Alleged Inadequate Defense by Insurer-Appointed Defense Counsel Does Not Trigger a Right to Independent Counsel

January 11, 2022 — Robert Dennison - Traub Lieberman
The California Second District Court of Appeal had occasion to examine an insurer’s duty to provide independent counsel (“Cumis counsel”) to its insured in a declaratory relief action entitled Nede Management, Inc. v. Aspen American Insurance Company. The action arose from a fire on a property covered by an insurance policy issued by Aspen American Ins. Co (“Aspen”). Aspen’s insureds were sued for wrongful death and negligence by tenants and squatters allegedly injured by the fire. Aspen defended three individual members of the family who owned the property and the family business, Nede Management, Inc. (“Nede”), which managed the property. The defense was subject to reservations of rights on the lack of an obligation to pay any judgment in excess of the $1 million policy limits and no coverage for punitive damages. Aspen appointed defense counsel to defend its insureds. The insureds sought independent counsel based on the assertion that defense counsel appointed by the insurer defended the action inadequately, failed to communicate an initial settlement demand within policy limits and failed to fully investigate the case. Aspen did provide Cumis counsel to Nede for a period but terminated the arrangement after revoking its reservation of rights to that entity. The underlying case eventually settled at no cost to the insureds. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert Dennison, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Dennison may be contacted at rdennison@tlsslaw.com

Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House

October 02, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Knife River Corp was hired by the town of Post Falls, Idaho to do road and sewer construction work. In the process, they interrupted a 6-inch water supply line, sending the water into a wastewater line. From there, the water flooded a home in Post Fall. The city paid more than $7,800 in damages. Post Falls sued Knife River’s insurer for coverage. The city has lost its lawsuit and is responsible for $18,500 in attorneys’ fees. Despite all this, the city administrator says that the city still has a good working relationship with Knife River. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES