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
How U.S. Design and Architecture Firms Can Profit from the Chinese Market and Avoid Pitfalls
December 23, 2024 —
Chengdong ("C.D.") Xing - The Dispute ResolverDespite recent challenges, including obvious political tensions, economic cooling in the PRC, and increased local competition, the Chinese market remains an attractive destination for U.S. design and architecture firms. For instance, PEI Architects has maintained its success in China through long-standing relationships with key clients and is currently involved in two major projects for the Bank of China: a 1.9 million-square-foot complex in Shanghai and a financial center in Haikou.[i] Similarly, NBBJ is playing a critical role in the development of Tencent’s Net City in Shenzhen, a 2-million-square-meter smart city project that aligns with China's goals of sustainable and tech-driven urbanization.[ii] These examples show that while the Chinese market presents challenges, it continues to offer significant opportunities, particularly in sectors where innovative and cutting-edge architectural solutions are in high demand. At the same time, U.S. firms should exercise care: proper advance planning and strategic alliances are crucial for profitable forays into the Chinese market.
JR Design Project: A Cautionary Tale
When operating in China, U.S. design firms often encounter regulatory challenges, particularly with respect to China’s strict qualification requirements for architectural design services. Failure to meet these requirements can result in serious legal issues, including the potential invalidation of design contracts, as demonstrated in a leading case decided by the Supreme People’s Court of PRC (the nation’s highest court).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chengdong ("C.D.") Xing, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLPMr. Xing may be contacted at
chengdong.xing@rajahtann.com
White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020
December 22, 2019 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law and Media Law. Our Boston, New York and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas. Firms included in the “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal experience.
National Tier 1
Insurance Law
National Tier 3
Media Law
Metropolitan Tier 1
Boston
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Delaware
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
New Jersey
Labor Law – Management
Philadelphia
Commercial Litigation
Insurance Law
Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
Metropolitan Tier 2
Boston
Insurance Law
Delaware
Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
New Jersey
Employment Law - Management
Litigation - Labor & Employment
Philadelphia
Bet-the-Company Litigation
Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants
Media Law
Real Estate Law
Tax Law
Trusts & Estates Law
Metropolitan Tier 3
New York City
Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Philadelphia
Appellate Practice
Construction Law
First Amendment Law
Litigation – Construction
Litigation – Labor & Employment
Patent Law
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Hawaii Supreme Court Bars Insurers from Billing Policyholders for Uncovered Defense Costs
April 23, 2024 —
Amanda C. Stefanatos - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Across the country, there is a split in authority as to whether an insurance company should be allowed to recoup defense costs where it is ultimately determined that the carrier has no duty to defend under the policy and the policy is silent as to such reimbursement. The Hawaii Supreme Court is the latest to enter the fray to address this very question, ruling in favor of policyholders in the recent case of
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Bodell Construction Company.
Facts of the Case and Procedural History
The Bodell case arose in response to a pair of certified questions from the US District Court for Hawaii to the Hawaii Supreme Court. The case involved a group of primary and excess insurers that sold liability policies to Bodell Construction and sought reimbursement of defense costs that the insurers had paid to defend a construction defect claim against Bodell. In the Underlying Action, the District Court ultimately ruled that the claims against Bodell Construction were not covered under the policies. Because the claims were not covered, the insurers demanded reimbursement of the defense fees from Bodell . Having determined there was no Hawaii state law on this issue, and in light of conflicting decisions in the district courts, the US District Court for Hawaii requested guidance from the Hawaii Supreme Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda C. Stefanatos, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Stefanatos may be contacted at
AStefanatos@sdvlaw.com
The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion
September 28, 2017 —
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion!
Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at
pbw@sdvlaw.com
Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act Enacted
July 14, 2016 —
Michael B. McClellan & Jason L. Morris – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOn May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) into law,
creating a private federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. This landmark
legislation, a product of bipartisan backing and significant support from the business
community, will affect businesses and individuals operating in almost every economic sector
across the country. The DTSA will potentially be at issue any time an employee with access to
confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information moves on to a competitor or launches
a startup that competes with the former employer. This will be true so long as the product
or service that the trade secret relates to is either used in or intended for use in interstate
or foreign commerce. Under present commerce clause jurisprudence, the vast majority of
businesses providing products and services in the United States will be affected by this new law.
The DTSA will provide, for the first time, a codified federal civil remedy for
misappropriation of trade secrets. Although most states have adopted some version of the
Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”), there remains significant variation between the states in
their application of the UTSA and litigants face significantly different statutory frameworks
depending upon which state holds jurisdiction over the dispute. In addition, prior to this
new law, litigants were limited to pursuing their claims for misappropriation of trade secrets
in state courts, unless federal diversity jurisdiction applied to the dispute. The DTSA changes
that dynamic, providing original federal subject matter jurisdiction over trade secret disputes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael B. McClellan, Newmeyer & Dillion and
Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer & Dillion
Mr. McClellan may be contacted at Michael.mcclellan@ndlf.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at Jason.morris@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Several Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2022 Top Lawyers!
October 03, 2022 —
Wilke Fleury LLPWilke Fleury is extremely proud of its incredibly talented attorneys! Congratulations to Steve Williamson, Dan Egan, Neal Lutterman, Danny Foster, George Guthrie, Mike Polis, Ron Lamb, and David Frenznick, who are all featured in this year’s Sacramento Magazine’s List of Top Lawyers 2022!
Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury LLP
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lien Claimant’s Right to Execute against Bond Upheld in Court of Appeals
February 10, 2012 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogStonewood v. Infinity Homes is a simple construction dispute over a matter of about $9,000.00. But sometimes these tiny little disputes turn into expensive legal battles over mere procedural quivering. In Stonewood, a small subcontractor won a big victory yesterday when the Divison 1 Court of Appeals upheld its judgment against a lien release bond posted by an owner.
Infinity Homes contracted with Stonewood Design to lay tile in one of its customer’s homes. Stonewood did the work, but Infinity withheld roughly $9,000.00 of the contract sums for what it alleged were trade damages left on the tile. The two parties were unable to come to an agreement over payment and Stonewood proceeded with a lien under RCW 60.04. It then filed an action to enforce the lien against the homeowner, Infinity and its bonding company.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
