Industry News: New Partner at Burdman Law Group
March 30, 2016 —
Burdman Law GroupBurdman Law Group, a boutique civil litigation law firm with offices in California, Nevada, and Arizona, is pleased to announce that
Pieter M. O’Leary, was named a Partner in January 2016.
Mr. O’Leary is an experienced litigator who has represented individuals and businesses in both state and federal court in actions involving breach of contract, negligence, construction, fraud, product defect, and business torts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Hampshire Asbestos Abatement Firm Pleads Guilty in Federal Fraud Case
February 02, 2017 —
Justin Rice - Engineering News-RecordFor the second time in three months, a New England-based asbestos removal company pleaded guilty in federal court to wage and benefit violations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Justin Rice, ENRMr. Rice may be contacted at
ricej@enr.com
Judgment Proof: Reducing Litigation Exposure with Litigation Risk Insurance
March 04, 2024 —
Latosha M. Ellis & Charlotte Leszinske - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIt is not just your imagination: verdicts are getting bigger. So-called “nuclear verdicts” have increased in size and frequency over the past decade, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic. Litigation risk insurance is a little known, but highly effective, option meant to compliment traditional insurance products and provide additional protection for policyholders nervous about litigation exposure.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to predict the exposure presented by any particular case. Between 2020 and 2022, the median
verdict increased 95%—from $21.5 million to $41.1 million. In
2022, a jury handed down a verdict worth $7.3 billion for injury to a single plaintiff. Even if an injury or loss is minor, juries have shown that they are willing to penalize corporate defendants with punitive damages that significantly exceed the award of compensatory damages. With such uncertainty and millions (if not billions) at stake, companies can reduce risk with litigation risk insurance.
Three key types of litigation risk insurance include: (1) punitive wrap insurance, (2) adverse judgment insurance, and (3) judgment preservation insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of
Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Charlotte Leszinske, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Leszinske may be contacted at cleszinske@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?
January 24, 2018 —
Thomas Balestreri and Amanda Crawley - Balestreri, Potocki, & HolmesThe ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied?
The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply.
Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a
clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act.
The
McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act?
To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings.
First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in
Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede
Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law
methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (
Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.)
In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (
Id.)
Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the
McMillin opinion.
This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896)
and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action?
To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded,
we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will
not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day.
All we know for sure from
McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of
McMillin v. Superior Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes
Reinsurer Must Reimburse Health Care Organization for Settlement Costs
June 17, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Indiana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment issued to reinsurer Continental Casualty Company (CNA) and determined it must reimburse the insured for settlement costs under the E & O policy. Wellpoint, Inc., et al. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, et al., 2015 Ind. LEXIS 316 (Ind. April 22, 2015).
Anthem, Inc. was a large managed health care organization. Anthem was its own primary and excess insurer for E&O liability. It had numerous excess reinsurers. Beginning in 1998, anthem was confronted by various lawsuits alleging it and other managed care organizations failed to pay claims in a full and timely manner, thereby breaching state and federal statutes. The various lawsuits alleged substantially the same wrongful conduct, namely that after promising to pay doctors in a timely manner for their services, Anthem sought to improperly deny, delay and diminish payments due.
The cases were consolidated into a federal multi-district litigation proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. Claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of state prompt pay statutes were dismissed or dropped. Anthem then settled the underlying litigation in July 2005 without admitting and instead denying any wrongdoing or liability. The settlement called for both cash payments and implementation of specific business practices consistent with requested injunctive relief.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Although Property Damage Arises From An Occurrence, Coverage Barred By Business Risk Exclusions
July 08, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe homeowners hired the insured to raise the structure of their home twenty-four inches above the flood zone. Lafayette Ins. Co. v. Peerboom, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58985 (S.D. Miss. June 2, 2011). When the insured’s crew returned from lunch one day, they found the house had fallen from hydraulic jacks being used to raise the structure a few inches at a time. There was substantial damage to the entire structure.
The homeowners sued, asserting several claims, including negligence and breach of contract. The complaint alleged the homeowners entered a contract with the insured to raise their structure while maintaining its integrity. However, the insured failed to use proper equipment, which caused the house to fall and be completely destroyed.
The insured tendered the claim to its insurer, Lafayette Insurance Company. Lafayette defended under a reservation of rights and filed suit for a declaratory judgment. Lafayette’s subsequent motion for summary judgment contended there was no “occurrence” alleged in the underlying complaint and, even if there was, the business risk exclusions barred coverage.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018
August 17, 2017 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – AUGUST 17, 2017 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that nine of the firm’s attorneys were recently recognized in their respective areas in The Best Lawyers in America© 2018. Two attorneys, Gregory Dillion and Thomas Newmeyer, also have been selected as an Orange County "Lawyer of the Year." Attorneys named to The Best Lawyers in America, include:
| Jason M. Caruso |
Personal Injury Litigation, Product Liability Litigation |
| Michael S. Cucchissi |
Real Estate Law |
| Gregory L. Dillion |
Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Insurance Law, Litigation – Construction, Litigation – Real Estate |
| Jeffrey M. Dennis |
Insurance Law |
| Joseph A. Ferrentino |
Litigation – Construction, Litigation – Real Estate |
| Thomas F. Newmeyer |
Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Litigation – Real Estate |
| John A. O'Hara |
Litigation – Construction |
| Bonnie T. Roadarmel |
Insurance Law |
| Carol Sherman Zaist |
Commercial Litigation |
Additionally, Gregory Dillion was selected as the Orange County Construction Litigation "Lawyer of the Year" and Thomas Newmeyer was selected as the Orange County Construction Law "Lawyer of the Year."
Best Lawyers is the oldest peer-review publication within the legal profession with a history of over 30 years. Attorneys are selected through intensive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers evaluate their professional peers. Their listings are published in 75 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections. Newmeyer & Dillion is immensely proud of these lawyers and looks forward to their future endeavors.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
In UK, 16th Century Abbey Modernizes Heating System by Going Back to Roman Times
March 18, 2019 —
Peter Reina - Engineering News-RecordAncient Romans in western England bathed in naturally warm spring water of the spa town of Aquae Sulis, now named Bath. Nearly 2,000 years later, the city’s 16th century abbey is now preparing to draw warmth from the still functioning Great Roman Drain to replace the former monastery’s dilapidated Victorian-era heating system.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Reina, ENRMr. Reina may be contacted at
reina@btinternet.com
