In Florida, Component Parts of an Improvement to Real Property are Subject to the Statute of Repose for Products Liability Claims
December 02, 2015 —
Michael L. DeBona – White and Williams LLPIn Dominguez v. Hayward Industries, Inc., Certified Gunite Company d/b/a Custom Pools, and John M. Pieklo, — So.3d —-, 2015 WL 5438782 (3d DCA Sept. 16, 2015), the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, discussed whether products liability claims related to a pool filter, a component part of a pool system, were subject to Florida’s twelve-year products liability statute of repose, section 95.031, Florida Statutes. The court held that a pool filter does not constitute an improvement to real property and, thus, the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the statute of repose.
Background Facts
Ryan and Jessica Dominguez had a pool installed at their house; the delivery and installation of the pool and its filter were completed on December 20, 1999. Over twelve years later – on November 17, 2012 – the pool filter exploded, causing Mr. Dominguez a severe head injury. Mr. Dominguez and his wife brought a products liability action against, among others, the pool filter manufacturer and distributor, Hayward Industries, Inc., and the installer of the pool and intermediate distributor of the pool filter, Certified Gunite Company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLPMr. DeBona may be contacted at
debonam@whiteandwilliams.com
New York State Trial Court: Non-Cumulation Provision in Excess Policies Mandates “All Sums” Allocation
October 02, 2018 —
Paul Briganti - White & Williams LLPOn August 18, 2018, the New York Supreme Court, New York County, confirmed a referee’s finding that “all sums” allocation was required under excess policies issued by Midland Insurance Company because they included a non-cumulation provision. See Matter of Liquidation of Midland Ins. Co., Index No. 041294/1986 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2018).
Midland was a multi-line carrier that wrote a substantial amount of excess coverage for Fortune 500 companies. In the 1980s, Midland faced significant exposure for environmental, asbestos and product liability claims. In 1986, it was placed in liquidation and the New York State Superintendent of Insurance (the Liquidator) was appointed as its receiver. Since then, the New York Supreme Court has presided over the liquidation proceedings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul Briganti, White & Williams LLPMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Recent Environmental Cases: Something in the Water, in the Air and in the Woods
July 22, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelState of Texas, et al. v. US EPA. The revised regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” continues to generate litigation in the federal courts. On May 28, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the 2015 rulemaking proceedings used by EPA and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to redefine this important component of the Clean Water Act were flawed in that the notice and comment provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) were violated because insufficient notice was provided by these agencies that “adjacent” waters newly subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of these agencies, can be determined on the basis of specific distances, which was a change in the agencies’ thinking, and insufficient notice of this change was provided to the public. In addition, the final rule “also violated the APA by preventing interested parties from commenting on the scientific studies that served as the technical basis” for the rule. However, the court did not vacate the new rule, but remanded the matter to the “appropriate administrative agencies” to give them an opportunity to fix this problem.
State of Oklahoma, ex rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma v. US EPA and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A day later, on May 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma rejected arguments that the new redefinition should be preliminarily enjoined.While this case was filed in 2015, intervening litigation in the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, caused a substantial delay in the disposition of this case. The court, noting that the tests for granting such an injunction against the federal government are fairly exacting, held that the plaintiffs, the State of Oklahoma and a number of industry groups and associations, failed to convince the court that the harm they would suffer if the rules remained effective would be irreparable. Presumably, this case will be going to trial in the near future.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Dear Engineer: Has your insurer issued a “Reservation of Rights” letter? (law note)
April 20, 2017 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaIn my previous post, I made reference to getting a “Reservation of Rights” letter. I noted that the carrier may decide to defend you under a Reservation of Rights (i.e., hire your lawyer) but may not, necessarily, accept the responsibility for paying the claim. Does this mean that the insurance company has denied your claim, or will never pay? No.
Reservation of Rights (ROR) letters are sent for a variety of reasons- most notably, when some portion of the construction lawsuit against you is not covered under your E&O policy. The letter must state the reason(s) that the ROR is being issued.
With the ROR, the insurance company is telling you that it reserves the right to withdraw from your defense and/or deny payment of damages at a later date, depending upon how facts in the case develop. The notice is intended to let you know that there *may* be issues later, and to put you notice that you have the right to hire your own lawyer (at your own expense) to protect yourself from that future potential risk.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Case Alert Update: SDV Case Tabbed as One of New York’s Top Three Cases to Watch
January 10, 2018 —
Richard W. Brown - SDV BlogArgument before the Court of Appeals has now been scheduled for February 7, 2018, in
Gilbane Building Co. v. St. Paul Insurance, with a long anticipated decision by New York’s highest court to be issued shortly thereafter. In its September 18, 2017 edition, Law360.com highlighted three major cases with significant implications on insurance coverage that will soon be decided by the New York Court of Appeals. Gilbane presents an opportunity for the Court to address the growing number of divergent decisions regarding the prerequisites for qualifying as an additional insured, as it considers an Appellate Division’s holding that a construction manager is not entitled to coverage as an additional insured under a contractor’s policy because the two companies did not enter into a direct contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. Mr. Brown may be contacted at
rwb@sdvlaw.com
Court Affirms Duty to Defend Additional Insured Contractor
December 05, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the insurer must defend. Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co., 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5507 (N.Y. App. Div., Oct. 7, 2022).
XL Construction Services, LLC was the contractor on a construction project. Timothy J. O'Connor was insured when performing drywall finishing as a self-employee subcontractor on the project. As part of a written indemnification and insurance agreement between the parties, O'Connor was obligated to obtain insurance for the benefit of XL Construction. O'Connor was insured by Merchants Mutual Insurance Company under a policy containing an additional insureds endorsement that provided coverage to a party where required by a written agreement, but "only with respect to liability for 'bodily injury' . . . caused in whole or in part, by . . . [O'Connor's] acts or omissions."
The trial court found there was a duty to defend and entered judgment that Merchants Mutual was obligated to provided a defense to XL Construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement
January 13, 2020 —
Danielle Ward, Esq. - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesIn July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract.
The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret.
The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.”
Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech.
The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding.
In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement.
Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit.
The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms.
Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn the aftermath of a tornado in central Illinois, home builders are warning homeowners to be wary of scam artists. “We need to protect consumers from repair scams,” said Lisa Scott, the executive director of the Home Builders Association of Greater Peoria. “After a devastating storm, people come in from outside the area to offer help,” she said, noting that some will be offering help they won’t actually provide.
“This isn’t about supporting our members,” she said, “this is about having somebody who stands by their work instead of paying cash for a roof job and having no one to call when a few months later, it starts leaking.” She further warns, “you shouldn’t be paying cash. You should have a contract.”
One home builder, David Whitehurst, owner of P & W Builders, noted that “there will be a lot of people out there trying to make a quick buck that aren’t qualified to do the work.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
