Sept. 11 Victims Rejected by U.S. High Court on Lawsuit
July 01, 2014 —
Greg Stohr – BloombergThe U.S. Supreme Court turned away an appeal by thousands of Sept. 11 attack victims who sought to sue Middle Eastern companies and people for allegedly providing crucial support to al-Qaeda.
The victims sought to revive their claims against relatives of Osama bin Laden, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned National Commercial Bank and Saudi Binladen Group, a construction company controlled by the former al-Qaeda leader’s family.
A federal appeals court threw out those claims in 2013, saying the victims didn’t allege a close enough connection between the defendants’ activities and the attacks. The appellate panel also said some defendants lacked sufficient ties to the U.S. to bring them within the jurisdiction of American courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Stohr, BloombergMr. Stohr may be contacted at
gstohr@bloomberg.net
Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing
August 04, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsIt’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim.
I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act.
In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull Obtain Dismissal of Claim Against Insurance Producer Based Upon Statute of Limitations
August 20, 2019 —
Jessica Burtnett & Jessica N. Kull - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry attorneys Jessica Burtnett and Jessica Kull successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice on behalf of their client after oral argument for a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull represented an insurance broker who was sued by one of its customers, a property management company, for failure to procure a correct policy of insurance that would have provided coverage for an underlying class action lawsuit asserting statutory violations.
In their motion, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the Plaintiff failed to file the lawsuit within the applicable two year statute of limitations outlined in the Illinois Insurance Producers Act 735 ILCS 5/13-214.4. Based on a recent ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Krop, 2018 IL 122556, ¶ 13, reh’g denied (Nov. 26, 2018), Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the statute of limitations began to accrue at the moment the allegedly non-conforming policy was delivered to the customer Plaintiff. In this case, Mrs. Burtnett and Ms. Kull argued that the subject policy was purchased and received before it became effective on November 25, 2015. Thus, at the absolute latest, the statute of limitations expired two years later on November 25, 2017. Since the lawsuit was not filed until October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was approximately 10 months too late to assert a valid claim.
In response, the Plaintiff tried to factually distinguish the Krop case by arguing it involved a claim against a captive agent rather than a broker. Plaintiff further argued that a broker maintains a fiduciary duty to its clients and, therefore, the two year statute of limitations applied in Krop did not apply to a broker. Plaintiff also argued the Illinois Insurance Placement Liability Act was unconstitutional.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Burtnett, Traub Lieberman and
Jessica N. Kull, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Burtnett may be contacted at jburtnett@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kull may be contacted at jkull@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
TxDOT, Flatiron/Dragados Mostly Resolve Bridge Design Dispute
March 13, 2023 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordThe Texas Dept. of Transportation and contractor Flatiron/Dragados LLC have “completely satisfied”
four of the five main design safety concerns the state agency raised over the under-construction new Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, officials say.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to BWB&O’s Las Vegas Team on Obtaining Summary Judgment for the Firm’s Landowner Client!
August 03, 2022 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Partner Anthony Garasi, Senior Associate Madeline Arcellana, and Associate Laura Rios successfully won a Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”), while also defeating two competing MSJs filed by Plaintiff, and ultimately obtaining a full dismissal of their landowner client against claims of premises liability.
Plaintiff, who sued both BWB&O’s client (the landowner) and its tenant, alleged injury when he slipped and fell, while utilizing a temporary wooden board as a ramp that was placed on the subject property by the tenant, who was occupying the property subject to a lease-to-own arrangement with BWB&O’s client.
In this Motion practice, the BWB&O team successfully obtained a ruling from the Court to find that BWB&O’s client had effectively contracted to delegate its maintenance responsibilities to its tenant, and also that the tenant owed BWB&O’s client full indemnity for Plaintiff’s alleged losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision authored by Judge Leslie E. Koybayashi, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii followed its prior decisions that construction defect claims were not covered because such claims do not arise from an occurrence. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 3 Builders, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88480 (D. Haw. June 24, 2013).
3 Builders, the insured, was sued by the Apartment Owners of Mililani Pinnacle for the faulty installation of a new roof. Pinnacle claimed the completed roofs were not properly installed.complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and other causes of action.
3 Builders tendered the defense to Nautilus, who accepted the tender and defended for three years. Nautilus, however, filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment on its coverage obligations. Nautilus sought summary judgment, contending there was no coverage because all of the claims arose from the contractual relationship to perform the roof work, and a breach of contract was not the type of fortuitous event covered by a CGL policy under Hawaii law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Construction Litigation—Battles on Many Fronts
May 07, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorWhen you are involved in construction litigation, you have battles on several fronts, including those against subcontractors, owners, insurers and the court. Shoring up your defenses on each of these fronts is imperative, or you may lose the battle or, worse yet, the war.
A recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (overseeing federal courts in Alabama, Florida and Georgia) Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, illustrates the various battle fronts involved in a construction case. In this case, the Carithers (Home Owner) sued their homebuilder, Cronk Duch Miller & Associates (Contractor) in state court after discovering multiple defects with their home.
Battle Front #1—Claim Against Contractor
The Contractor and Home Owner entered into a consent judgment for approximately $90,000.00 and the Contractor assigned its claim against its insurer to the Home Owner. It is unlikely that the Contractor paid the $90,000.00 judgment. The Home Owner likely agreed not to collect on the $90,000.00 in exchange for the chance to pursue the Contractor’s claim against its insurer.
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
Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado
June 28, 2021 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.”
By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
