Too Late for The Blame Game: Massachusetts Court Holds That the Statute of Repose Barred a Product Manufacturer from Seeking Contribution from a Product Installer
March 21, 2022 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wangs Alliance Corp., No. 21-cv-10389-AK, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26712, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (District Court) considered whether a product manufacturer was barred by the Commonwealth’s six-year statute of repose for improvements to real property from joining the installer of the product as a third-party defendant. The court denied the defendant’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint to join the installer, finding that the installer completed its work more than six years prior to the motion being filed. This case reminds us that Massachusetts’ six-year statute of repose for improvement to real property also bars a defendant’s contribution claims against third parties.
The Wangs Alliance case involves a subrogation action filed by State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance (Insurer) against Wangs Alliance Corp. (Wangs), a manufacturer of rope lighting. Insurer insured the homeowners, who experienced a fire in their home in 2018. The home was originally built in 2002 by Wellen Construction (Wellen). As part of the original construction, Wellen installed rope lighting manufactured by Wangs in the house.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Playing Hot Potato: Indemnity Strikes Again
September 17, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIndemnity can be like playing hot potato (for those of you closer to the Minecraft generation, in the game of hot potato, a metaphoric “hot potato” is tossed between (ahem amongst) players while music is playing, and when the music stops, the player holding the hot potato is out. It’s a barrel of monkeys, trust me.).
Anyway, like hot potato, with indemnity an owner typically requires its general contractor to indemnify the owner (sometimes the property owner in TI projects and occasionally design professionals) from and against any and all claims arising out of, related to . . . blah, blah, blah . . . the general contractor’s scope of work . A general contractor in turn will usually require indemnity from its subcontractors. And subcontractors will require indemnity from their sub-subcontractors. And down the line it goes with each party pointing their finger at the next party down the proverbial “food chain.”
But it doesn’t always happen that way as the next case, American Title Insurance Company v. Spanish Inn, Case No D067137, California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District (August 14, 2015), illustrates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal
September 11, 2023 —
Colleen E. Hastie & Jeffrey George - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County.
The lawsuit, commenced by Plaintiff in 2015, alleged medical malpractice stemming from treatment Plaintiff received at a New York medical facility after falling out of a window at a rental property owned by Traub Lieberman’s client (“Property Owner”). Property Owner moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence in support of its claims, or in the alternative, compel plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery. The Medical Facility cross-moved for the same relief. Defendants agreed to adjourn the motion until after plaintiff’s deposition, but plaintiff made no effort to secure an adjournment with the court and plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, allowing the motion to be granted on default. Plaintiff waited nearly a year to file a motion to vacate the default judgment, despite receiving notification of the default from defense counsel. Property Owner, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, pointed to plaintiff’s long history of dilatory conduct and failure to comply with discovery orders in support of its position that plaintiff failed to show any good cause for its default on the motion to dismiss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman and
Jeffrey George, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com
Mr. George may be contacted at jgeorge@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Application of Set-Off When Determining Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees
February 22, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe recent opinion from the Second District Court of Appeal in Hayward Baker, Inc. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2020 WL 7767859 (2nd DCA 2020) demonstrates that the significant issues test for determining the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees applies to disputes involving payment bonds under Florida’s Lien Law (Florida Statutes Chapter 713). The
significant issues test is more or less a subjective test where the party that is deemed to have prevailed on the significant issues in the case is the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees in the case. A trial court has discretion to determine the prevailing party which will not be disturbed absent an appellate court finding the trial court abused that discretion. This significant issues test is an important consideration so that parties understand just because money ends up going their way does not necessarily mean they prevailed on the significant issues in the case. It could mean that. But it may not based on the claims and moneys involved in the dispute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements
April 13, 2017 —
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOSHA requires employers to maintain safety records for a period of five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains a six month statute of limitations for OSHA to issue citations to employers for violations. In an effort to close the gap between the five years employers are required to keep records and the six month citation window, the Obama Administration implemented the “Volks Rule,” making recordkeeping requirements a “continuing obligation” for employers and effectively extending the statute of limitations for violations of recordkeeping requirements from six months to five years.
On March 22, 2017, the Senate approved a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 83) nullifying the “Volks Rule” and limiting the statute of limitations to six months for recordkeeping violations. President Trump signed the resolution nullifying the “Volks Rule” on April 3, 2017. The nullification appears to be in line with President Trump’s stated goal of generally eliminating governmental regulations.
What Does This Mean for California Employers?
California manages its own OSHA program, which generally follows the federal program, but is not always in lock-step with Federal OSHA. Cal/OSHA, under its current rules, may only cite employers for recordkeeping violations that occurred during the six months preceding an inspection or review of those records. To date, there has been no indication that California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has plans to adopt the “Volks Rule.” Barring a change, California employers will continue to operate under the status quo and be required to maintain safety records for five years, but will only be exposed to citations for recordkeeping violations occurring within the last six months.
Current Cal/OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements
Cal/OSHA form 300 (also known as the “OSHA Log 300”) is used to record information about every work-related death and most work-related injuries that cannot be treated with onsite first aid (specific requirements can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 14300 through 14300.48). Currently, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 14300.33 requires employers to retain OSHA Log 300 for a period of five years following the end of the calendar year during which the record was created, despite the fact that Cal/OSHA can only cite employers for failing to maintain such records for up to six months preceding an inspection.
Looking to the Future
Cal/OSHA is working on regulations that would require electronic submission of OSHA Log 300 records in California. This would bring Cal/OSHA more in line with Federal OSHA, which already requires electronic submission.
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
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at
dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com
A Court-Side Seat: May Brings Federal Appellate Courts Rulings and Executive Orders
June 29, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelHere are a few interesting new rulings from the federal appellate courts.
COURT ORDERS
Like a Good Neighbor …? —
State of Maryland v. EPA
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit decided a Clean Air Act case involving the use of the “Good Neighbor Provision” of the Act, which is triggered when one state has a complaint about emissions generated in a neighboring upwind state that settle in the downwind state. Here, Maryland and Delaware filed petitions with EPA seeking relief from the impact of emissions from coal-fired power plants that allegedly affect their states’ air quality. EPA largely denied relief, and the court largely upheld the agency’s use and interpretation of the Good Neighbor Provision. The opinion is valuable because of its clear exposition of this complicated policy.
A Volatile Underground Issue —
Wayne Land and Mineral Group v. the Delaware River Basin Commission
Also on May 19, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a ruling involving the Delaware River Basin Commission. Established in 1961, the Commission oversees and protects the water resources in the Basin. Not long ago, the Executive Director of the Commission, citing a rule of the Commission, imposed very strict limitations on fracking operations in the Basin. This decision has been very controversial with the Third Circuit opining that the Commission’s authority to regulate fracking operations—thought to be a province of state authority—was not clear-cut. In this case, three Pennsylvania state senators filed motions to intervene in the case, but the lower court rejected their request. The Third Circuit has directed the lower court to take another look at their standing to participate in this litigation. This is a volatile issue in Pennsylvania.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “You Have No Class(ification)”
May 13, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyIn fact, you didn’t even have a license.
A federal court in Alabama was tasked with determining whether an unlicensed contractor could recover from an Alabama project owner for in excess of $1.7 million in construction infrastructure and site work performed. In fact, the contractor “did not have a valid general contractor’s license” in the state of Alabama when it “assumed work on the project from its predecessor company.”
During the course of work on the project, the principals of an original contractor decided to go their separate ways, whereupon one of those principals announced that his new company would take over ongoing work. Roughly two months after the new company began working at the project, the contractor applied for a license with the Alabama Licensing Board of General Contractors – the license was issued within about 45 days. Then, some eight months later, the contractor added a “municipal and utilities” classification to its contractor license.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Development in CBF Green Building Case in Maryland
August 19, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsRemember that case I discussed a while back relating to the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) building in Annapolis, Maryland? Remember how it was a lawsuit over parallams and failure of those parallams? Do you even remember what a parallam is?
Well, that case was initially dismissed upon the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment because the trial court determined that CBF did not file its lawsuit within the proper time frame after notice of the potential failure of the building materials. Of course, CBF appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals under the caption The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et. al. v. Weyerhaeuser Company (4th Circuit).
After a great review of the facts of the case, the engineering inspections and reports at issue and the trial court’s ruling, the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the district court jumped the gun in dismissing the lawsuit so early in the process because:
a genuine dispute exists as to whether knowledge of the water infiltration problem would have put a reasonable person on notice that the Parallams were susceptible to premature deterioration and that their PolyClear 2000 treatment would not preserve them.
In short, the court ruled that the engineering reports relating to moisture issues would have put CBF on notice of the particular issue of deterioration that was at issue in the litigation.
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
