Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees
March 31, 2014 —
David W. Evans and Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPLaw firms seeking to recover attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in fee dispute litigation with their former client should hire outside counsel in order to avoid waiving any entitlement to such fees. Evaluating any potential exposure for a professional negligence claim or cross-claim before filing suit should also be considered. In Soni v. Wellmike Enterprise Company, Ltd., et al., No. B242288 (filed March 26, 2014) the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a law firm, represented by its own employees and associates, was not entitled to recover attorney fees as the prevailing party, pursuant to the attorney’s fee provision in the retainer agreement. The Soni decision is the latest addition to the general prohibition enunciated by Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 (“Trope”) and its progeny that law firms are precluded from recovering attorney’s fees for self-representation.
In Soni, the law firm obtained a $28,384 judgment for delinquent legal fees against a former client. The firm then filed a motion for attorney’s fees, seeking $120,912 as the fees it incurred as the prevailing party under the retainer agreement. The trial court denied the motion based on the general rule set forth in the Trope line of cases that fees are not recoverable where the firm is represented by attorneys employed by the firm, despite the presence in the applicable retainer agreement of a clause notifying the client that fees the law firm would seek if it prevailed would include those for its in-house personnel.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Deck Police - The New Mandate for HOA's Takes Safety to the Next Level
November 18, 2019 —
Joseph Ferrentino – Newmeyer DillionA recent California law will hold homeowners’ associations accountable for the safety of their decks. SB326 now mandates all homeowners' associations to have decks inspected at least once every nine years by an architect or structural engineer to determine whether the decks are safe and waterproof. This law (Civil Code section 5551) follows SB721 which was passed in 2018 and requires a similar inspection every six years for other multifamily dwelling units. Failure to comply can result in paying the enforcement costs of local building agencies.
DETAILS ON THE MANDATE:
More specifically, the 2019 law requires inspections of wood “decks, balconies, stairways, and their railings” more than six feet off of the ground and designed for human use. Additionally, the engineer or architect must (1) certify that he or she has inspected for safety and waterproofing, and (2) certify the remaining useful life of the system. Further, the inspector must inspect a random sample of enough units to provide 95% confidence that “the results are reflective of the whole.” In other words, in addition to the inspector, the association will have to hire a statistician.
The nine-year timetable for inspection is no coincidence. After all, the statute of limitations for construction defects is ten years. In fact, associations are required to give notice to their members before filing a suit against a builder. However, under the new law, the association can delay giving notice to its members “if the association has reason to believe that the statute of limitations will expire.” Also, recent case law held that builders could add requirements to CC&R’s to limit a board’s authority to file lawsuits – i.e. adding a supermajority vote by members. Under SB326, any such provisions are now void. Hence, “supermajority” voting provisions are now invalid.
IMPACT ON CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION
These recent laws are clearly a reaction to the tragic collapse of an apartment balcony in Berkley in 2015 that resulted in the death of six college students. While it is imperative that decks be structurally safe, the requirements of SB326 will fuel more construction defect litigation.
Joseph Ferrentino is a Partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Newport Beach office. With 25 years of experience, Joe guides clients through construction law issues, among other areas. For more information on how Joe can help, contact him at joe.ferrentino@ndlf.com
ABOUT NEWMEYER DILLION
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients’ business growth. 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 Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Motion in Limine to Dismiss Case for Lack of Expert Denied
June 26, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer's motion in limine seeking to dismiss the insureds' complaint due to the absence of expert testimony. Fabozzi v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74069 (E.D. N.Y. May 30, 2014).
During the policy period, the insureds noticed their house had serious structural problems, including cracks in the walls and floors that were pitched toward the rear of the house. The insureds had to move from their house. When they submitted a claim, it was denied by Lexington because the losses were caused by "wear and tear, deterioration, earth movement, settlement, shrinking, bulging or expansion of the property leading to cracking of structural components."
The insureds sued. Lexington filed a motion in limine to preclude the testimony of the insureds' expert and to dismiss the complaint for inability to offer prima facie proof of a covered loss absent such expert testimony.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Where Underlying Claim is Strictly Breach of Contract
June 30, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiConsidering certified questions from the federal district court, the Arkansas Supreme Court followed a prior decision in deciding there was no coverage for property loss caused by faulty workmanship based solely on breach of contract. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc. v. Cenark Project Mgt. Services, Inc., 2016 Ark. LEXIS 185 (Ark. April 28, 2016).
The homeowners entered a contract in 2005 with Arkansas Infrastructure, Inc. (AII) to construct pads for the construction of six homes. The contract provided that AII would perform the work in accordance with the plans, specifications, and drawings developed by CENARK Project Management Services, Inc.
In 2012, the homeowners sued AII for breach of contract, alleging that AII had failed to construct the pads in accordance with the plans and specifications designed by CENARK.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
CA Supreme Court Permits Insurers to Bring Direct Actions Seeking Reimbursement of Excessive Fees Against Cumis Counsel Under Limited Circumstances
August 19, 2015 —
David W. Evans & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe California Supreme Court held in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. (Squire Sanders) (8/10/2015 - #S211645) that if Cumis counsel, operating under a court order which such counsel drafted and which expressly provided that the insurer would be able to recover excessive fees, sought and received fee payments from the insurer that were fraudulent or otherwise manifestly and objectively useless and wasteful when incurred, Cumis counsel have been unjustly enriched at the insurer’s expense and the insurer will be permitted under such limited circumstances to seek reimbursement directly from Cumis counsel.
Certain Hartford insureds who had been issued commercial general liability policies were sued in multiple proceedings for a variety of claims, including unfair competition, defamation and intentional misrepresentation. Hartford disclaimed a duty to defend or to indemnify the defendants on the grounds that the acts complained of occurred prior to Hartford’s policy, and that some of the defendants were not Hartford insureds. A coverage action was filed by some of the insureds against Hartford; they were represented by the Squire Sanders law firm. Although Hartford subsequently agreed to defend several of the defendants subject to a reservation of rights, it declined to pay defense expenses incurred prior to the date of such agreement. Some months later, the trial court entered a summary adjudication order, finding that Hartford had a duty to have defended the liability action on the date it was originally tendered; the order required Hartford to fund the insured’s defense with independent counsel (i.e., so-called “Cumis” counsel; see San Diego Federal Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 358). The insureds retained Squire Sanders as their Cumis counsel.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Around the State
March 27, 2019 —
Richard Glucksman & Chelsea Zwart – Construction Claims MagazineIn late 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings. These bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to have been caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists—the repairs of which were deferred by the property manager despite indications of water damage.
In addition, 2018 saw the passage of California’s updated 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The new standards, which take effect in 2020, require, in part, the installation of solar systems on certain homes. The goal of the standards is to significantly decrease the energy usage in new homes while contributing to California’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction plans. Relatedly, new legislation, effective in 2019, aims to increase consumer protections for homeowners purchasing solar energy systems.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea Zwart, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien “Waivers” and “Releases”: What’s the Difference?
March 19, 2015 —
Thomas C. Rogers – White and Williams LLPIn the world of Pennsylvania mechanics’ liens there is much confusion about the interchangeable use of the words mechanics lien “waiver” and mechanics’ lien “release.” Many who work in the world of real estate in Pennsylvania, be they contractors, subcontractors, developers, lenders, or attorneys, use these terms interchangeably without understanding that there is a meaningful difference. Failure to understand the difference creates confusion when discussing issues and drafting documents regarding mechanics’ liens.
In Pennsylvania a mechanics’ lien “waiver” is the pre-construction waiver of liens that was historically executed by a general contractor and an owner and filed with the Prothonotary in the county in which construction is located. These pre-construction lien “waivers,” assuming they were properly prepared, signed by the contractor and owner and filed in accordance with applicable law, negated the ability of that contractor and its subcontractors to file a mechanics’ lien on the subject property. These pre-construction lien “waivers” were part of every construction loan closing up through the amendments to the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Act that went into effect in 2007. Since 2007, the Mechanics’ Lien Act has been amended twice to further address those circumstances in which pre-construction lien waivers still have vitality. Except with respect to those narrow situations specifically provided for in the statute, pre-construction lien “waivers” are against public policy in Pennsylvania.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas C. Rogers, White and Williams LLPMr. Rogers may be contacted at
rogerst@whiteandwilliams.com
CGL Coverage Dispute Regarding the (J)(6) And (J)(7) Property Damage Exclusions
April 18, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA new insurance coverage opinion dealing with a commercial general liability’s (CGL) duty to defend involved exclusions commonly known as the (j)(6) and (j)(7) property damage exclusions (and in certain policies known as the (j)(5) and (j)(6) exclusions). These are the exclusions that apply during ongoing operations. Exclusion (l), or the “your work” exclusion, applies post-completion, i.e., it is an exclusion for “property damage” to “your work” included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
Exclusions (j)(6) and (j)(7) in the policy at-issue exclude coverage for property damage to:
(j)(6) That particular part of real property on which any insured or any contractors or subcontractors working directly or indirectly on your behalf are performing operations, if the “property damage” arises out of those operations;
(j)(7) That particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because “your work” was incorrectly performed on it.
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
