Receiving a $0 Verdict and Still Being Deemed the Prevailing Party for Purposes of Attorney’s Fees
May 24, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesLow and behold, a party can be the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees even if that party is awarded $0. That’s right, even if the party is awarded a big fat zero, they can still be the prevailing party for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees. This is because a party is the prevailing party if they prevail on the significant issues in the case. A party can prevail on the significant issues even if that party is awarded $0. Whoa!
For example, in Coconut Key Homeowner’s Association, Inc. v. Gonzalez, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1045a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018), a homeowner sued her homeowner’s association claiming the association breached its governing documents. There was a basis for fees under Florida’s homeowner’s association law (and there likely was a basis under the governing documents). At trial, the jury held that the association breached its governing documents, but awarded the homeowner nothing ($0). The trial court also issued injunctive relief in favor of the homeowner. The homeowner claimed she should be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees; however, this was denied by the trial court based on the $0 verdict and no fees were awarded to the homeowner.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Bert L. Howe & Associates Celebrates 21-Year Success Story
July 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJuly 31, 2014 marks the 21st anniversary of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. (BHA). The company commenced operations on this date 21 years ago today. During the last two decades, the landscape of the construction defect industry as a whole has shifted significantly. In the early nineties, the industry consisted substantially of multi-family residential projects, and construction defect litigation was a regional concern focused primarily on Southern California.
In the intervening 21 years, the construction defect industry has become a nationwide concern with the majority of states adopting builders’ right to repair legislation. To mark the 21st anniversary of BHA, we spoke with some of the key personnel to get some insights and impressions of how the industry and the company have evolved throughout the years.
On July 31st, 1993, Bert formed the company after a long career as a general contractor. He had become involved in the construction forensics field in 1988, providing general construction investigation and expert support services to legal professionals handling multifamily residential cases.
James Howe, the firm's current President and Chief Operating Officer, joined the company in November 1993. Previously, he had been recruited by The New York Times and served as operations manager for their Orange County, Los Angeles, and Inland Empire operations.
In January of 1994, operations were relocated to a small, 1,100-square foot, two-story walk-up in Anaheim Hills, California. James stated that they purchased furniture from Plummers, and he and Bert carted all of the furniture up the stairs and assembled it themselves over the weekend.
Immediately, they hired the first employee, Matthew J. Nardella, an architect and graduate from Cal Poly University, who also came to the firm with substantial construction and design experience.
Matt was scheduled to begin work on January 17th, 1994, the day of the Northridge earthquake. “I remember calling Bert,” Matt said. “‘Bert, is everything okay down there? Do you want me to come in?’ All of the news said freeways collapsed. I didn’t know what was going on with the roads,” Matt continued. “Bert’s like, ‘Yeah, nothing happened here, get over here.’ I said, ‘Okay, I’ll be there.’” Matt chuckled at the memory.
Even back in early 1994, Bert was in high demand as an expert witness. “He was everyone’s go-to-guy,” Matt Nardella stated. “The day a case was filed they would call him first.”
“He had a real desire,” Susan Howe, BHA’s Chief Executive Officer, said. “The primary way Bert worked on growing the business was by showing up, being prepared, and being full of ideas. If there was a problem or an issue, he would come up with a solution on how to handle it in the scope of what we were doing. He identified solutions and provided additional benefits to his clients. That’s how he grew the business, really. He grew each individual relationship.”
During that period, the type and scope of projects began to shift into a more diversified mix, including hotels, resorts, warehouses, storage facilities, restaurants, and more, though, at the time, BHA mainly provided expert witness support in construction defect cases involving attached housing developments, such as condominiums and townhomes.
Many of the other current key employees within the firm were hired during the mid-90s and continue with the firm today. Don MacGregor, John B. A. Mancini, and Jorge Porter were hired during this period. “The business was growing quickly and constantly from the moment I walked in the door,” Don MacGregor said, speaking of his early days with BHA. “Within just a few months of me being hired, the firm added six additional architects, engineers, and design professionals to meet client demands.”
Between 1995 and 1996, the company moved to a larger office (about 2,000 square feet), then added an additional 1,000 square feet of office space by adding on an adjoining unit. However, by 1997, James started looking for new, bigger office space. It was during this time that the firm’s current Chief Executive Officer joined the company.
Susan G. Howe left an executive position at a Newport Beach based business bank to focus her energy full time on the company's financial affairs and regulatory compliance issues.
When James walked in to what is now the firm’s Corporate Headquarters at 5415 E. La Palma in Anaheim Hills, it seemed enormous. At 5,500 square feet, it was twice the size of the modest current office. The space had previously been built out by American Express Travel Related Services.
In 1998, shortly after moving operations to Anaheim Hills, another key person in the BHA story joined the firm, Mark Chapman. "I remember interviewing Mark and feeling strongly that he was destined to become a recognized presence within this industry,” James Howe stated. “I was particularly intrigued with his dual credentials. Being a licensed professional engineer and a licensed general contractor provided the credibility he needed to speak to both civil engineering issues and general contracting or cost issues. This seemed like a win-win for the client. He was also a very strong negotiator coming in, and I respected that," James mused.
Mark recalled the recruitment process and his early discussions with James. "The job at BHA was different and intriguing enough to get me to make what ultimately turned out to be the right decision,” Mark stated. “I had been concerned with design for most of my career, but was interested in this highly specialized niche industry. I knew the industry existed, but it was still highly specialized at the time. I had no idea that I could make a career out of it. Nor did I realize that my skill set as an engineer and contractor was the perfect fit to handle the multi-faceted analysis that is sometimes required. The combination of design analysis, field work, meetings, and mediations turned out to be a refreshing career change.
"Working with Bert was a learning experience I will always remember and cherish,” Mark said. “He always said his door was open anytime I needed anything. When I did have a question, he would always take whatever time was needed to listen, think about it, and give me an answer. I was always impressed because not only did he always have an answer, it was always the right answer. Bert made me feel like family. I knew I had made it and gained his confidence when I walked into his office one day and asked his opinion and he simply said ‘You can handle it, I trust you.’ The past 16 years of my life have been the most rewarding personally and professionally. I owe it mostly to my experience at BHA, the Howe family's generosity, and my associates. It takes a great team to be successful. No one can do it by themselves.”
Soon enough, the once cavernous space was too small. The company was still growing, and arrangements were made to lease the adjoining unit, 5413, doubling the corporate office's footprint to a little over 12,000 square feet. James wondered if the firm would once again fill the new space: “Again, it seemed big at the time,” James said. “Somehow we filled it up, and now we’re busting out of it.”
John Springman joined BHA in June of 2000. John had worked with Bert throughout the years on several cases, John as the architectural expert and Bert as the general contracting/cost designee. They had worked so well together, that Bert spent a year or two recruiting him to join BHA.
By this time, Bert, Susan, and James had expanded their vision from only Bert as an expert witness, to BHA becoming a ‘multi-disciplinary’ firm with experts in differing fields. “At first, [Bert’s] primary form of testimony was cost estimating and standard of care for general contracting practices,” Susan said, “but he soon realized the value in developing a construction experts group comprising licensed architects, engineers, roofing and waterproofing experts, and building envelope specialists."
Susan explained how innovative the one-stop shop philosophy was back then. “[Bert] had not only to recruit John Springman and people like him, but we had to communicate the synergies, cost and productivity benefits to our existing client base, because it was innovative and different.”
However, it didn’t take long for BHA’s clients to reap the great benefits having access to a multi-disciplinary integrated support solution offered: “We were able to provide cost savings to our clients, because we were collecting the data and sharing it to all of the different disciplines within our own organization,” Susan said.
In the early 2000s, the projects began changing from condominium developer cases to single-family home cases. According to John, “The insurance industry started to write in exclusions for condominiums. Forced to go elsewhere for business, it went to single family homes.”
Also around this time, the Aas court decision changed the construction defect industry in California. The court ruled that you have to have damage to have a claim. “Just because a code wasn’t followed didn’t matter unless damage occurred from it,” John said. “It is under breach of contract and other things, but not negligence. Insurance covered negligence, so it took away insurance coverage. Then SB 800 [California’s Right to Repair Act] came about and took a lot of those things and brought them back in.”
While continuing to grow its California market, in 1999 BHA extended its reach into other regions beginning with Nevada and Arizona. By 2003, their reach extended to the east coast with satellite offices in Ohio, Kentucky, and South Carolina.
The types of projects BHA handled also diversified. BHA continued their work with production housing and condominiums and other attached housing, and they supplemented this work with cases involving high-rise and mid-rise buildings, hospitals, hotels, schools and universities, religious institutions, sprawling custom homes, retail complexes, as well as handling delay claims, premises liability, trip-and-fall cases, worker compensation files, and others.
Susan recalled one of BHA’s first international cases that involved a mining operation in Chile. “The core of it was construction defect, but our main job was design analysis and estimating on a really huge scale,” Susan said. The firm was engaged directly through AIG. “An adjuster there contacted Bert at the West Coast Casualty seminar, a few weeks later Bert and half of the office were in Santiago. It was a very memorable assignment; I remember the litigation part of the case was handled largely in the capital city of Santiago. But the mining operations were quite remote. Each of our employees had to undergo altitude testing prior to being performing site investigations at the mining and processing facilities.”
By 2010, BHA had grown to a staff of over forty associates, with satellite offices across the country to support the growing regional businesses. However, in September of 2011, BHA’s beloved founder and President Bert Howe passed away after suffering a heart attack.
While Bert’s presence is still missed by the associates and, most especially, his wife and son, the company was well-positioned to continue on. Susan explained that James for about five years before Bert’s death had been slowly deleveraging Bert from the business. “He was helping his father to be able to work less,” Susan stated. “And as a result of that, we had all these great people like Matt Nardella, John Springman, Mark Chapman, Brad Hughes, John Tolman, Charlie Miller, Jerry Miles, and others who had significant tenure with the firm. They had all worked very closely with Bert, and had really matured, and now they had a few extra gray hairs."
So what’s next for Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.? Susan sees greater technological changes, as well as diversification in the types of projects, and the ability to offer additional value added services to their clients.
James stated that BHA has the capability to competitively enter new markets providing a superior credibility, cost, and customer service proposition. “Leveraging from our smart office techniques, proprietary construction forensics technologies, and mature business processes, we could effectively go into any regional market as efficiently as any other company, more efficiently than most, and bring a great deal of value to clients with minimal capital investment in these various markets.”
James also sees more opportunities for career BHA employees who are ready to take on new responsibilities. “I would like to see, and I’m trying to create, new opportunities and challenges for people to continue to be upwardly mobile,” James said. “I am energized by the prospect of delivering additional value to clients, and providing additional opportunities for key people here to grow and improve their lives economically through the growth of the company."
BHA currently is comprised of sixty employees, serving clients throughout the U.S. with offices in Anaheim Hills, California; Sacramento, California; San Diego, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; Miami, Florida; Houston, Texas; and San Antonio, Texas.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Inspired by Filipino Design, an Apartment Building Looks Homeward
May 22, 2023 —
Sarah Holder - BloombergAusterity and efficiency aren’t the first words that come to mind when you see the angled sawtooth bays of Tahanan Supportive Housing, or catch a glimpse of a rainbow through its lobby. But the dramatic exterior and joyful interior of this San Francisco building are both products of their constraints.
When David Baker Architects was approached to design the six-story development, the goal was aggressive: Produce 145 units of permanent supportive housing at under $400,000 a unit, and have the operation up and running in less than three years. The firm accepted the challenge, and by 2022, Tanahan was fully leased to residents, all of whom are San Franciscans who have struggled with chronic homelessness.
In a city where affordable units typically cost $600,000 to $700,000 each to construct, keeping in budget and meeting the deadline meant turning to the modular building company Factory OS. It also meant keeping variation at a minimum. The studios are identical, like Lego blocks; instead of being mirrored across a hallway, they’re just rotated 180 degrees. But nothing else about the building feels utilitarian.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah Holder, Bloomberg
The Miller Act: More Complex than You Think
October 07, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFKeith Bremer, senior partner of Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP, has a feature article in the Fall 2016 issue of Construction Claims Magazine, and discusses how the Miller Act has been slowly changing: “This is a complex piece of legislation that is evolving and has been decided differently depending on the federal district a case is heard in,” Bremer wrote.
Bremer explained how the courts continue to rule differently in regards to the Miller Act. “Currently it seems jurisdictions are split on the issue of whether or not subcontractors should be allowed to bring both a federal and state cause of action stemming from payment by a Miller Act bond. Therefore, any surety writing these bonds should pay strict attention to how broad or narrow the federal district that would hear the claim has interpreted the scope of a subcontractor’s remedies for Miller Act claims.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Appellate Court Holds Insurer’s Failure to Defend Does Not Constitute a “Reasonable Excuse” Required to Overturn Judgment
January 21, 2019 —
Timothy Carroll & Anthony Miscioscia - White and WilliamsA recent opinion by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division (Second Department) highlights the potential risks for an insurer leaving an insured unrepresented while the insurer pursues other parties or insurers who may be primarily responsible for defending the insured. In refusing to overturn a default judgment entered against an insured while its insurer knew that a complaint had been filed but refused to defend, the New York court’s decision raises questions about how claims adjusters are to effectively manage new claims to prevent a default judgment being entered against the insured, while at the same time ensuring that the appropriate party or insurance company handles the insured’s defense.
In Kaung Hea Lee v. 354 Management Inc., 2018 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7749 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 14, 2018) (354 Management) the underlying plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against the defendant insured due to its failure to answer the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs then moved to determine the extent of damages to which they were entitled by virtue of the default judgment. The defendant opposed that motion, relying on an affidavit from a senior liability claims adjuster employed by the defendant’s insurer. “In the affidavit, the claim adjuster stated that she did not assign an attorney to answer the complaint because the codefendant . . . was contractually obligated to defend and indemnify the defendant [insured], and she had been attempting to have either [the codefendant] or its insurer provide an attorney” for the defendant. However, it was determined that the claims adjuster knew about the plaintiffs’ complaint two weeks after the plaintiffs served it on the defendant and months before the plaintiffs moved for default judgment. Despite this knowledge, the defendant’s insurer did not provide a defense or, apparently, obtain an extension of time to respond to the complaint, which led to the default judgment.
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment
February 28, 2022 —
C. Ryan Jones & Scot E. Samis - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis recently obtained affirmation of final summary judgment in favor of a windstorm and general insurance provider (“Insurer”) in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The Appellant, a restoration service provider (“Restoration Service”), provided emergency mitigation services in the wake of hurricane damage to a residential home that was covered by an insurance policy issued by the Insurer. The Restoration Service invoiced the Insurer and, following an investigation, the Insurer paid a portion of the invoiced amount and invoked the policy’s appraisal clause to resolve the dispute over the difference. The Restoration Service brought suit against the Insurer, arguing that the appraisal process did not apply to mitigation services. The Insurer countered that it was entitled to resolve the claim by appraisal and, following arguments, the Court determined that the appraisal provision applied to mitigation services.
Reprinted courtesy of
C. Ryan Jones, Traub Lieberman and
Scot E. Samis, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Jones may be contacted at rjones@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Samis may be contacted at ssamis@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases
November 26, 2014 —
Casey J. Quinn - Newmeyer & Dillion LLPIn Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder.
The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim.
A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id.
Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006).
In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id.
It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ.
Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy.
About the Author
Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
FEMA Offers to Review Hurricane Sandy Claims
May 20, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to NJ, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be sending 141,800 letters to homeowners offering to review their Hurricane Sandy claims to see if the homeowners had been shortchanged. Homeowners who do not wish to wait for their letter can call 866-337-4262 or download a form online, reported NJ.
If after the initial FEMA review the homeowner remains unsatisfied, he or she can request an additional review by an independent party.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
