California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures
September 22, 2016 —
Patrick J. Paul – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOn July 21, 2016, the California Supreme Court in Property Reserve v. Superior Court upheld the state’s precondemnation entry and testing statutes provided they were reformed to allow impacted property owners the ability to have a jury trial to determine damages associated with such entry and testing.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) sought to construct water conveyance facilities that would require significant property condemnation. As part of this process, DWR further sought to investigate the environmental and geological suitability of more than 150 private properties considered for the conveyance route.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Paul may be contacted at
ppaul@swlaw.com
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Need Not Pay for Rejected Defense When No Reservation of Rights Issued
November 08, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed the trial court's order that defense costs be paid for a period during which the insured rejected the defense even though no reservation of rights was issued. OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co. v. Celanese Corp., 2017 Mass. App. LEXIS 140 (Mass. App. Ct. Oct. 16, 2017).
Celanese was sued over many years for claims of bodily injury due to asbestos and chemicals allegedly contained in its products and facilities. For many years, Celanese had an agreement with its insurer, OneBeacon, for defense cost-sharing. In April 2009, Celanese terminated this agreement and demanded that OneBeacon defend the cases under the policies previously issued. OneBeacon agreed to defend without a reservation of rights. OneBeacon also agreed to waive any issues of coverage and to indemnify Celanese from any settlements of judgments up to ts full liability limits. However, OneBeacon also sought to assume full control of the defense of claims against Celanese.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
A Top U.S. Seller of Carbon Offsets Starts Investigating Its Own Projects
April 19, 2021 —
Ben Elgin - BloombergFollowing concerns that it is facilitating the sale of meaningless carbon credits to corporate clients, the Nature Conservancy says it’s conducting an internal review of its portfolio of carbon-offset projects. The nonprofit owns or has helped develop more than 20 such projects on forested lands mostly in the U.S., which generate credits that are purchased by such companies as JPMorgan Chase & Co., BlackRock Inc., and Walt Disney Co., which use them to claim large reductions in their own publicly reported emissions.
The self-examination follows a Bloomberg Green investigation last year that found the world’s largest environmental group taking credit for preserving trees in no danger of destruction. The internal review is a sign that it’s at least questioning some practices that have become widespread in the environmental world, and could carry implications for the broader market for carbon credits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Elgin, Bloomberg
Bar Against Forum Selection Clauses in Construction Contracts Extended to Design Professionals
October 28, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIt’s a tactic as old as war itself.
You can often gain a strategic advantage by selecting the location of battle.
The same is true in litigation.
But as the next case illustrates, when it comes to disputes between contractors (and design professionals), it isn’t always the combatants who dictate where the battle will be fought.
Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc.
In Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc., Case No. A141010, California Court of Appeals for the First District (September 25, 2015), Texas architecture firm HKS Architects, Inc. (“HKS”) was hired to provide architectural services. HKS’ design service agreement included a Texas forum selection clause which provided:
As a condition precedent to the institution of any action [or] lawsuit all disputes shall be submitted to mediation” and “[a]ll claim , disputes, and other matters in question between the parties arising out of or related to the Agreement . . . be resolved by the . . . courts in . . . Texas.”
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com
Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact
June 21, 2017 — Aaron Lovaas – Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
Construction and design professionals in Nevada’s home building industry breathed a collective sigh of relief on June 5, 2017 when the 79th Session of the Nevada Legislature adjourned without entertaining Senate Bill 250, which sought to reinstate homeowner plaintiffs’ nearly automatic right to recover attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation when bringing suit for alleged constructional defects.
Until 2015, homeowners’ recovery of such damages was the reality of the construction defect landscape in Nevada. While Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes specifically allowed for recovery of “reasonable” attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation, the trend in Nevada was that plaintiffs were all but guaranteed awards of all such sums. Of course, this environment incentivized plaintiffs’ lawyers to bring claims of questionable or little repair value in cases where the attorney’s fees and expert costs often far exceeded the costs of repair.
HOW AB125 CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE
Such was the reality in Nevada until 2015 and the passage of Assembly Bill 125, which eliminated the nearly automatic award of attorneys’ fees and expert costs and overhauled Chapter 40 in many other respects. AB125 made over portions of Chapter 40 by:
- Placing awards of attorneys’ fees into the framework of offers of judgment, utilized extensively in other fields of civil litigation and available equally to homeowner plaintiffs as well as construction industry defendants; and
- Reworking expert costs and costs of investigation to allow for the award of those items only in the case of proven defects and only as to those costs directly related to the investigation and proof of those defects.
INTRODUCING SB250
The 2017 Legislative Session saw efforts to return Chapter 40 to its pre-2015 version through the introduction of SB250. Fortunately for construction and design professionals in the home building industry in Nevada, the State Senate Judiciary Committee did not act upon the bill and the effort died having never made it to a floor vote. Considering that Nevada’s Legislature meets biannually, the current framework of Chapter 40 is intact until at least 2019. The 2017 Legislative Session, however, is an illustration to how quickly those of the construction defect plaintiffs’ bar can move to initiate efforts to turn back the clock to a much riskier time for construction and design professionals.
Those in the industry should remain vigilant and monitor future legislative efforts to reinstate such awards or other clearly anti-builder measures. Such measures simply drive-up the overall cost and expense of home construction and, in turn, home ownership, which it is often said, is one of the cornerstones of the American dream.
Aaron Lovaas is a partner in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion. As a transactional attorney and business litigator, Aaron has the ability to evaluate legal issues from both points of view and help his clients understand their best option. He can be reached at aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com.
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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Leise Recognized by US News – Best Lawyers 2022 "Lawyer of the Year"
September 06, 2021 — Christopher Leise - White and Williams LLP
White and Williams is proud to announce that Christopher Leise has been named Best Lawyers® 2022 "Lawyer of the Year" in Cherry Hill, NJ for his work in Litigation - Insurance.
Chris focuses his practice on complex insurance and commercial litigation, including the representation of licensed insurance agents and brokers in professional liability claims and agency contract disputes. He also has extensive experience litigating complex insurance coverage, insurance bad faith, RICO and insurance fraud claims, fire damage claims, and ERISA disputes. Chris works with regional and national brokerage firms defending professional liability claims and handling disputes with insurance companies throughout the mid-Atlantic region, as well as with commercial insurance carriers defending allegations of bad faith. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Leise, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com
Pennsylvania Federal Court Confirms: Construction Defect Claims Not Covered by CGL Policies
March 06, 2022 — Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & Fears
The construction industry operates under the constant spectre of claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Fortunately, the law in most states treats these claims as covered under commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies. A small minority of states take a much stingier view. In a newly decided case, a Pennsylvania federal court confirmed that Pennsylvania belongs to this small group of states that regard construction claims as not worthy of liability insurance coverage. Main St. Am. Assurance Co. v. Howard Lynch Plastering, Inc., No. CV 21-3977, 2022 WL 445768, (E.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2022).
Main St. involves a typical construction defect case: W.B. Homes (“W.B.”) developed a residential community, contracting with various trades to build the homes. W.B. required these subcontractors to obtain liability insurance covering their work and, when homeowners sued W.B. for damages due to allegedly faulty work, W.B. tendered the claim to these insurers. One of them, Main Street Assurance Co. (“Main Street”) then sued W.B. for declaratory relief, arguing that under Pennsylvania law, it had no duty to defend W.B.
Reprinted courtesy of Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
