Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?
November 19, 2021 —
Michael T. Kennedy Jr. - BERDING|WEILOne of the most common features in construction defect cases is the Case Management Order (“CMO”) or Pre-Trial Order (“PTO”) to govern pre-trial and mediation procedures. CMOs and PTOs arose in the days when the HOA would sue the developer, the developer would cross-complaint against the subcontractors, and each defendant and cross-defendant might have 2 or 3 insurance carriers defending, each of whom may retain their own panel counsel. In a large case there may have been 20 parties and 30 defense attorneys. In order to avoid the cost and chaos of all of those parties propounding their own discovery, and in order to prepare these cases for mediation well before trial and the associated costs, it became standard practice in California to include provisions in the CMO to stay all discovery until just before trial.
Plaintiff would provide a Defect List or Statement of Claims and the parties experts would meet and exchange information as part of the mediation process. All of the information exchanged would be subject to mediation privileges and inadmissible at trial. The benefit of this practice was that the parties (and carriers) would avoid the cost of formal discovery and allow the experts to discuss compromised scopes of repair to help settle the case while being able to take a more aggressive position at trial. The disadvantages are that each party uses its privileged initial expert reports to stake out negotiating positions more extreme than what they would put on at trial, with each side losing credibility with the other in assessing the value of the case, and for those cases that did not settle, the parties would be faced with having to do all of the depositions and discovery in the last 60 days, or delaying trial, or both.
Over the last 10 or 15 years with the advent of wrap-up insurance policies, these cases now usually involve 2 sides instead of 20; only the HOA and the developer remain in the case. However, old habits die hard, and the standard CMO/PTO hasn’t evolved with other aspects of these cases. The practice of staying all discovery and exchanging information only under mediation privileges remains, and as a result insurance carriers don’t receive the admissible evidence that they need to determine coverage and evaluate the real settlement value of the case until just before trial. On the plaintiff’s side, if most of the experts’ work is done under the guise of mediation privilege, those costs may not be recoverable. Outside the context of mediation, costs incurred in investigation of the defects and preparation of a scope and cost of repair are recoverable.
This reflexive claim of mediation privilege over all information exchanged during the case has outlived its usefulness. The CMO can and should remain to regulate formal discovery and to help the parties prepare for mediation, but regulated discovery should be opened early in the case. In California, the SB800 process already provides for the exchange of admissible information during the prelitigation right to repair process. Continuing that exchange during the early litigation allows the parties to continue to prepare for mediation, but waiving privileges had advantages for both sides.
A senior claims manager once commented that Plaintiff’s mediation-protected Statement of Claims “might as well be a stack of blank paper” for all of its usefulness to the carrier in assessing the value of the case. If the Plaintiff and it expects are free to inflate their claims early in the case without having to worry about every supporting those claims in front of a jury, they have little or no credibility. And if those claims are inflated or not “real,” not only can the carrier not properly assess the verdict range and settlement value of the case, but it may also be hampered in making a coverage determination. Simply put, if the exchange of real information through formal discovery is put off until just before trial, the defense cannot be ready to settle until then. Worse, the cost of defense goes through the roof in the last 60 days before trial as the lawyers’ scramble to take all of the depositions and to all of the other work that had been stayed for the previous year or two.
The Plaintiff is faced with the same question of credibility of defense experts where they are free to take a “low ball” negotiating position without having to support that position through cross-examination in front of the jury. Just as the carrier behind the defense attorney needs the Plaintiff’s “real” evidence to assess the claim, so does the HIOA Board of Directors behind the Plaintiff’s counsel. Additionally, in California as in most states, the cost of experts’ preparation for mediation may not be recoverable as costs or damages, but investigation of the defects and preparation of the scope and cost of repair is recoverable.
The biggest challenge is resolving construction defect claims for both sides is how to resolve these cases quickly while keeping costs under control. Practices that worked 20 years ago are no longer applicable with changes in insurance, and in light of some of the bad habits that arise when all of the information exchanged was confidential.
The CMO/PTO process can still be useful to regulate the discovery and mediation schedule given the volume of documents and other information to be exchanged but exchanging “real” information in a form that may come into evidence at trial should foster earlier resolution, resulting in cost savings for the parties. The CMO can provide for the parties to respond to controlled discovery, and the exchange of expert reports and potentially depositions can and should be done earlier in the case, well before the eve of trial. The parties can then assess the true value of each case and prepare for more substantive mediation without waiting until they are on the figurative courthouse steps.
Construction defect cases have a pattern, and it is tempting for busy lawyers to just put each case through the same algorithms that they have used for years. However, these cases have evolved and those of us handling these cases need to reevaluate our approach to these cases. Taking aggressive negotiating positions that no longer have any credibility with the other side has become counterproductive, and the exchange of real evidence earlier in the case would better serve our clients and carriers.
BERDING|WEIL is the largest and most experienced construction defect and common interest development law firm in California. For more information, please visit https://www.berding-weil.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael T. Kennedy Jr., BERDING|WEILMr. Kennedy may be contacted at
mkennedy@berdingweil.com
CA Supreme Court Rejects Proposed Exceptions to Interim Adverse Judgment Rule Defense to Malicious Prosecution Action
August 24, 2017 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Parrish v. Latham & Watkins (No. S228277 - August 10, 2017) (“Parrish”), the California Supreme Court examined the “interim adverse judgment rule” in a different context than previous decisions on the subject. The rule provides that if an earlier action succeeds after a hearing on the merits, this success establishes the existence of probable cause and precludes a subsequent malicious prosecution action. In a typical case applying the rule, a plaintiff in the underlying action defeats the defendant’s motion for summary judgment but then loses the case at trial leading to a subsequent malicious prosecution claim. In Parrish, the Court addressed whether the rule applies when the trial court had denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion but concluded after the defense prevailed at a bench trial that the suit had been brought in “bad faith” due to a lack of evidentiary support.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Impact of Nuclear Verdicts on Construction Businesses
October 28, 2024 —
Craig Tappel - Construction ExecutiveA rush to build at a time when the U.S. housing supply continues to fall short may come with a cost to the construction industry.
Particularly in hot markets—Sun Belt states and the Mountain West—the drive to finish fast, if not big, can lead to construction and design-defect litigation. Last fall, for example, $22 million in damages were awarded to 220 unhappy homeowners in a South Carolina subdivision northwest of Charleston, four years after their claim for defective work was filed against a major U.S. homebuilder and its subcontractors.
Defective work is one of three areas where the construction industry is particularly vulnerable as class-action litigation and thermonuclear verdicts surge.
Another is the risk of loss of life or permanent disability on a site, and not solely involving workers: Over $860 million was awarded in 2023 to the family of a woman who was killed in a 2019 crane collapse at a Dallas construction site.
Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Tappel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Second Circuit Brings Clarity To Scope of “Joint Employer” Theory in Discrimination Cases
May 02, 2022 —
Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren R. Davis - ConsensusDocsThe “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors (“GC”) or construction managers (“CM”) are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question.
Examples of this phenomenon are where a claim of harassment or discrimination originates in the lower tier ranks of subcontractors, or even where there is a claim involving an independent contractor on a project and a discrimination lawsuit ensues.
Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. In a move that is certainly welcomed by contractors, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, recently issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases. Felder provides a roadmap for risk mitigation by contractors looking to limit such claims in the future or to meet them head on when they do arise.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs),
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs) and
Lauren R. Davis, Peckar & Abramson (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Surprising Dismissal of False Claims Act Case Based on Appointments Clause - What Does It Mean?
October 15, 2024 —
Steven H. Lee - Lewis Brisbois NewsroomAtlanta, Ga. (October 1, 2024) - In a surprising turn of events, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida recently dismissed a False Claims Act (FCA) lawsuit brought by relator Clarissa Zafirov against Florida Medical Associates, LLC, and other defendants. U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle
ruled that the FCA’s qui tam provisions, which allow private individuals to bring lawsuits on behalf of the government, violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.
This decision follows another unexpected ruling by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in the Southern District of Florida, where the court similarly dismissed an indictment against former President Donald Trump based on the same constitutional clause.
At the heart of these rulings is the argument that FCA relators - who decide whom to sue, which legal theories to pursue, and how to proceed - exercise significant executive authority. Because they are not appointed by the President, a department head, or a court, the judges concluded that these relators hold their positions unconstitutionally. As a result, Judge Mizelle dismissed the case entirely.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steven H. Lee, Lewis BrisboisMr. Lee may be contacted at
Steven.Lee@lewisbrisbois.com
S&P 500 Little Changed on Home Sales Amid Quarterly Rally
July 01, 2014 —
Lu Wang and Jacob Barach – BloombergJune 30 (Bloomberg) --The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was little changed, capping the longest string of quarterly gains since 1998, as a jump in pending home sales offset weaker-than-forecast manufacturing data.
D.R. Horton Inc. rallied 3.2 percent, leading gains among homebuilders. Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) rose 2.6 percent after Piper Jaffray Cos. recommended buying the stock. MannKind Corp. jumped 9.6 percent as the maker of diabetes drugs rebounded from its worst week in two months. Allergan Inc. declined 2.7 percent following regulatory decisions on its drugs.
The S&P 500 fell less than 0.1 percent to 1,960.23 at 4 p.m. in New York. The equity benchmark gauge rose 4.7 percent for the quarter, a sixth consecutive advance. The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 25.24 points, or 0.2 percent, to 16,826.60 today, trimming its quarterly advance to 2.2 percent. The Nasdaq Composite Index rose 0.2 percent, giving it a 5 percent increase for the three months.
Ms. Wang may be contacted at lwang8@bloomberg.net; Mr. Barach may be contacted at jbarach1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lu Wang and Jacob Barach, Bloomberg
Why Clinton and Trump’s Infrastructure Plans Leave Us Wanting More
September 15, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIt’s hard not to pick up your newspaper (or, more likely, your smart phone) and not get caught up reading about Donald Trump’s latest “did he really say that” statement or about the “less than personal” personal email account of Hillary Clinton.
But which candidate is better suited to bridge America’s nearly $1.5 trillion infrastructure gap? Clinton the veteran politician? Or Trump the veteran developer?
Despite being on opposite sides on nearly every issue from abortion, to taxes, to . . . well, maybe immigration . . . both Clinton and Trump agree that the U.S. needs to invest more in its aging infrastructure. But that’s a little like saying we should take better care of ourselves and exercise more. Of course we should. The question is how.
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
Fort Lauderdale Partner Secures Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case
June 10, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomFort Lauderdale, Fla. (June 3, 2024) - Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner Cheryl Wilke recently secured a defense verdict for civil engineering firm Gulfstream Design Group and its owner, Matthew Lahti, in a high-stakes professional negligence case in which the plaintiff sought more than $20 million. The verdict by a six-person jury in St. Augustine followed a nine-day trial.
The case involved a 100-acre tract of land in St. Johns County, Florida, owned by the plaintiff, Cynthia Taylor. The land was zoned for rural farming, and she wished to sell the property for development. She entered into a contract with Southeast Georgia Acquisitions (“SGA”) to sell the property with the goal of creating a 200-home subdivision. SGA hired Doug Burnett as land use counsel and our client, Gulfstream Design Group, as the civil engineer to design the project.
In St. Johns County, only a property owner can submit a Planned Unit Development Plan (“PUD”) for the purpose of rezoning. In this case, Burnett and Gulfstream created text and a proposed map for the PUD and submitted it for approval. The PUD was approved first at the staff level, then by planning and zoning and then by the County Commission. All the services were provided prior to closing with PUD approval, a condition of sale.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
