20 Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in Sacramento Magazine 2020 Top Lawyers!
August 10, 2021 —
Wilke Fleury LLPCongratulations to Wilke Fleury’s featured attorneys who made the Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyer List for 2020!
Each attorney has been awarded an accolade in the following practice areas:
Kathryne Baldwin – Insurance
Dan Baxter – Business Litigation & Government Contracts
Adriana Cervantes – Medical Malpractice
Heather Claus – Health Care
Aaron Claxton – Health Care
Dan Egan – Bankruptcy and Creditor/Debtor
Samson Elsbernd – Employment & Labor
Danny Foster – Litigation Insurance
David Frenznick – Construction & Construction Litigation
George Guthrie – Real Estate & Construction Litigation
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury LLP
Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage After Carbon Monoxide Leak
September 09, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the insured's complaint after damage caused by a leak of carbon monoxide caused bodily injury. Allied Design Consultants, Inc. v. Pekin Ins. Co., et al., 2024 Ill. Ct. App. LEXIS 1433 (June 18, 2024).
Carbon monoxide leaked in a building addition to a middle school, prompting 23 lawsuits to be filed against the insured, Allied Design Consultants, Inc. Allied was retained to perform certain architectural services to the building addition. Pekin Insurance Company had issued a business owners liability policy and a commercial umbrella liability policy to Allied. Pekin denied a defense to Allied based upon the policies' professional services exclusions.
Allied filed suit for declaratory relief against Pekin. Pekin filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The parties agreed the allegations in the personal injury complaint filed by Ferguson were typical and representative of the allegations in the other 22 underlying lawsuits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Arizona Court of Appeals Decision in $8.475 Million Construction Defect Class Action Suit
May 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case of Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011), which involved an $8.475 million settlement in a construction defect class action suit, the question put forth to the Appeals court was “whether an insured and an insurer can join in a Morris agreement that avoids the primary insurer’s obligation to pay policy limits and passes liability in excess of those limits on to other insurers.” The Appeals court provided several reasons for their decision to affirm the validity of the settlement agreement as to the Non-Participatory Insurers (NPIs) and to vacate and remand the attorney fee awards.
First, the Appeals court stated, “The settlement agreement is not a compliant Morris agreement and provides no basis for claims against the NPIs.” They conclude, “Appellants attempt to avoid the doctrinal underpinnings of Morris by arguing that ‘the cooperation clause did not prohibit Hancock from assigning its rights to anyone, including Appellants.’ This narrow reading of the cooperation clause ignores the fact that Hancock did not merely assign its rights — it assigned its rights after stipulating to an $8.475 million judgment that neither it nor its Direct Insurers could ever be liable to pay. Neither Morris nor any other case defines such conduct as actual ‘cooperation’—rather, Morris simply defines limited circumstances in which an insured is relieved of its duty to cooperate. Because Morris agreements are fraught with risk of abuse, a settlement that mimics Morris in form but does not find support in the legal and economic realities that gave rise to that decision is both unenforceable and offensive to the policy’s cooperation clause.”
The Appeals court further concluded that “even if the agreement had qualified under Morris, plaintiffs did not provide the required notice to the NPIs.” The court continued, “Because an insurer who defends under a reservation of rights is always aware of the possibility of a Morris agreement, the mere threat of Morris in the course of settlement negotiations does not constitute sufficient notice. Instead, the insurer must be made aware that it may waive its reservation of rights and provide an unqualified defense, or defend solely on coverage and reasonableness grounds against the judgment resulting from the Morris agreement. The NPIs were not given the protections of this choice before the agreement was entered, and therefore can face no liability for the resulting stipulated judgment.”
Next, the Appeals court declared that “the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under A.R.S § 12-341.” The Appeals court reasoned, “In this case, the NPIs prevailed in their attack on the settlement. But the litigation did not test the merits of their coverage defenses or the reasonableness of the settlement amount. And Plaintiffs never sued the NPIs, either in their own right or as the assignees of Hancock. Rather, the NPIs intervened to test the conceptual validity of the settlement agreement (to which they were not parties) before such an action could commence. In these circumstances, though it might be appropriate to offset a fee award against some future recovery by the Plaintiff Leflet v. Fire (Ariz. App., 2011) class, the purposes of A.R.S. § 12-341.01 would not be served by an award of fees against them jointly and severally. We therefore conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees against Plaintiffs ‘jointly and severally.’”
The Appeals court made the following conclusion: “we affirm the judgment of the trial court concerning the validity of the settlement agreement as to the NPIs. We vacate and remand the award of attorney’s fees. In our discretion, we decline to award the NPIs the attorney’s fees they have requested on appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tennessee Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade
December 05, 2022 —
American Society of Civil EngineersNASHVILLE, TN. — The Tennessee Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released the 2022 Report Card for Tennessee's Infrastructure today, with 13 categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of a 'C', the same grade given by the section in its 2016 report. That means Tennessee's infrastructure is in mediocre condition and requires attention, but is a step ahead of the national average of "C-" given in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. Tennessee's freight network is strong and plays a major role in the national economy as a key mobility hub and its energy grid has been reliable, allowing families and businesses to operate efficiently. Many of the state's systems are performing at or above national averages; however, a surge in population growth, increasingly severe weather impacts, and insufficient data on the current condition of several infrastructure sectors threaten the long-term viability of the state's overall network. Civil engineers graded aviation (C+), bridges (B), dams (D+), drinking water (C+), energy (C+), inland waterways (C), parks (C+), rail (C), roads (C), solid waste (C+), stormwater (C+), transit (D+), and wastewater (C-).
"As one of the most prominent mobility hubs in all of America, infrastructure is the backbone to all we do here in Memphis, and everything we can accomplish throughout the great state of Tennessee," said Memphis Mayor Jim Strickland. "Our airports, roads and bridges keep our economy flowing, drawing more jobs and businesses in the future. The ASCE report is a critical tool for tracking our progress, in addition to highlighting where we could use some work. With more people flocking to Tennessee than ever before, this is an exciting time and our infrastructure networks must be ready to help us capitalize on the opportunity."
To view the report card and all five categories, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/tennessee/.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eighth Circuit Affirms Finding of Bad Faith, Award of Costs and Prejudgment Interest
October 25, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of bad faith and award to the insured of taxable costs and prejudgment interest. Selective Ins. Co. v. Sela, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26062 (8th Cir. Aug. 30, 2021).
The insured suffered two hail storms that damaged his home. In 2010, the first storm caused over half a million dollars in loss. Before submitting a claim to his original insurer or beginning any repairs, the insured secured a new policy with Selective. The policy did not exclude pre-existing damage, it did preclude coverage if the insured "willfully and with intent to defraud, concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to the insurance."
Before issuing the policy, Selective appraised the property and assigned a $1.6 million value to the home. The insured then filed a claim with his original insurer and received $510,787.23 for actual cash value of his loss. Neither the terms of this settlement nor this new policy with Selective required the insured to repair all of the 2010 damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Utah’s Highest Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Properly Commence an Action to Rely on the Relation-Back Doctrine to Overcome the Statute of Repose
August 20, 2018 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistEarlier this summer, in Gables & Villas at River Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Castlewood Builders LLC, 2018 UT 28, the Supreme Court of Utah addressed the question of whether the plaintiff’s construction defects claims against the general contractor for a construction project were timely-filed, or barred by the statute of repose. In Utah, the statute of repose requires that an action be “commenced within six years of the date of completion.” The plaintiff alleged that its 2014 amended complaint naming the general contractor as a defendant was timely-commenced because, before the date on which Utah’s statute of repose ran, a defendant filed a motion to amend its third-party complaint to name the general contractor as a defendant, and the defendant subsequently assigned its claims to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the filing of its 2014 amended complaint related back[1] to the date of its original complaint. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an action is “commenced” by filing a complaint and that a motion for leave to amend does not count as “commencing” an action.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLPMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Standard of Care
December 16, 2019 —
Jay Gregory - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogOne of the key concepts at the heart of Board complaints and civil claims against a design professional is whether or not that design professional complied with the applicable standard of care. In order to prevail on such a claim, the claimant must establish (typically with the aid of expert testimony) that the design professional deviated from the standard of care. On the other side of the coin, to defend a design professional against a professional malpractice claim, defense counsel attempts to establish that – contrary to the claimant’s allegations – the design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. Obviously, it becomes very important in such a claim situation to determine what the standard of care is that applies to the conduct of the defendant design professional. Often, this is easier said than done. There is no dictionary definition or handy guidebook that identifies the precise standard of care that applies in any given situation. The “standard of care” is a concept and, as such, is flexible and open to interpretation. Traditionally, the standard of care is expressed as being that level of service or competence generally employed by average or prudent practitioners under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locale. In other words, to meet the standard of care a design professional must generally follow the pack; he or she need not be perfect, exemplary, outstanding, or even superior – it is sufficient merely for the designer to do that which a reasonably prudent practitioner would do under similar circumstances. The negative or reverse definition also applies, to meet the standard of care, a practitioner must refrain from doing what a reasonably prudent practitioner would have refrained from doing.
Although we have this ready definition of the standard of care, in any given dispute it is practically inevitable that the parties will have markedly different opinions as to: (1) what the standard of care required of the designer; and (2) whether the defendant design professional complied with that requirement. The claimant bringing a claim against a design professional typically will be able to find an expert reasonably qualified (at least on paper) who will offer an opinion that the defendant failed to comply with the standard of care. It is just as likely that the counsel for the defendant design professional will be able to find his or her own expert who will counter the opinion of the claimant’s expert and maintain that the defendant design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. What’s a jury to think?
The concept of standard of care is intertwined with the legal concept of negligence. In the vast majority of law suits against design professionals, a claimant (known as the plaintiff) will assert a claim for negligence against the design professional now known as the defendant.1 As every first year law student learns while studying the field of “Torts,” negligence has four subparts. In order for a defendant to be found negligent, the claimant must establish four elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. In other words, to establish a claim against a defendant design professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care but breached that duty and, as a result, caused the plaintiff to suffer damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jay Gregory, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Gregory may be contacted at
jgregory@grsm.com
Insured's Failure to Challenge Trial Court's Application of Exclusion Makes Appeal Futile
November 15, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's granting of summary judgment to the insurer because the appeal failed to challenge the exclusion under which the insurer found no coverage. Sosa v. Auto Club Indemn. Co., 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 6520 (Tex. Ct. App. Aug. 30, 2022).
Sosa's house was damaged during Hurricane Harry on August 26, 2017. Sosa filed a claim with Auto Club. She reported that two feet of floodwater had entered her home, her roof was missing shingles and was leaking, and she had sustained interior damage. An adjuster estimated the cost to prepare the roof damage was $1,191.96, less that her deductible. Auto Club determined that any remaining damage was caused by flood water, which was expressly excluded from coverage.
On November 11, 2020, Sosa filed suit against Auto Club for breach of the policy. Among other things, she argued the adjuster spent minimal time at her home inspecting and was inexperienced. In its answer, Auto Club asserted Sosa's claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations. Sosa then filed an amended complaint and changed the date of the loss from August 26, 2017, to June 28, 2019.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
