Newmeyer & Dillion Named as One of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County for Seventh Consecutive Year
August 15, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – JULY 23, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is proud to be selected as one of the 2018 Best Places to Work in Orange County in the category of medium sized companies. This marks the seventh consecutive year Newmeyer & Dillion LLP has made the list, affirming that its profound commitment to professionalism and client service is shared among its workforce. The ranking was released in a special section of the Orange County Business Journal's July 23 issue.
Jeff Dennis, Newmeyer & Dillion's Managing Partner, commends the effort of each employee in achieving this result. "Together, we strive to maintain an innovative, collaborative and creative culture that cannot be matched anywhere else, and we are sincerely grateful for each of our employees' ongoing commitment to the firm's values."
The awards program was created in 2009 and is a project of the Orange County Business Journal and Best Companies Group. This county-wide survey and awards program was designed to identify, recognize and honor the best places of employment in Orange County, California, benefiting the county's economy, its workforce and businesses.
For more information on the survey process for the Best Places to Work in Orange County program, visit www.BestPlacestoWorkOC.com or contact Jackie Miller at 877-455-2159.
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 decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor’s Claim for Interest on Subcontractor’s Defective Work Claim Gains Mixed Results
April 27, 2020 —
John J. Gazzola, Associate, Pepper Hamilton LLP - ConsensusDocsThis case concerns calculation of a damages award to a general contractor, Skanska USA Building, Inc., on its claim for breach of contract against its masonry subcontractor, J.D. Long Masonry, Inc., arising from Long’s faulty construction of a masonry façade at a medical research facility in Baltimore. When the façade collapsed and Long failed to repair it, Skanska hired a replacement subcontractor, C.A. Lindman, to remediate Long’s defective work and filed suit against Long to recover the resulting damages. After the court granted Skanska’s motion for summary judgment as to liability, Skanska moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages, relying on the indemnification provision of the subcontract to seek compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and litigation fees. In the subcontract, Long agreed to indemnify and hold Skanska harmless from all claims, losses, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, arising before or after completion of Long’s work, caused by, arising out of, resulting from, or occurring in connection with Long’s performance of the work or breach of the subcontract.
The court first applied the terms of this provision to award Skanska compensatory damages, holding that Skanska was, as a matter of law, entitled to recover the amount of the Lindman subcontract and general conditions incurred to supervise remediation of Long’s work. The court, however, denied Skanska’s claim for pre-judgment interest on the entirety of these damages. Skanska asserted that it was entitled to pre-judgment interest on the full award, calculated from the date on which it first paid Lindman. The court disagreed, explaining that, under Maryland law, a claimant is entitled to an award of pre-judgment interest as of right only when the amount due is certain, definite and liquidated by a specific date prior to judgment. The court reasoned that, because much of the Lindman subcontract value was composed of later-executed change orders, an award of pre-judgment interest could not be uniformly calculated back to the date of Skanska’s first payment to Lindman. And moreover, because Skanska continued to withhold sums due to Lindman pending resolution of certain issues, awarding Skanska pre-judgment interest on amounts it had not yet paid would result in a “windfall” to Skanska because there was no “use of income” loss to be compensated.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John J. Gazzola, Pepper Hamilton LLPMr. Gazzola may be contacted at
gazzolaj@pepperlaw.com
It Ain’t Over Till it’s Over. Why Project Completion in California Isn’t as Straightforward as You Think
May 07, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogBaseball legend Yogi Berra was famous for his pithy quotes such as “the future ain’t what it used to be,” “half the lies they tell about me aren’t true,” and what is probably his most famous, “it ain’t over till it’s over.”
The last, of course, begs the question of when over is over? And, on California construction projects when over is over, or more accurately, when a project is complete, can be as paradoxical as a “yogiism.”
Why “Completion” is Important in California
In California, project “completion,” is important not only for getting paid, but for knowing the deadlines associated with California’s statutory construction payment remedies.
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
Water Drainage Case Lacks Standing
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals has ruled in the case La Tierra de Simmons Familia Ltd. V. Main Event Entertainment, LP. The trial court had found for Main Event. On appeal, the court threw out some of the grounds on which the trial court had reached its decision.
The case involved two commercial lots in northwest Austin, Texas. The uphill tract (Phase III of the Anderson Arbor development) diverts its runoff onto the lower tract (the “Ballard tract”). The owners of the Ballard tract claim that “the drainage system was designed or constructed in a manner that has damaged and continues to damage the Ballard tract.”
Both tracts have undergone changes of ownership since the construction of the drainage system in 2004. At the time the drainage system was constructed, the parcel was owned by Sears Roebuck and Co. Sears later sold the property. Main Event Entertainment is the current tenant. Likewise, the Ballard tract was previously owned by the Ballard Estate which sold the property to La Tierra on an “as is” basis in 2007.
After La Tierra bought the Ballard tract, La Tierra’s engineer “witnessed and videotaped what he described as ‘flooding’ on the Ballard tract caused by storm water discharge from the Anderson Arbor drainage system during a rainfall event.” La Tierra determined that an adequate drainage system would cost about $204,000. Development plans were put on hold.
La Tierra sued Main Event and various other parties associated with the uphill tract, seeking “actual damages for (1) decrease and loss in rental income due to delay in obtaining the development permit, (2) interest on carrying costs during that time period, (3) the cost to build a water conveyance system on the Ballard tract, (4) engineering fees incurred to redesign the water conveyance system, (5) unspecified out-of-pocket real estate expenses, and (6) property devaluation occasioned by the need to construct an expensive water conveyance system.” The trial court never reached these claims, ruling instead that La Tierra lacked standing, that its claims were barred under the statute of limitations, and that there was no evidence of damage.
La Tierra appealed, arguing that “(1) the summary-judgment evidence does not conclusively establish that property damage claims accrued or were discovered prior to September 11, 2007, which is within the limitations period and was after La Tierra purchased the property; (2) even if the property was damaged before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract, standing exists based on the assignments of interest from the Ballard Estate heirs, and the discovery rule tolls limitations until the injury was discovered on September 11, 2007; (3) limitations does not bar La Tierra's request for injunctive relief; (4) La Tierra's water code claim against Main Event and M.E.E.P. is viable based on their control over the drainage system, which makes them necessary and indispensable parties for injunctive relief; (5) La Tierra presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a fact issue on damages, causation, and other essential elements of its causes of action; and (6) the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the defendants' objections to La Tierra's summary-judgment evidence.”
The appeals court concluded that La Tierra’s second claim was irrelevant to standing, as La Tierra “obtained assignments from the Ballard Estate heirs ? nearly one year after the lawsuit was initially filed.” Nor did the court accept their first point. The water system had been operating unaltered since January, 2004, with monthly maintenance and inspection to maintain its designed operation. Further, a feasibility report La Tierra received stated that “over sixteen acres drain into those ponds, and thus onto this site.” The court noted that “the underlying facts giving rise to a cause of action were known before La Tierra acquired ownership of the Ballard tract.”
The court concluded that the drainage issue is a permanent injury, but that it “accrued before La Tierra acquired an ownership interest in the property.” As La Tierra has standing, the appeals court ruled that it was improper for the trial court to rule on the issues. The appeals court dismissed the questions of whether the case was barred under the statute of limitation and also the question of whether or not La Tierra had damages.
As the issue of standing would not allow La Tierra to bring the suit, the appeals court found for the defendants, dismissing the case for this single reason, and otherwise affirming the ruling of the lower court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AECOM Out as General Contractor on $1.6B MSG Sphere in Las Vegas
January 18, 2021 —
Doug Puppel - Engineering News-RecordDevelopers of the $1.66-billion MSG Sphere in Las Vegas have removed AECOM as general contractor on the project and will bring construction management in-house for the 875,000-sq-ft entertainment venue, according to a Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. statement released Dec. 17.
Reprinted courtesy of
Doug Puppel, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
First Look at Long List of AEC Firms Receiving PPP Loans
July 20, 2020 —
Tom Ichniowski & Scott Blair - Engineering News-RecordThousands of construction and design firm from all parts of the U.S. appear on lists of companies that have received federal Paycheck Protection Program forgivable loans, according to federal documents just made public.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record and
Scott Blair, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com
Mr. Blair may be contacted at blairs@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Asbestos Exclusion in Alleged Failure to Disclose Case
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the case Phillips v. Parmelee, the Wisconsin Supreme court ruled “that an asbestos exclusion in a liability policy barred a duty to defend and indemnify a building seller for claims that the seller failed to disclose that the building contained asbestos,” according to an article in Mondaq by Ruth S. Kochenderfer and Deanna P. Cook, both from Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The policyholder received a building report stating that the “heating ducts likely contained asbestos,” however, the buyers alleged that the policyholder never provided them the report. After the buyers purchased the property, contractors “cut through the heating ducts, unknowingly dispersing asbestos throughout the building.”
According to Kochenderfer and Cook’s article, “The insurer intervened in the buyers' suit and sought summary judgment against the policyholder and buyers, arguing that an asbestos exclusion precluded coverage for the buyers' suit against the policyholder.” The buyers took the case to the Wisconsin Supreme court and “attacked the asbestos exclusion,” but the court rejected every argument.
Kochenderfer and Cook stated that the “decision is significant because three courts, including Wisconsin's highest court, squarely rejected attempts to narrow a broad, clearly-worded asbestos exclusion. Further, it confirms that such an asbestos exclusion will apply to all causes of action, including an alleged failure to disclose the presence of asbestos.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Additional Insurance Coverage Determined for General Contractor
January 07, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly- Insurance Law HawaiiA series of communications requiring the subcontractor to provide additional insured coverage for the contractor were sufficient to fit within the policy's provision identifying additional insureds. KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. The Charter Oak Fire Ins. Co., 2014 Ariz. App. LEXIS 228 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2014).
KB, the general contractor, hired CRG Construction Co., Inc. in 1999 to perform work at a residential subdivision in Tucson. Charter Oak provided liability coverage for CRG, including additional insured coverage for any person or entity that CRG was obligated to cover under written contract or agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
