Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict
February 07, 2018 —
David W. Evans and Stephen M. Tye – Publications & Insights In
California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm.
This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled.
Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and
Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Difficulty in Defending Rental Supplier’s Claim Under Credit Application
October 11, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn construction, one of the easiest claims to prove from a burden of proof standpoint is that of a supplier, particularly a rental equipment supplier. Oftentimes, these claims are more in the realm of a collection claim because a rental supplier will generally be able to establish that a party opened an account with them, signed a credit application and personal guaranty, and equipment was rented and even delivered to a specific jobsite during set dates. Defending these claims is not so easy. And even if there is a defense as it relates to some amounts, there needs to be an upside challenging those amounts when factoring in the attorney’s fees, costs, and interest on the other amounts and on continuing the dispute.
An example of the difficulty in defending these claims from rental suppliers can be found in the recent case of Custom Design Expo, Inc. v. Synergy Rents, Inc., 2021 WL 4125806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). Here, a contractor rented equipment (e.g, forklifts) from a supplier. The equipment was rented on an open account and the contractor signed a personal guaranty. The supplier sued the contractor for about $81,000 that remained unpaid. The supplier appeared to waste no time and moved for summary judgment with an affidavit from its credit manager. The credit manager affirmed that the contractor executed a credit application for purposes of renting equipment on an open account, the application contained a personal guaranty, and the credit application formed the basis of a contract. The credit manager authenticated the credit application and affirmed that the contractor owed it about $81,000 in unpaid amounts for rental equipment that was furnished under the credit application.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals
August 07, 2022 —
Richard K. Traub - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that firm Chair Emeritus Richard Traub has been awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals (IACP).
The IACP provides a forum for senior Claim leaders from across the globe to build relationships with their peers, enhance their knowledge of strategic claim issues and trends, freely exchange views and ideas in order to improve the development, leadership and professionalism of its members and foster goodwill and better business among insurance organizations worldwide. Attorneys at Traub Lieberman have been longstanding members and Diamond Sponsors of the IACP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard K. Traub, Traub LiebermanMr. Traub may be contacted at
rtraub@tlsslaw.com
Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions
September 01, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the court determined there was an occurrence, coverage was excluded by the business risk exclusions. See Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. Shay Constr. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82839 (D. Colo. July 28, 2011).
White was the general contractor on the project. White had three subcontracts with Shay to provide framing, siding, and related work on the project. Shay was insured under a CGL policy issued by Continental Western.
Two of Shay’s subcontractors furnished materials, labor and equipment to Shay. These subcontractors filed suit in state court alleging they had not been compensated for the work and materials. White and Shay were named as defendants. White cross claimed against Shay, alleging Shay had breached its obligations under the subcontracts. Several allegations sounded in contract. Other allegations, however, contended Shay had performed defective work and had damaged the work of other trades in correcting deficiencies in its own performance.
Shay sought coverage under Continental Western’s policy. Continental Western filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2023’s Bank Failures: What Contractors, Material Suppliers and Equipment Lessors Can Do to Protect Themselves
May 15, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt has been a tumultuous year for the banking industry. Since the beginning of this year the industry has seen the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, the shotgun marriage between failing Credit Suisse and USB, and, most recently, the collapse of First Republic Bank this past week and its purchase by JP Morgan Chase. Indeed, according to the New York Times, these three bank failures cum bailouts alone were bigger than the 25 banks that collapsed during the financial crises of 2008 and some are concerned that it is just the beginning.
This, of course, has impacted the stock market, with Forbes reporting that the banking industry lost more than $300 billion in market value as of the end of March. However, it also raises concerns regarding liquidity on construction projects.
While the failing banks have either been bought out by other banks or shored up by the federal government, which, in the case of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, involved the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve stepping into to protect depositors by
guaranteeing deposits in excess of the current FDIC limit of $250,000, there continues to be concerns over access to cash. This can impact construction projects in several ways.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
What’s in a Name? Trademarks and Construction
April 25, 2022 —
Carol Wilhelm and J.P. Vogel - Construction ExecutiveEvery company, no matter the industry, relies on its name and reputation to develop customers and generate revenue. Think about the brands that dominate American culture such as Nike, Wal-Mart, Amazon or McDonald’s, then imagine those businesses without the ability to adequately protect their names, slogans and logos. No doubt the vultures would circle and brand power would most likely become short lived or otherwise diluted to the point of non-existence. The construction industry is not exempt, and the industry leaders benefit from identifiable names and logos, built over years of reputation and brand building. While the tools necessary to protect your company’s brand exist at the state and federal level, many business owners or leaders are unfamiliar with the trademark process and unaware of the consequences of not utilizing those tools.
Trademark Registration
Trademarks are “concise and unequivocal identifiers” that provide potential customers with essential information about your business. With a single word, tagline, logo, color—essentially anything that can carry meaning—potential customers learn to associate particular product or service characteristics and expected quality level with a particular source. That is, your mark is the way that consumers connect your expertise and reputation to your business and nobody else’s. It serves a critical role in reducing consumer search costs and capturing your hard-earned business opportunities.
Reprinted courtesy of
Carol Wilhelm and J.P. Vogel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Vogel may be contacted at jpvogel@grayreed.com
Ms. Wilhelm may be contacted at cwilhelm@grayreed.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
HOA Has No Claim to Extend Statute of Limitations in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 20, 2011 in the case of Arundel Homeowners Association v. Arundel Green Partners, a construction defect case involving a condominium conversion in San Francisco. Eight years after the Notice of Completion was filed, the homeowners association filed a lawsuit alleging a number of construction defects, including “defective cabinets, waterproofing membranes, wall-cladding, plumbing, electrical wiring, roofing (including slope, drainage and flashings), fire-rated ceilings, and chimney flues.” Three years of settlement negotiations followed.
Negotiations ended in the eleventh year with the homeowners association filing a lawsuit. Arundel Green argued that the suit should be thrown out as California’s ten-year statute of limitations had passed. The court granted judgment to Arundel Green.
The homeowners then filed for a new trial and to amend its complaint, arguing that the statute of limitations should not apply due to the doctrine of equitable estoppel as Arundel Green’s actions had lead them to believe the issues could be solved without a lawsuit. “The HOA claimed that it was not until after the statute of limitations ran that the HOA realized Arundel Green would not keep its promises; and after this realization, the HOA promptly brought its lawsuit.” The trial court denied the homeowners association’s motions, which the homeowners association appealed.
In reviewing the case, the Appeals Court compared Arundel to an earlier California Supreme Court case, Lantzy. (The homeowners also cited Lantzy as the basis of their appeal.) In Lantzy, the California Supreme Court set up a four-part test as to whether estoppel could be applied. The court applied these tests and found, as was the case in Lantzy, that there were no grounds for estoppel.
In Arundel, the court noted that “there are simply no allegations that Arundel Green made any affirmative statement or promise that would lull the HOA into a reasonable belief that its claims would be resolved without filing a lawsuit.” The court also cited Lesko v. Superior Court which included a recommendation that the plaintiffs “send a stipulation?Ķextending time.” This did not happen and the court upheld the dismissal.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How Robotics Can Improve Construction and Demolition Waste Sorting
September 11, 2023 —
Emily Newton - Construction ExecutiveCommercial construction projects generate a lot of waste. Managing this debris is crucial to minimizing the industry’s environmental impact, but it’s often a time-consuming and error-prone process. Robotic waste sorting provides a better alternative.
Why C&D Waste Management Must Improve
The current state of construction and demolition (C&D) debris management leaves considerable room for improvement. Nearly all C&D waste takes
decades to break down in landfills—and the sector generates hundreds of millions of tons of it annually.
More efficient debris management would help firms protect the environment and their bottom line. Poor waste management practices also take an economic toll. Recycling extends materials’ useful life, helping minimize resource costs. Inefficient waste sorting may additionally lead to unnecessarily high workforce expenses and incur lost business from firms’ lack of sustainability.
Reprinted courtesy of
Emily Newton, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
