Chattanooga Bridge Collapse Likely Resulted From Impact
April 17, 2019 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordTennessee highway officials believe an impact from a vehicle’s oversized load is likely to blame for the April 1 partial collapse of a ramp structure at the I-75/I-24 interchange in Chattanooga. The impact caused the outer box beam and railing of the 148-ft-long bridge’s nearly 51-ft main span to fall onto an access ramp, injuring a motorist whose vehicle collided with the debris.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim
February 23, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesStrategy is important. This is especially true if you are trying to avoid arbitration. In a recent federal district court case, a subcontractor sued the prime contractor and the Miller Act payment bond surety. The subcontractor, however, had an arbitration provision in its subcontract with the prime contractor. The prime contractor moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the subcontract and moved to stay the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim. The last thing, and I mean the last thing, the subcontractor wanted to do was to stay its claim against the Miller Act payment bond. However, the district court compelled the subcontractor’s claim against the prime contractor to arbitration and stayed the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim pending the outcome of the arbitration. See U.S. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 2017 WL 495614 (S.D.Al. 2017). This is not what the subcontractor wanted.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue
March 18, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe United States Supreme Court recently decided parties to a contract can agree, under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator, rather than a court, can fully resolve the initial arbitrability question. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 2019 WL 122164 (2019). The arbitrability question is whether the dispute itself is subject to arbitration under an arbitration provision. Parties that do not want to arbitrate try to circumvent this process by filing a lawsuit and asking the court to determine the threshold arbitrability question.
In Henry Schein, Inc., the contract at-issue provided:
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The plaintiff in this case asserted a claim for injunctive relief (among other claims) and argued that, therefore, the dispute is not subject to arbitration based on the exception in the provision. The initial, threshold issue became whether the dispute was subject to arbitration and, importantly, who decides this issue. The Court further looked at whether a trial court can resolve this issue under the “wholly groundless” exception, i.e.,the court can decide the issue if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
The Colorado Court of Appeals Rules that a Statutory Notice of Claim Triggers an Insurer’s Duty to Defend.
October 23, 2012 —
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellGene and Diane Melssen d/b/a Melssen Construction (“Melssen”) built a custom home for the Holleys, during which period of time Melssen retained a CGL insurance coverage from Auto Owners Insurance Company. Soon after completion of the house, the Holleys noticed cracks in the drywall and, eventually, large cracks developed in the exterior stucco and basement slab. Thereafter, the Holleys contacted Melssen, the structural engineer, an attorney, and Auto-Owners, which assigned a claims adjuster to investigate the claim.
In April 2008, the Holleys sent Melssen a statutory notice of claim pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-803.5 (“NOC”). In this NOC, the Holleys claimed approximately $300,000 in damages related to design and construction defects. The Holleys also provided a list of claimed damages and estimated repairs, accompanied by two reports from the Holleys’ consultant regarding the claimed design and construction defects. In June 2008, Melssen tendered the defense and indemnity of the claim to Auto-Owners. While Auto-Owners did not deny the claim at that time, it did not inspect the property or otherwise adjust the claim. Thereafter, in October 2008, Auto-Owners sent Melssen a letter denying coverage on the basis that the damage occurred outside of the applicable policy period.
Ultimately, Melssen settled the claims against it for $140,000.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McLain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Triggering Duty to Advance Costs Same Standard as Duty to Defend
April 11, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiInterpreting Hawaii law, the federal district court held that the standard for triggering the duty to defend is the same as the standard for the duty to advance costs under a D&O policy.
Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56949 (D. Haw. April 3, 2018).
The underlying plaintiffs sued 22 defendants, including Maui Land Pineapple (MLP) and Ryan L. Churchill, concerning a residential development project known as The Ritz-Carlton Club & Residences. The underlying complaint alleged that MLP "directly or indirectly through wholly owned subsidiaries exerts control" over Kapalua Bay, LLC, the defendant in the underlying lawsuit. Kapalua Bay, LLC was created as a joint venture of which MLP held 51%. Churchill was a senior executive officer of MLP, President of Kapalua Bay, and an executive officer of Kapalua Realty, which participated in all aspects of the Project, such as financing, development, and construction.
In their second amended complaint, the underlying plaintiffs alleged nine Counts against the defendants, including breach of fiduciary duty. It was alleged that defendants were not transparent and kept owners in the dark regarding the status of the project. Several allegations named Churchill individually and described his alleged material misrepresentations to the underlying plaintiffs regarding the project's financing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Social Distancing and the Impact on Service of Process Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Robert Devine, James Burger & Susan Zingone - White and WilliamsService of process usually requires person-to-person contact and is an essential part of civil procedure. It notifies the defendant of the legal proceedings against him/her and establishes jurisdiction. “Process” refers to the documents that must be served on a defendant. If service of process is not performed pursuant to the governing rules of civil procedure, a lawsuit cannot proceed.
Service of Process in NJ and PA
Personal service is required to be the first attempted means of service in New Jersey. If personal service is not successful, then service may be made by mailing a copy of the process via registered or certified mail with return receipt requested to the defendant’s usual place of abode or business/place of employment, or to an authorized agent. The party attempting to serve the defendant by mail can choose to mail the process by regular mail as well, and if the defendant refuses to accept or claim the registered or certified copy, and the regular mail copy is not returned, then service is considered effectuated.
Pennsylvania allows for a defendant to be served via personal service by handing a copy to the defendant or by delivering a copy to an adult family household member at the defendant’s residence. Pennsylvania also permits service of process by mail. Process can be served by mail requiring a signature of the defendant. If the mail is unclaimed, alternative service must be attempted.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Robert Devine,
James Burger and
Susan Zingone
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Zingone may be contacted at zingones@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine
March 01, 2021 —
Nicholas B. Brummel & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose, the Sixth Appellate District held that the relation back doctrine was inapplicable where a plaintiff received constructive notice of a defendant’s identity months prior to the last date where filing was permitted pursuant to an applicable statute of limitations.
In Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso, Mark Espinoza, an Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso (OCA/Plaintiff) representative, asked the City of San Jose (“the city”) to place him on the public notice list for a proposed rezoning project. He also twice specifically requested a copy of the notice of determination (NOD) documenting the city’s certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of the project. Despite Espinoza diligently requesting all notices for the project, the city, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), failed to send Espinoza the legally operative second NOD for the project; the first NOD was provided to OCA, but named an incorrect party in interest.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Citizen Suits and the Summer of 2022
November 01, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a selection of significant environmental and regulatory law cases decided by the federal courts after the Supreme Court’s 2021 Term concluded.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission
On July 12, 2022, the DC Circuit held that an order of the FCC requiring radio broadcasters to follow a prescribed five-step process to verify the identity of program sponsors was not authorized by the Communications Act. According to the court, the FCC “decreed a duty that the statute does not require, and that the statute does not empower the FCC to impose.” Here, the agency failed to identify the statutory authority it needed to authorize the issuance of such an order. While certainly not as significant as the Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, decided only a few days before this decision was released, it is a strong reminder that the courts want to know if a challenged rule is authorized by law.
Humane Society of the U.S., et al., v. U.S. Department of Agriculture
On July 22, 2022, the court decided a case involving the steps the Administrative Procedure Act and the Federal Register Act require to be taken before a final agency rule is legally promulgated. Customarily, when there has been a change in Presidential administrations, the incoming administration “quietly” withdraws rules awaiting Federal Register publication without much ceremony. The majority of this panel agreed that public notice should have been provided to the regulated community to comment on the new administration’s action to pull back a new rule which had been made available for public inspection before Federal Register publication that would have strengthened the protections afforded “show horses,” as now required by law. The court noted that “it seems clear that filing with the Federal Register constituted promulgation of a regulation even though publication may not occur until a later date.” Circuit Judge Rao filed a strong dissent. “By cutting off agency discretion at public inspection, the majority imposes judicial burden on agency procedures that conflicts with circuit precedent, the statutory framework and a longstanding regulation permitting withdrawals prior to publication.” There could be a further review of this unique ruling.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
