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
Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked
November 23, 2016 —
Evelin Y. Bailey – California Construction Law BlogEarlier this year we informed you that the federal Department of Labor intended to raise the minimum salary for individuals classified as executive, administrative, and professional (“white collar”) exempt employees. The result? About 4.2 million workers classified as exempt would become eligible for overtime pay on December 1, 2016, the effective date of the new rule. Businesses would need to pay $47,476 starting on December 1, 2016 to maintain the exempt status of workers.
However, a combination of business groups and states sued to invalidate the regulation, requesting expedited and emergency injunctive relief.
On November 22, 2016, a federal district court in Texas granted the emergency motion for a preliminary injunction barring the DOL from enforcing its new overtime rule. The injunction will remain until the resolution of this legal challenge to the rule.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Evelin Y. Bailey, California Construction Law BlogMs. Bailey may be contacted at
ebailey@wendel.com
Construction Law Client Alert: Hirer Beware - When Exercising Control Over a Job Site’s Safety Conditions, You May be Held Directly Liable for an Independent Contractor’s Injury
April 06, 2011 —
Mark VonderHaar and Yvette DavisOn February 24, 2011, the California Court of Appeal held in Jeffrey Tverberg, et al v. Fillner Construction, Inc. that the imposition of direct liability on a hirer turns on whether the hirer exercised retained control of worksite safety in such a manner that affirmatively contributed to the independent contractor’s injury. Twice, Tverberg, an independent contractor hired by a general contractor's subcontractor, asked the general contractor to make the job site safe by covering up open holes created by another unrelated subcontractor while Tverberg was working at the site. After Tverberg was injured at the site by falling in a hole, he sued both the general contractor and the subcontractor which had hired him.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that when the general contractor instructed another subcontractor to create a condition that was potentially dangerous (i.e., creating open and uncovered bollard holes), and simultaneously required Tverberg to perform unrelated work near the open holes, the general contractor s conduct may have constituted a negligent exercise of its retained control which affirmatively contributed to Tverberg’s injury. The Court also reasoned that the general contractor affirmatively assumed responsibility for the safety of the workers near the holes by only requiring stakes and safety ribbon, and negligently discharged that responsibility which resulted in injury.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark VonderHaar and Yvette Davis of Haight Brown & Bonesteel. Mr. VonderHaar can be contacted at mvonderhaar@hbblaw.com and Ms. Davis at ydavis@hbblaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss
March 19, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn North Counties Engineering v. State Farm (No. A133713, filed 3/13/14), State Farm insured an engineering company under CGL insurance that had a professional services exclusion and included products-completed operations (PCO) coverage. The owner of the engineering company, NCE, contracted with a winery to construct a dam and associated works. Also on the project was the owner's son, who had his own construction company, NCD. There were multiple contracts, both oral and written, variously naming one company or the other. The evidence later showed that the father performed hands-on work for the project.
After completion, the winery was sued over sediment and erosion caused by the dam. State Farm denied coverage on the ground that the professional services exclusion applied, as well as a mistaken belief that the policy had no PCO coverage. State Farm then changed its position and agreed to defend, but only going forward. The insured sued State Farm over past defense fees, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The case went to trial and after testimony detailing State Farm's claim handling, the trial judge granted a nonsuit, finding that the professional services exclusion barred all coverage:
"[I]f you look at the pleadings, the legal pleadings and the contracts, the NCE role is, as the engineering company, the support company, and that company was overseeing the [sic] NCD to make sure that whatever they did was done right.... NCE is the expert on the job, the professional providing professional services, design and construction, and also overseeing the work of NCD, the son’s business, which is doing more of the physical activity.... That takes professional expertise and I think all of what Mr. Akerstrom did was professional.... It was this professional work, and not 'something incidental to their professional involvement' that gave rise to the underlying actions. In this situation, it’s not a malpractice or E and O policy. It’s a business policy, which has good benefits, but is subject to the professional services exclusion."
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore and
Chris Kendrick of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard
January 14, 2015 —
William Doerler and Edward Jaeger, Jr. – White and Williams LLPIn Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law. In particular, the Court, overturned Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), clarified the role of the judge and the jury in products liability cases and settled the question of whether Pennsylvania would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§ 1, et. seq. (Third Restatement) as the standard for deciding Pennsylvania products liability cases. The Tincher decision makes clear that Pennsylvania will continue to apply § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Second Restatement) in products liability cases and that jurors, not the court, will decide the question of whether a product is in a defective condition. Plaintiffs may prove that a product is defective using either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test.
Background
The Tincher case arose out a fire that occurred at the home of Terrance and Judith Tincher on June 20, 2007. The Tinchers alleged that the fire started when a lightning strike near their home caused a small puncture in corrugated steel tubing (CSST) carrying natural gas to a fireplace located in their home. The defendant, Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) manufactured the CSST.
Reprinted courtesy of
William Doerler, White and Willams LLP and
Edward Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Dillion & Newmeyer Dillion Named 2019 Good Scout Award Recipient
November 24, 2019 —
Newmeyer DillionNewmeyer Dillion, a prominent business and real estate law firm, today announced Greg Dillion and the firm were named the 2019 Good Scout Award recipient by the Boy Scouts of America, Orange County Council. Dillion and the firm were recognized at the 38th annual Construction Industry Luncheon on November 18th at Hotel Irvine in Irvine, CA. The award is given to individual/company in recognition of their outstanding character, leadership in their industry and commitment to their community.
"When reviewing the 12 points of the Scout's law, with each point as a goal for every Scout to live up to, the two that stand out the most for me that Greg embodies are that Greg is 'helpful' and Greg is 'brave,'" says Newmeyer Dillion's Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff, who served as Master of Ceremonies for this year's award.
"Greg has the instantaneous willingness to help, and he will make the time to help even when he has no time to do so. Greg never runs and he never backs down. He is the person that we look up to. He never hesitates, and he never blames. He only moves forward. I've been blessed in my life to be around and influenced by some tremendous leaders. Greg is the real deal. The Boy Scouts could not have picked a better man to honor."
Greg Dillion is a founding partner of Newmeyer Dillion. Established 35 years ago, the firm has grown from three attorneys to over 70 in three offices. Along with an active trial and appellate public and private practice, Dillion represents residential and commercial developers and other businesses in complex and high stakes business, insurance, real estate and construction disputes. He also advises on insurance policy placement and review; risk avoidance, transfer and management; and alternative dispute resolution methods, techniques and enforceability.
Dillion is active in the community in which he serves, as a supporter of numerous charities and non-profit organizations like the American Cancer Society, Boys Scouts of America, The City of Hope, Interval House, Joyful Child, The Catalina Conservancy, Orangewood Foundation, The Shea Center, The Catalina Cowboy Heritage Foundation and more. He currently sits on the Board for the Surfing Heritage & Culture Center and the Los Caballeros.
Learn More:
https://www.newmeyerdillion.com/gregory-l-dillion/
https://vimeo.com/374510243/a587df2eaa
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 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 corporate, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs and takes an integrated and holistic approach to its legal representation that propels each clients' vision, mission, culture, operations, peace of mind and bottom line. 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
Second Circuit Finds Potential Ambiguity in Competing “Anti-Concurrent Cause” Provisions in Hurricane Sandy Property Loss
November 28, 2018 —
CDJ STAFFThe Second Circuit recently held that competing “anti-concurrent cause” provisions in a commercial property policy present a potential ambiguity that could result in favor of coverage for losses sustained by Madelaine Chocolate after storm surge from Hurricane Sandy combined to cause substantial damage to Madelaine’s property and a resulting loss of income.
Madelaine was insured under an all-risk insurance policy issued by Chubb subsidiary Great Northern Insurance Company. By endorsement, Madelaine’s policy added “windstorm” as a covered peril and defined “windstorm” as “wind… regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributes concurrently to, or contributed in any sequence to, the loss or damage.” The policy also included a common flood exclusion that removed coverage for loss or damage caused by or resulting from waves, tidal water, or tidal waves, or the rising, overflowing, or breaking of any natural harbors, oceans, or any other body of water, whether driven by wind or not. Like the windstorm endorsement, the flood exclusion contained concurrency language that broadened the exclusion to any loss to which flood contributed, regardless of any other cause or event that directly or indirectly contributed to the loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Tae Andrews, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Andrews may be contacted at tandrews@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Quick Note: Steps to Protect and Avoid the “Misappropriation” of a “Trade Secret”
November 23, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesFlorida’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (included in Florida Statute s. 688.001 en seq.) defines the terms “trade secret” and “misappropriation.” These definitions (found
here) are important in that just because 1) we deem something a trade secret does not, in of itself, make it so, and 2) we deem someone to have misappropriated a trade secret does not, in of itself, make it so.
If a party deems something to be a trade secret they should identify the document or paper as “confidential trade secret” as the first-step in preserving the confidentiality of that information. The party should also consider entering into an agreement with the party that may receive that information to maximize the protection of such confidential trade secret information during the parties’ agreement.
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
