Hospital Settles Lawsuit over Construction Problems
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Medical Arts Hospital in Lamesa, Texas has settled a lawsuit against its general contractor, roofing contractor, and two insurance companies for $3.7 million, over alleged construction problems. Ray Stephens, president of the hospital’s board said, “we got enough to fix the major problems and that was our goal in the beginning.” With the settlement, the lawsuit has been dismissed by the court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Maximizing Contractual Indemnity Rights: Problems with Common Law
December 02, 2015 —
William Kennedy – White and Williams LLPAt its core, the concept of tort law is simple: you pay for the damages you negligently cause. In reality, tort law can sometimes require a party to pay far more than just its share of causal damages. Tort law can even require a party to pay when it was not actually negligent, but rather is related to the actually-negligent actor.
The vagaries of tort law suggest that the allocation of the “risk of loss” is a vital detail in any contract. Without effective contractual provisions, parties to a contract may find that common law tort principles yield harsh or unexpected results. Properly written contractual provisions can define which party bears the risk of which losses. Both the party receiving the financial protection (the Indemnitee) and the party providing the protection (the Indemnitor) have an interest in obtaining insurance to cover the risk that is being borne.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Kennedy, White and Williams LLPMr. Kennedy may be contacted at
kennedyw@whiteandwilliams.com
Warranty Reform Legislation for Condominiums – Unfair Practices used by Developers and Builders to avoid Warranty Responsibility for Construction Defects in Newly Constructed Condominiums
June 09, 2016 —
Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogThis article pertains to needed condominium construction defect warranty reform legislation that the Maryland Legislature has been reluctant to enact into law. Below is an explanation of the legislation and a list of practical steps CAI members can take to support the legislation during the upcoming 2017 legislative session.
Background
The warranty reform legislation was unsuccessfully introduced during the 2016 legislative session as “Senate Bill 250” (“SB 250”) and “House Bill 1170” (“HB 1170”). Both bills were identical, one being filed in the Senate and the other in the House of Delegates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.Mr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
Domtar Update
June 11, 2014 —
Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLPOn May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur—i.e., the permission to appeal—in the controversial subrogation case, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). In its order granting the relief to Liberty Mutual, a workers’ compensation insurer, the Supreme Court set forth the narrow issue to be decided on appeal: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”
In Domtar, Liberty Mutual was caused to incur approximately $35,000 in compensation benefits which it paid on behalf of George Lawrence, an employee of Liberty Mutual’s insured, for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. Mr. Lawrence chose not to file an independent personal injury lawsuit. As a result, in order to recover its lien interests, Liberty Mutual sued the third parties responsible for causing Mr. Lawrence’s work-related injuries directly, having become subrogated to the rights of Mr. Lawrence by virtue of Liberty Mutual’s workers’ compensation expenditure on his behalf.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLPMr. Caplan may be contacted at
caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com
New York Considers Amendments to Construction Industry Wage Laws that Would Impose Significant Burden Upon Contractors
August 04, 2021 —
Richard W. Brown & Michael D. Angotti - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A bill that would amend the the wage and hour requirements of the New York Labor Law was recently passed by the New York State Legislature and is expected to be signed by Governor Cuomo. Bill Number S2766C (the “Bill”) is intended to protect construction workers against wage theft. However, it places a heavy burden on contractors to police the payroll practices of its downstream subcontractors and exposes them to potentially significant liability for the wage and hour violations of their subcontractors.
The proposed Bill would make a contractor or upstream subcontractor jointly and severally liable for any wages owed to employees of their subcontractors. The Bill allows for a private right of action for such subcontractor’s employee (or such employee’s representative) to bring a civil or administrative action seeking payment of unpaid wages owed pursuant to Section 198 of the New York Labor Law. In such an action against a subcontractor for unpaid wages, the contractor or upstream subcontractor is not only jointly and severally liable for any unpaid wages, but also for the prevailing claimant’s reasonable attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and, absent a good faith defense, liquidated damages equal to the amount of the wages owed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Michael D. Angotti, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Angotti may be contacted at MAngotti@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage
March 01, 2017 —
Bruce Cleeland & Michael J. Worth - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC, 2017 No. S233096, the California Supreme Court held that when a trial court determines an expert opinion is inadmissible because expert disclosure requirements were not met, the opinion must be excluded from consideration at summary judgment if an objection is raised.
Plaintiff Mr. Perry sued defendants Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, alleging personal injuries after plaintiff fell at a property owned by Bakewell and leased by Chase. Defendant Chase served plaintiff with a demand for the exchange of expert witness information. Plaintiff made no disclosure. Thereafter, the trial date was continued. Defendant Bakewell subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition, plaintiff submitted declarations of two experts opining that the stairs on which plaintiff fell were in disrepair and failed to comply with building codes and industry standards.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com
Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp Obtain Summary Judgment in Favor of Residential Property Owners
December 13, 2022 —
Gregory S. Pennington & Emily A. Velcamp - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Gregory S. Pennington and Associate Emily A. Velcamp obtained summary judgment in favor of their clients, owners of a residential property [the “Owners” or “Defendants”] used as a short-term rental in Beach Haven, New Jersey. Plaintiff alleged injuries resulting from a fall into an open water meter pit, located in the public sidewalk abutting the Owners’ property during the time within which the property was rented to plaintiff and his family. According to plaintiff, defendants breached their duty owed to him, relying on a Borough of Beach Haven Ordinance, thereby allowing the water meter pit to be raised in an unsafe manner, which resulted in plaintiff’s fall and subsequent injuries.
After the Court denied defendants’ initial Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that issues of material fact existed regarding defendants’ duty and the alleged breach of that duty, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp argued that their clients, as residential landowners, owed no duty of care to plaintiff for the raised condition of the water meter pit lid, located in the abutting sidewalk, as they did not cause or contribute to the alleged condition. Defendants further argued that even if a duty of care existed, no breach occurred given the lack of notice to defendants, either actual or constructive. Plaintiff attempted to argue that defendants had constructive notice of the lid’s raised condition, relying on his expert report and the fact that defendants had 3.5 months from the date the property was purchased, to the date of the subject accident to discover the lid’s raised condition. Mr. Pennington and Ms. Velcamp successfully argued that despite plaintiff’s allegations and the findings contained in plaintiff’s expert report, authored 2 months after the alleged accident, there was still no credible, material evidence to say how long the water meter pit lid was in that raised condition to allow defendants a reasonable time to discover it, remedy it, or report it to the Borough.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and
Emily A. Velcamp, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Velcamp may be contacted at evelcamp@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Navigating Threshold Arbitration Issues in Construction Contracts
April 29, 2024 —
Daniel D. McMillan and TJ Auner - The Dispute ResolverIncluding an arbitration clause in your construction contract may not mean that your dispute will be confined to arbitration. Instead, parties often find themselves in court litigating threshold issues related to the existence and/or enforceability of an arbitration clause. Common issues include whether the underlying contract containing the arbitration clause is valid, whether the dispute falls within the scope of the clause, whether the parties complied with contractual prerequisites to arbitration, whether issues related to arbitrability are decided by the court or arbitrator, and whether one of the parties has waived their right to arbitrate. This blog post highlights two recent construction cases addressing threshold issues that a party seeking to enforce—or oppose enforcing—an arbitration clause might face.
Seifert v. United Built Homes, LLC: Delegating Issues of Arbitrability to the Arbitrator
In Seifert, an owner sued a homebuilder in Texas federal court for breach of contract and sought damages and declaratory relief. No. 3:22-CV-1360-E, 2023 WL 4826206 (N.D. Tex. July 27, 2023). The builder moved to compel arbitration. The owner opposed and argued that: (1) there was no agreement to arbitrate because the underlying contract was null and void, and (2) its claim for declaratory relief fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause. The court did not address the merits of either argument. Instead, it determined that these were issues for the arbitrator to decide.
Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel D. McMillan, Jones Day and
TJ Auner, Jones Day
Mr. McMillan may be contacted at ddmcmillan@jonesday.com
Mr. Auner may be contacted at tauner@jonesday.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
