Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Insurance Companies Score Win at Supreme Court

December 26, 2022 — Mason Fletcher & Ryan Sternoff - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
In 2011, the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) contracted with Seattle Tunnel Partners, a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini (“STP”) to construct a tunnel (“SR 99 Tunnel”) to replace the dilapidated Alaska Way Viaduct. STP obtained a builder’s “all-risk” insurance policy (“Policy”) from Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC and several other insurers (collectively, the “Insurers”) which insured against damage to both the project and the tunnel boring machine popularly known as Big Bertha (“Bertha”). Bertha began excavating in July 2013 but broke down a few months later when the machine stopped working. Work did not resume on the project until December 2015. WSDOT and STP tendered insurance claims for the losses associated with the delays and breakdown of Bertha but the Insurers denied coverage. Thereafter, WSDOT and STP sued. The Insurers moved the trial court for partial summary judgment to resolve some, but not all, of the coverage disputes. In a unanimous decision, the Washington State Supreme Court affirmed the trial court and Court of Appeals, and held that insurance companies do not have to reimburse WSDOT and STP for costs accrued during a two-year Project delay, under certain provisions of the insurance policies. Reprinted courtesy of Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC and Ryan Sternoff, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Mr. Sternoff may be contacted at ryan.sternoff@acslawyers.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Economy in U.S. Picked Up on Consumer Spending, Construction

October 02, 2015 — Shobhana Chandra – Bloomberg
The world’s largest economy expanded more than previously forecast in the second quarter, boosted by gains in consumer spending and construction that may help the U.S. withstand a global slowdown. Gross domestic product rose at a 3.9 percent annualized rate, compared with a prior estimate of 3.7 percent, Commerce Department figures showed Friday in Washington. The median forecast of 76 economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 3.7 percent gain. Strong hiring, cheaper gasoline and higher home prices will probably sustain household purchases, which account for about 70 percent of the economy. That helps bolster Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s view that the U.S. will overcome any fallout from cooling overseas markets and swings in global financial and commodity markets. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg

When Cyber Crooks Steal Payments, Think Insurance Makes Up The Loss? Think Again.

November 18, 2024 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
In Summer 2023, the payment system for a small office and warehouse project that Beck Properties was developing for itself in South St. Paul, Minn., seemed to be running smoothly. Emails were criss-crossing back and forth and paper checks were landing in mailboxes. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court Holds that Requirement of Prejudice for Late Notice Defense is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State for Choice of Law Analysis

November 04, 2019 — Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine & Michelle M. Spatz - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
California’s highest court held yesterday in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Co., that the state’s insurance notice-prejudice rule is a “fundamental public policy” for the purpose of choice of law analyses. This unanimous ruling, issued in response to certified questions from the Ninth Circuit, confirms and emphasizes California’s common law rule that policyholders who provide “late notice” may proceed with their insurance claim, absent a showing by the insurer of substantial prejudice. The California Supreme Court also extended the prejudice requirement, holding that a first-party insurer must show that it was prejudiced before denying coverage under a policy’s “consent provision,” which typically provides that the policyholder must obtain the insurer’s “consent” before incurring costs and expenses. Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine and Michelle M. Spatz Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Ms. Spatz may be contacted at mspatz@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

February 05, 2015 — Robert Caplan and Timothy Carroll – White and Williams LLP
Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8] Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A New AAA Study Confirms that Arbitration is Faster to Resolution Than Court – And the Difference Can be Assessed Monetarily

June 05, 2017 — John P. Ahlers - Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
There has been a perception among some litigators that arbitration is more expensive than court due to several factors. Among them:

The “upfront” costs are higher in that filing fees for arbitration exceed those in court. Arbitrators are paid, whether hourly or a flat rate, and the three arbitration panels can become very expensive.
Some arbitration clauses preserve statutory discovery rights, basically defeating the advantage of a simplified arbitration process. Discovery wars are extremely expensive. Depositions are the most costly of discovery, and in arbitration, as opposed to court, depositions are limited or do not exist.
Some arbitration clauses integrate the statutory rules of civil procedure, making arbitration almost equivalent to litigation. These types of clauses do the parties no favors.

These notions are all dispelled in a recent American Arbitration Association (AAA) study comparing the length of time in court, based on published federal court statistics, to the length of time in arbitration, based on data from the AAA. The study demonstrates that federal courts take much longer to resolve cases by trial and appeal than arbitration by AAA. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

SCOTUS Opens Up Federal Courts to Land Owners

July 15, 2019 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
For nearly 36 years, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985) severely frustrated, if not all but foreclosed, a property owner’s right to bring a claim in federal court based on a regulatory taking. Under the Fifth Amendment, a property owner whose land has been “taken” by the government is entitled to just compensation. There are two types of takings direct or “inverse” or regulatory takings. A direct taking is where the government declares that it needs your land for public use and offers to pay you compensation. You might disagree with the amount offered – and that often is the case. But, a mechanism exists whereby a neutral third party – a condemnation board – will arrive at the compensation that is owed. On the other hand, an inverse condemnation or regulatory taking occurs when the government takes some action that restricts the use of the land in such a way as to severely impact it beneficial economic use. For example, if you own a strip of commercial property and intend to develop it and then the municipality comes along and suddenly changes the zoning classification of the parcel such that you can no longer develop it in a beneficial way, then you might have a regulatory takings case. Under the Court’s Williamson County decision, property owners falling within the later category were required to exhaust state remedies before proceeding to federal court under a claim that their Fifth Amendment rights were violated. The problem with this is that, as the Supreme Court explained, it creates a Catch-22. If property owners exhaust their state remedies and the state remedies result in an unfavorable outcome, the federal court is powerless to overturn that decision under the doctrines of res judicata and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. Well, yesterday, the Court overturned Williamson County, in Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. _____ (2019). There the Court held unequivocally a “property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and therefore may bring his claim in federal court under Section 1983 at that time.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)

May 04, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
What you contractually agree to matters, particularly when you are deemed a sophisticated entity. This means you can figuratively live or die by the terms and conditions agreed to. Don’t take it from me, but it take it from the Fourth Circuit’s decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Modern Mosaic, Ltd. v. Turner Construction Co., 2019 WL 7174550 (4th Cir. 2019), where the Court started off by stressing, “One of our country’s bedrock principles is the freedom of individuals and entities to enter into contracts and rely that their terms will be enforced.” Id. at *1. This case involved a dispute between a prime contractor and its precast concrete subcontractor on a federal project. The subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. The trial court ruled against the subcontractor based on…the subcontract’s terms! So, yes, what you contractually agree to matters. Example #1 – The subcontractor fabricated and installed precast concrete panels per engineering drawings. However, the parking garage was not built per dimensions meaning the panels it fabricated would not fit. The subcontractor had to perform remedial work on the panels to get them to fit. The subcontractor pursued the prime contractor for these costs arguing the prime contractor should have field verified the dimensions. The problem for the subcontractor, however, was that the subcontract required the subcontractor, not the prime contractor, to field verify the dimensions. Based on this language that required the subcontractor to field verify existing conditions and take field measurements, the subcontractor was not entitled to its remedial costs (and they were close to $1 Million). Furthermore, and of importance, the Court noted that the subcontract contained a flow down provision requiring the subcontractor to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the prime contract and assume those duties and obligations that the prime contractor was to assume towards the owner. While this flow-down provision may often be overlooked, here it was not, as it meant the subcontractor was assuming the field verification duties that the prime contractor was responsible to perform for the owner. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES