Best Lawyers® Recognizes 37 White And Williams Lawyers
September 26, 2022 —
White and Williams LLPThirty-two White and Williams lawyers were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2023. Inclusion in Best Lawyers® is based entirely on peer-review. The methodology is designed to capture, as accurately as possible, the consensus opinion of leading lawyers about the professional abilities of their colleagues within the same geographical area and legal practice area. Best Lawyers® employs a sophisticated, conscientious, rational, and transparent survey process designed to elicit meaningful and substantive evaluations of quality legal services.
In addition, eight lawyers were recognized as "Ones to Watch” by Best Lawyers®. This recognition is given to attorneys who are earlier in their careers for outstanding professional excellence in private practice in the United States.
The firm is also pleased to announce Best Lawyers®
has recognized four White and Williams lawyers as "Lawyer of the Year." Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Beyond Inverse Condemnation in Wildfire Litigation: An Oregon Jury Finds Utility Liable for Negligence, Trespass and Nuisance
July 10, 2023 —
Marisa Miller, John Yacovelle & Kazim Naqvi - Sheppard MullinOn June 10, 2023, a jury in Portland, Oregon found PacifiCorp and Pacific Power (collectively, “PacifiCorp”) liable for negligence, trespass, and nuisance based on a series of four wildfires that occurred during Labor Day weekend in 2020. PacifiCorp prevailed against the plaintiffs on the claim of inverse condemnation. With respect to the tort-based claims, the jury awarded approximately $72 million in compensatory damages to 17 plaintiffs. The jury later found PacifiCorp liable for $18 million in punitive damages, or one quarter of the compensatory damages that the jury awarded to the 17 plaintiffs. The jury’s liability findings apply to a broader class of owners, whose damages will need to be individually proven in a yet-to-be defined second phase of proceedings. Post-verdict motion practice and appeals may affect the jury’s findings.
Reprinted courtesy of
Marisa Miller, Sheppard Mullin,
John Yacovelle, Sheppard Mullin and
Kazim Naqvi, Sheppard Mullin
Ms. Miller may be contacted at mmiller@sheppardmullin.com
Mr. Yacovelle may be contacted at jyacovelle@sheppardmullin.com
Mr. Naqvi may be contacted at knaqvi@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Performing Work with a Suspended CSLB License Costs Big: Subcontractor Faces $18,000,000 Disgorgement
September 17, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn what could lead to a draconian result, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District held that a contractor who performs work without a valid license can be required to disgorge all payments received, even if the contractor perfectly performed its work. The case, Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (Ct. of Appeal, 1st App. Dis., Div. One, A140890, A141393), involved an $18,000,000 contract between Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (“Jacobs Facilities”) and the Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council”). In April 2006, Jacobs Facilities, a wholly owned subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (“Jacobs Engineering”) entered into a three year contract with the Judicial Counsel to maintain 121 courthouses and other judicial branch buildings throughout Southern California (the “Contract”). Jacobs Facilities contracted to provide maintenance and oversight services, while retaining subcontractors to perform the actual maintenance and repair work.
In December 2006, as part of a corporate reorganization, Jacobs Engineering started winding up Jacobs Facilities and transferred its employees to Jacobs Engineering and then subsequently to another wholly owned subsidiary called Jacobs Project Management Co. (“Jacobs Management”). The work that was performed by Jacobs Facilities was taken over by Jacobs Management. As part of the windup, Jacobs Facilities’ Contractor’s State License Board license was allowed to lapse and the license expired by operation of law in November 2008. Although Jacobs Management was now performing the work, it was not added as a party to the contract. Although it appears Judicial Council was aware of the corporate changes, it was not until November 2009 that the parties assigned the contract to Jacobs Management.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on the Insurance Industry, Part One: Coverage, Exposure, and Losses
August 22, 2022 —
Michael Kopit - Lewis Brisbois(August 10, 2022) - The Russia-Ukraine conflict has far-reaching implications for the insurance industry and for insurers and insureds alike. Many corporate policy holders around the world have withdrawn or scaled back operations with Russia and/or Russian-based corporations. In doing so, the corporate policy holders left behind property, assets, and inventory in Russia and/or suffered losses in revenue. Corporate policy holders are looking to their insurers to offset the losses. It is estimated that the insurance and reinsurance markets could face losses at nearly $20 billion. S&P Global predicts that losses could reach $35 billion. Additionally, the conflict in Ukraine creates uncertainty for insurers on how to navigate the influx of claims, especially from the cybersecurity sector.
A key issue with the rise in claims is coverage. The general rule is that coverage under a policy for any loss must be evaluated by considering the policy language, the law applicable to the governing jurisdiction, and the facts surrounding the loss. Many policies contain a “war exclusion” clause, which can exclude property losses resulting from acts of war or governmental instability. However, corporate policy holders may have Political Risk Insurance, which can provide coverage for losses for items such as damaged property, seized property, and lost assets at a time of political turmoil or war. Even if a policy has Political Risk Insurance, it does not guarantee payout. Careful analysis of the policy language and facts surrounding the loss must still take place. For example, in the event of property claims, an insurer must still determine whether the loss is related to the conflict and/or whether the subject property was voluntarily abandoned or seized.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Kopit, Lewis BrisboisMr. Kopit may be contacted at
Michael.Kopit@lewisbrisbois.com
Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling
February 01, 2021 —
Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems.
As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Asserting Non-Disclosure Claim Involving Residential Real Property and Whether Facts Are “Readily Observable”
September 29, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesUnder Florida law, there is a claim dealing with the purchase and sale of residential real property known as a Johnson v. Davis or a non-disclosure claim: “[W]here the seller of a home knows of facts materially affecting the value of the property which are not readily observable and are not known to the buyer, the seller is under a duty to disclose them to the buyer.” Lorber v. Passick, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D1952a (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). A seller’s duty to disclose extends to a seller’s real estate agent/broker. Id.
A non-disclosure claim is asserted by the buyer of residential real property when the buyer discovers defects or damages with the real property that he believes materially affects the value of the property. While there may be the sentiment these are easy claims to prove, they are not.
Remember, a non-disclosure claim deals with facts that materially affect the value of residential real property and are NOT readily observable. The use of the language “readily observable” has been found to mean:
“[I]nformation [that] is within the diligent attention of any buyer. To exercise diligent attention…a buyer would be required to investigate any information furnished by the seller that a reasonable person in the buyer’s position would investigate and take reasonable steps to ascertain the material facts relating to the property and to discovery them—if, of course, they are reasonably ascertainable.”
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
Haight’s Kristian Moriarty Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Southern California Rising Stars
June 14, 2021 —
Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPCongratulations to partner Kristian Moriarty who was selected to the Super Lawyers 2021 Southern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Bond, No Recovery: WA Contractors Must Comply With WA Statutory Requirements Or Risk Being Barred From Recovery If Their Client Refuses To Pay
September 18, 2018 —
Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe risk that a contractor’s client may refuse to pay the full contract balance is a day-to-day reality for every contractor. That risk – and the stress it causes in the mind of any contractor – is tempered by the knowledge that Washington statutes provide contractors with ready access to the courts to file a lawsuit and be fully compensated for the work performed. But a recent case provides a grim reminder that the same statutes that giveth court access can also taketh away.
Washington’s Contractor Registration Act (“WCRA”)[1] requires every contractor engaging or offering to engage in services in Washington to register with the Department of Labor and Industries (”L&I”). In order to sue to collect compensation for work or to enforce a contract, a contractor must prove that he/she “was a duly registered contractor and held a current and valid certificate of registration at the time he or she contracted for the performance of such work or entered into such contract.”[2] In order to conclude that a contractor has substantially comply with these requirements, a court must find that:
(1) The department has on file the information required by RCW 18.27.030; (2) the contractor has at all times had in force a current bond or other security as required by RCW 18.27.040; and (3) the contractor has at all times had in force current insurance as required by RCW 18.27.050.[3]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Lane may be contacted at
joshua.lane@acslawyers.com
