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
Do We Need Blockchain in Construction?
June 22, 2020 —
Cristina Savian - AEC BusinessBlockchain technology claimed to have the potential to disrupt many aspects of how companies do business. And like other emerging technologies, I have been exploring its uses, benefits and assessing its potential opportunities in the construction industry. If like me, you have been wondering what it is and if its applications are limited to financial services and cryptocurrencies; you will be pleasantly surprised to discover that it has a lot more applications with exciting opportunities for our sector too.
Blockchain could have a significant impact on our industry. In writing this article I have discovered that the Australian government is full steam ahead, that many organisations are currently building their own blockchain networks and that it is something that businesses right across the built environment should be preparing for now. But more on that soon, first we need to define what blockchain is.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cristina Savian, AEC Business
11th Circuit Affirms Bad Faith Judgement Against Primary Insurer
July 24, 2023 —
Ashley Kellgren - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn American Builders Insurance Co. v. Southern-Owners Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15386, No. 21-13496 (11th Cir. June 20, 2023), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a bad faith judgment against a primary insurer.
On April 1, 2019, Ernest Guthrie fell from a roof, causing him to became paralyzed from the waist down. At the time of the accident, Guthrie was employed by his own subcontracting company and was performing work for Beck Construction. Beck Construction was insured under a general liability policy issued by American Builders and an excess policy issued by Evanston. Each of those policies provided $1 million in liability limits. Guthrie’s company was insured under a policy issued by Southern-Owners, which provided a per occurrence limit of $1 million. Under the Southern-Owners policy, Beck Construction was an additional insured and coverage was provided to Beck Construction on a primary basis.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley Kellgren, Traub LiebermanMs. Kellgren may be contacted at
akellgren@tlsslaw.com
Newmeyer & Dillion’s Alan Packer Selected to 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers List
July 18, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionWALNUT CREEK, Calif. – JULY 10, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that litigation attorney Alan Packer has been selected to the 2018 Northern California Super Lawyers list. No more than five percent of the lawyers in the state are selected by Super Lawyers each year.
Packer is a partner in the firm's expanding Walnut Creek office. He has practiced law in California for over 30 years, mostly representing parties involved in real estate, home building, commercial construction, and insurance matters. He represents business clients, homebuilders, property owners, and others in a broad range of legal matters.
Packer is a frequent speaker at seminars and in-house training sessions for clients on issues relating to risk management, construction litigation, and insurance.
Earlier this year, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys in Newport Beach and Las Vegas were also selected to Super Lawyers lists. Packer brings its total to 19 Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys recognized.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations, resulting in a comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
Alan Packer
Partner
Walnut Creek
Contact
925.988.3200
alan.packer@ndlf.com
Practices
Business Litigation
Construction Litigation
Insurance Law
Real Estate Litigation
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 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 business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Newmeyer Elected Director At Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors
October 20, 2016 — Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – OCTOBER 17, 2016 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that co-founding partner Tom Newmeyer has been elected Director at Large to the 2017 Orange County Bar Association Board of Directors. Newmeyer was elected to the Board for a three-year term beginning January 2017 and will be installed during the OCBA Judges’ Night & Annual Meeting in January along with the 2017 Officers and other Board members.
“It’s an honor to be selected by my fellow OCBA members to represent their interests as a Board member,” said Tom Newmeyer. “As Director at Large, I will do my utmost to preserve and enhance the OCBA’s commitment to the members it serves.”
Tom Newmeyer is one of the founding partners of Newmeyer and Dillion LLP, which has grown from three attorneys in 1984 to over 70 lawyers in Newport Beach and Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada. Newmeyer has an active trial and appellate practice covering all areas of business litigation, including unfair competition, trade secrets, contract disputes, corporate and partnership dissolutions, trusts and estates, and labor and employment. He has extensive experience in representing clients in diverse areas including “green” technologies, subprime mortgages, internet and computer software, as well as real estate.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 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 business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Brooklyn’s Hipster Economy Challenges Manhattan Supremacy
April 08, 2014 — Henry Goldman – Bloomberg
Marty Markowitz was strolling in Vienna when he noticed mannequins in a shop window wearing hats emblazoned with Paris, London and Brooklyn. The store had plenty of London and Paris models. Brooklyn was sold out.
“They said they couldn’t restock the Brooklyn hats fast enough,” said Markowitz, 69, who spent 12 years as president of New York City’s most populous borough before retiring in January.
Brooklyn’s cachet as a global brand and epitome of urban hipsterdom is shifting New York City’s center of gravity, reducing the supremacy of Manhattan across the East River and exerting more influence on New York’s political, economic and cultural life. It’s creating jobs and adding residents at a faster pace than any other borough, sparking a boom in commercial development to supply the new masses. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Henry Goldman, Bloomberg
Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net
There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract
February 28, 2022 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When an opinion in a case starts with, “Unlike some motions, not even the most ingenious lawyers could make this one complicated,” you know you are in for an interesting read. This was how the opinion started in U.S. f/u/b/o Hambric Steel and Fabrication, Inc. v. Leebcor Services, LLC, 2022 WL 345636 (M.D. GA. 2022), which concerns a Miller Act payment bond dispute between a subcontractor and prime contractor on a federal construction project.
As demonstrated below, the moral of this case is in fact simple. Read what you sign BEFORE you sign! No ifs, ands, or buts. Failure to do so will garner very little sympathy.
This case dealt with a prime contractor arguing that the subcontractor pulled the wool over its eyes by surreptitiously altering the final negotiated redlined contract between the parties. In particular, the prime contractor claimed that the dispute resolution provision was supposed to include a Virginia venue provision. However, the subcontractor “fraudulently” changed this provision to make it a Georgia venue provision after the final contract had been agreed to during the negotiation. Yet, it is undisputed that the executed contract between the parties included a Georgia venue provision. 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
Texas covered versus uncovered allocation and “legally obligated to pay.”
April 27, 2011 — CDCoverage.com
In Markel American Ins. Co. v. Lennar Corp., No. 14-10-00008-CV (Tex. Ct. App. April 19, 2011), insured homebuilder Lennar filed suit against its insurer Markel seeking recovery of costs incurred by Lennar to repair water damage to homes resulting from defective EIFS siding. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Lennar and against Markel. On appeal, the intermediate appellate court reversed. Applying Texas law, the court first held that Lennar failed to satisfy its burden of allocating damages between covered and uncovered. In a prior decision, the court had held that, while the costs incurred by Lennar for the repair of the resulting water damage
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
