FirstEnergy Fined $3.9M in Scandal Involving Nuke Plants
February 06, 2023 —
Annemarie Mannion - Engineering News-RecordHaving admitted to participating in the largest energy-involved bribery scandal in Ohio history, provider FirstEnergy Corp., based in Akron, has agreed to pay a $3.9-million fine for withholding lobbying and accounting information from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s enforcement office.
Reprinted courtesy of
Annemarie Mannion, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Mannion may be contacted at manniona@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Modification: Exceptions to Privette Doctrine Do Not Apply Where There is No Evidence a General Contractor Affirmatively Contributed to the Injuries of an Independent Contractor’s Employee
November 23, 2016 —
Renata L. Hoddinott & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn a case which was the subject of our Alert dated October 31, 2016 (click here for prior alert), the Court of Appeal of the State of California – Second Appellate District on November 17, 2016 issued a modification to the opinion in Khosh v. Staples Construction Company, Inc. (10/26/16 – Case No. B268937) with no change in judgment. In Khosh, the Court affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant under the Privette doctrine where plaintiff presented no evidence that the defendant affirmatively contributed to his injuries.
Reprinted courtesy of
Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed
April 22, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiPartial dismissal of the insured's complaint seeking consequential damages for the insurer's bad faith was granted by the court. Bryant v. General Cas. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15369 (N.D. N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019).
Bryant purchased from General Casualty Company of Wisconsin (GCCW) a commercial property and casualty policy to cover the insured premises. While the building was rented to a tenant who operated a restaurant, it sustained a collapse. GCCW refused to cover the loss. Bryant sued. In addition to the cost of repairing and replacing the damage to the property, Bryant alleged he was out the value of rental revenue from his tenant, which was forced to close the restaurant and relocated as a result of the unrepaired damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Fastball Right to the Bean!”
May 06, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyThe Metropolitan Municipality of Lima, Peru, filed suit in federal court in Washington DC to vacate two separate arbitration awards rendered against the city in international arbitration proceedings subject to the Federal Arbitration Act.
The city had contracted to build, improve, and maintain various highways in and around the city. To pay for this infrastructure, Lima agreed that the contractor would “receive revenues from existing and new toll booths.”
Apparently, the City of Lima forgot how much citizens of the area loathed tolls, and, according to the court, the local public officials “quickly truckled” (how apropos for a road project!) to the pressure. As a result, revenues promised to the contractor were not forthcoming, and the city did nothing about it.
The contractor initiated arbitration, and the city countered by arguing that the contractor had bribed its way into the contract. The city lost and was held in breach.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (6/4/24) – New CRE Litmus Tests, Tech Integration in Real Estate and a Jump in Investor Home Purchases
July 02, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, big bank exposure to CRE lending grows, concerns for the construction industry abound, U.S. hotel securitized loans come due, and more!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Not If, But When: Newly Enacted Virginia Legislation Bans “Pay-If-Paid” Clauses In Construction Contracts
August 22, 2022 —
Joseph A. Figueroa & Thomas E. Minnis - ConsensusDocsRecently passed legislation in Virginia is likely to dramatically change contractual relationships between prime contractors and subcontractors in the Commonwealth. Abrogating well-established common-law principles set forth by the Supreme Court of Virginia, on April 27, 2022, the Virginia General Assembly, after receiving input from Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, passed Senate Bill 550 banning “pay-if-paid” clauses in public and private construction contracts. Contractors performing work in Virginia should take note of the new law, which goes into effect next year and will apply to any contracts executed after January 1, 2023.
The History Of Pay-if-Paid Clauses In Virginia
Broadly speaking, “pay-if-paid” clauses are a commonly used tool by prime contractors on construction projects to shift the risk to subcontractors in the event that the owner does not pay the prime contractor for work. Such clauses usually include language creating an express condition precedent to the subcontractor’s right to be paid for work under a subcontract, stating that the prime contractor shall be under no obligation to pay the subcontractor for work unless and until the prime contractor first receives payment for that work by the project owner. The “pay-if-paid” clause also has a less extreme cousin, the “pay-when-paid” clause, which merely delays the time in which the prime contractor is obligated to pay the subcontractor to the time in which the prime contractor is paid by the owner. It does not, however, extinguish the prime contractor’s ultimate obligation to pay the subcontractor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph A. Figueroa, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and
Thomas E. Minnis, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Figueroa may be contacted at jfigueroa@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois Ranked Tier 1 Nationally for Insurance Law, Mass Tort/Class Actions Defense, Labor & Employment Litigation, and Environmental Law in 2024 Best Law Firms®
November 06, 2023 —
Lewis Brisbois(November 2, 2023) - Lewis Brisbois has been ranked Tier 1 nationally by Best Lawyers for ‘Insurance Law,’ ‘Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions – Defendants,’ ‘Litigation - Labor and Employment,’ and ‘Environmental Law,’ as well as ranking Tier 1 in an array of practice areas across 25 metro regions in its 2024 edition of Best Law Firms®.
In addition to Lewis Brisbois' national ranking, the firm was also ranked Tier 1 in the following regional categories:
Akron
- Commercial Litigation
- Corporate Law
- Mergers & Acquisitions Law
- Tax Law
- Trusts & Estates Law
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
