In Personal Injury Actions, Prejudgment Interest on Costs Not Recoverable
March 12, 2015 —
Elizabeth P. Trent and Leah B. Mason – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Bean v. Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation, 2015 DJDAR 2864 (“Bean”), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held in the published portion of its opinion that courts may not award prejudgment interest on costs in personal injury actions.
In Bean, an employee of defendant Pacific Coast Elevator Corporation (Pacific Coast) drove his vehicle into plaintiff Daniel William Bean’s truck while Bean was stopped at a red light. Bean suffered serious injuries and sued Pacific Coast. A jury found Pacific Coast negligent and awarded Bean $1,271,594.74 in damages. This amount exceeded Bean’s $999,999.00 statutory offer to compromise issued to Pacific Coast prior to trial, which Pacific Coast rejected.
Reprinted courtesy of
Elizabeth P. Trent, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Leah B. Mason, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Trent may be contacted at etrent@hbblaw.com
Ms. Mason may be contacted at lmason@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Addition To New Jersey Court Rules Impacts More Than Trial Practice
November 16, 2020 —
Thomas Regan & Karley Kamaris - Lewis Brisbois NewsroomOn September 1, 2020, New Jersey adopted a brand-new rule of procedure, Rule 4:25-8, which properly defines motions in limine. On its face, the new rule prohibits, broadly, filing motions in limine that may have a dispositive effect on the case. Most notably, the rule expressly eliminates the ability to move, on motion in limine, to bar expert testimony in matters in which such experts are required to sustain a party’s burden of proof. This effectively makes the summary judgment phase of litigation the last chance to bar experts from a jury trial or take any other dispositive action
The new rule comes at a time in which the evidentiary standard for experts is shifting in New Jersey. In October 2018, the New Jersey Supreme Court reconciled the framework for analyzing the reliability of expert testimony under N.J.R.E. 702 and 703 in In re: Accutane Litigation. Significantly, New Jersey, a traditional Frye jurisdiction, incorporated certain federal Daubert factors for expert “use by our courts” but, overall, fell short of adopting the Daubert standard as a whole. In applying the relevant Daubert factors, the trial court in Accutane held that the subject experts’ methodologies were unsound due to the failure to apply fundamentals of the scientific method of the medical-evidence hierarchy. The decision resulted in the dismissal of over 3,000 claims.
Reprinted courtesy of
Thomas Regan, Lewis Brisbois and
Karley Kamaris, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Regan may be contacted at Thomas.Regan@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Kamaris may be contacted at Karley.Kamaris@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Grants Summary Judgment to Insurer in HVAC Defect Case
August 04, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court in Colorado has determined in the case of RK Mechanical, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America that Travelers did not breach its insurance contract when it refused to cover RK Mechanical.
RK Mechanical performed an HVAC installation for a residential project for which J.E. Dunn Rocky Mountain was the general contractor. As part of the work, RK “installed approximately one hundred seventy-one CPVC flanges, which were manufactured by Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company.” Two of these flanges failed in June, 2009 leading to water damage. RK replaced the cracked flanges and engaged in water remediation. “Travelers paid Dunn and RK for the costs associated with the water damage associated with the Flange Failure.” The court notes that Travelers did not pay for the cracked flanges, however.
Subsequently, RK examined the remaining flanges, finding many cracked ones. These were replaced with new ones. Later, all the Charlotte flanges were replaced with ones from another manufacturer. RK applied for coverage.
All sides brought in their experts: “Microbac Laboratories, Inc. prepared a report on behalf of RK concluding that the Flange Failure was due, in part, to an assembly or workmanship defect in addition to manufacturing defects in the flanges. Higgins & Associates prepared a report on behalf of Travelers concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation. Plastic Failure Labs prepared a report on behalf of the flange manufacturer concluding that the flanges failed due to improper installation by RK.”
At this point, Travelers denied coverage. RK sued alleging that the coverage for flange failure and water damage implicitly includes mitigation costs. The court rejected this claim, noting it would do so even if Travelers had paid for the replacement of the first two flanges. Nor did the court find that replacement of the faulty flanges is not "a covered cause of loss." RK also argued that as it was required to mitigate, Travelers was obligated to cover costs. However, the court found that “the mitigation costs expended by RK were not incurred in an effort to avoid damages from a potential breach of contract by Travelers.” The court additionally noted that despite RK’s claims, the Colorado courts have not found a common law duty to mitigate. Finally, the court found that the exclusions in the policy were not in violation of public policy.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is it the End of the Story for Redevelopment in California?
October 02, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogLong, long ago (in 2012 to be exact) in a land not so far away (also known as California), legislation which allowed local governments to establish redevelopment agencies tasked with eliminating blight through the development, reconstruction and rehabilitation of residential, commercial, industrial and retail districts were abolished.
Note: For a relatively concise history of redevelopment in California see the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s working paper
Redevelopment Agencies in California: History, Benefits, Excesses, and Closure (January 2014).
A quite war has been waged ever since. Cities, community development commissions, successor agencies to redevelopment agencies, nonprofit housing corporations and individual taxpayers have fought the legislation (AB 1X 26 (Blumenfield 2011)) which eliminated California’s 425 redevelopment agencies, principally, on constitutional grounds.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Forget Backyard Pools, Build a Swimming Pond Instead
June 17, 2015 —
Mark Ellwood – BloombergNo self-respecting Californian can let the summer pass without a dip in the backyard—pools are as much a part of culture as the 49ers, Schwarzenegger, and dire earthquake warnings.
Now, though, there’s something unseemly about pooling so much water for the occasional swim—enough, in fact, to generate its own hashstag, #droughtshaming. There’s one surefire way to mitigate opprobrium: Build a natural swimming pond that’s specifically designed to minimize environmental impacts (or the cash premiums required to keep it up).
Typical is one example in Sonoma County, where the the water seems to leak down from the rock perched on the ridge. Like a natural spring, it trickles and tumbles, pooling into water features as it falls; one feature is full of aquatic plants and flowers, while another is a swimming hole—clear, cool and inviting. It was built by Dave Whitney, chief executive officer of Eco Solutions, a pioneer in engineering such eco swimming ponds. These dipping pools use natural filtration instead of chlorine pellets to keep the water clean.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Ellwood, Bloomberg
For Smart Home Technology, the Contract Is Key
June 07, 2021 —
James W. McPhillips & Rachel Newell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our
previous post we discussed the importance of conducting a thorough due diligence and procurement process with smart technology providers. Next up? The contract.
The price of a procured product is always important, but equally important are other contractual terms that reflect the commercial agreement. Ultimately, the contract should answer the fundamental question of “What are you buying?” The product itself is not the only feature being purchased. A customer is also buying certainty, service performance, risk mitigation, flexibility, security, compliance, and other similar “intangible” items of value.
The Price of Certainty
As part of the price, the purchaser of smart technology is also buying certainty. What do we mean by that?
Reprinted courtesy of
James W. McPhillips, Pillsbury and
Rachel Newell, Pillsbury
Mr. McPhillips may be contacted at james.mcphillips@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Newell may be contacted at rachel.newell@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George Successfully Oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal
September 11, 2023 —
Colleen E. Hastie & Jeffrey George - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Colleen Hastie and Associate Jeffrey George successfully opposed Plaintiff’s motion to vacate a prior dismissal of plaintiff’s medical malpractice action brought before the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Bronx County.
The lawsuit, commenced by Plaintiff in 2015, alleged medical malpractice stemming from treatment Plaintiff received at a New York medical facility after falling out of a window at a rental property owned by Traub Lieberman’s client (“Property Owner”). Property Owner moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint or preclude Plaintiff from offering evidence in support of its claims, or in the alternative, compel plaintiff to produce all outstanding discovery. The Medical Facility cross-moved for the same relief. Defendants agreed to adjourn the motion until after plaintiff’s deposition, but plaintiff made no effort to secure an adjournment with the court and plaintiff filed no opposition to the motion, allowing the motion to be granted on default. Plaintiff waited nearly a year to file a motion to vacate the default judgment, despite receiving notification of the default from defense counsel. Property Owner, in opposing plaintiff’s motion, pointed to plaintiff’s long history of dilatory conduct and failure to comply with discovery orders in support of its position that plaintiff failed to show any good cause for its default on the motion to dismiss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Colleen E. Hastie, Traub Lieberman and
Jeffrey George, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Hastie may be contacted at chastie@tlsslaw.com
Mr. George may be contacted at jgeorge@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
BWB&O Partner Jack Briscoe and Associate Anoushe Marandjian Win Summary Judgment Motion on Behalf of Homeowner Client!
March 13, 2023 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Partner, Jack Briscoe and Associate, Anoushe Marandjian obtained an order for summary judgment in a multi-theory liability action in Los Angeles Superior Court.
Plaintiff suffered severe injuries when he fell off a ladder while performing finish carpentry work at the home of BWB&O’s client. Plaintiff alleged various theories of liability against our client, the homeowner, including that: our client supplied a dangerous and defective ladder that, among other things, was unstable and not tall enough for the job; that the floor was covered with a slippery plastic sheeting hidden underneath construction paper which constituted a dangerous condition; that our client was his “employer” under the Labor Code; and that our client was civilly liable on the basis that he had directly hired Plaintiff, who was an unlicensed contractor. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleged that our client was vicariously liable for the conduct of his general contractor, who failed to maintain worker’s compensation insurance covering Plaintiff.
After several rounds of written discovery, which required extensive attempts to “meet and confer” over Plaintiff’s deficient responses, as well as the parties’ depositions, Mr. Briscoe and Ms. Marandjian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of our client on various grounds, including that the Privette Doctrine precluded Plaintiff from recovery against our client and that our client was not negligent (there was no dangerous condition and if there was, our client did not create it or that it existed for a long enough time for our client to have discovered it and remedied it). Plaintiff’s Opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment included a Declaration from an expert witness alleging various grounds upon which our client was liable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
