In Midst of Construction Defect Lawsuit, City Center Seeks Refinancing
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe owners of the City Center complex in Las Vegas are going through with a refinancing of their $1.8 of debt while they still seek to demolish the Harmon Tower. The cost of building City Center was $8.5 billion, making it the most expensive development on the Las Vegas strip. Unfortunately for the owners, the Harmon Tower isn’t the only empty space in the complex.
MGM Resorts is currently in the midst of a construction defect lawsuit against the builder of the Harmon Tower. The judge in the case has given a go-ahead to tear down the building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit
May 24, 2021 —
Michael S. Levine & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas denied Factory Mutual’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on their property caused covered physical loss or damage in the case of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 4:21-CV-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2021). This is the third COVID-19-related business interruption decision from Judge Amos Mazzant since March, but the first in favor of a policyholder. Taken together, the three decisions have two key takeaways and provide a roadmap for policyholders in all jurisdictions.
First, the Cinemark decision recognizes that the alleged presence of COVID-19 viral particles that physically altered the policyholder’s property is sufficient under federal pleading standards and controlling state law. In its motion, FM relied on Judge Mazzant’s recent decision in Selery Fulfillment, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., No. 4:20-CV-853, 2021 WL 963742 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021), which dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the policyholder’s losses were caused by government orders that closed its business, rather than from the actual presence of the virus on its property. The Court held that government orders alone do not constitute physical loss or damage, and declined to rule on whether the physical presence of the virus does. Judge Mazzant reached the same conclusion weeks later in Aggie Investments, L.L.C. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 4:21-CV-0013, 2021 WL 1550479 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight Rated as One of the Top 50 in a Survey of Construction Law Firms in the United States
July 22, 2019 —
Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe magazine, Construction Executive, recently rated the top construction law firms in the United States. We are pleased to announce that our firm was rated as number one in Oregon and Alaska and number two in the state of Washington behind Perkins Coie, LLP. In its inaugural ranking, Construction Executive reached out to hundreds of law firms nationwide with a dedicated construction practice to determine who the industry leaders were. Ahlers Cressman & Sleight ranked 22nd overall in the United States among all construction law firms.
This survey considered revenues from each of the law firm’s construction practices, the number of lawyers in the firm’s construction practice, the percentage of the firm’s total revenues derived from construction practice, the number of states in which the firm is licensed to practice and the year in which the construction practice was established.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Schirmer, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Schirmer may be contacted at
jonathan.schirmer@acslawyers.com
Best Lawyers® Recognizes 49 White and Williams Attorneys
September 16, 2024 —
White and Williams LLPThirty-eight White and Williams lawyers were recognized in Best Lawyers in America® 2025. 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, eleven lawyers were recognized as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. 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 three attorneys as "Lawyer of the Year” including: Chuck Eppolito, Litigation - Health Care, Philadelphia, who focuses his practice on medical malpractice defense as well as other insurance-related defense; William D. Kennedy, Litigation – Insurance, Philadelphia, who focuses his practice on complex claims of injury and damage arising in both the professional and general liability contexts; and, Michael O. Kassak, Litigation – Insurance, Cherry Hill, who focuses his practice on large complex commercial matters including insurance coverage and healthcare disputes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Waiving Consequential Damages—What Could Go Wrong?
March 19, 2024 —
Curtis W. Martin & Kellie M. Ros - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.You are inexcusably late with construction of a football stadium, a casino, or similar project that generates large income for the owner. The indirect damages, often referred to as consequential damages, that flow from the delay can be astronomical to the point of breaking your company if it must pay them. As a result, many construction contracts, at every tier, contain a provision that waives consequential damages. By this waiver, a party seeks to limit its risk for these damages.
Over the years, courts have interpreted these provisions in a widely variable and inconsistent manner. The courts typically start with the specific language of the waiver to discern the parties’ intent. Thus, the language of the provision itself is critical. But construction professionals should not overlook other provisions in the contract that may have an impact on a court’s analysis of the parties’ intent. As one of my colleagues likes to say, “the large print giveth and the small print taketh away.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Kellie M. Ros, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com
Ms. Ros may be contacted at kros@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Courts Say that Developers Are Responsible for Flooding
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Florida Supreme Court recently handed down a decision that developers can be held responsible if problems with infrastructure lead to damage to homes. Aaron Kase, writing on Lawyers.com, reviews the case, noting that the court said that “habitability of a home is impacted by stagnant standing water and the erosion of soil upon which the home is constructed. One need not wait until floodwaters inundate the home or the erosion swallows the residential structure to find protection.”
Kase notes that a trial court “sided with the developers’ argument that because the water infrastructure didn’t immediately support the houses, implied warranties of fitness and habitability shouldn’t apply and they shouldn’t be liable.” This was overturned at the district court, with the Supreme Court upholding the district court decision. Lisa Wilcox of Wilcox Law notes that “the Supreme Court determined that the warranty of habitability should be applied to protect home buyers from defects in the construction of these essential services even though they are not part of a home’s completed structure.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion
March 01, 2021 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”.
The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
