Couple Sues Attorney over Construction Defect Case, Loses
June 10, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has ruled against a couple who sued their lawyer, after they were unhappy with the results of a construction defect case. Craig and Jeanne Petrik sued Mahaffey and Associates for legal malpractice and breach of contract. Their lawyer, Douglas L. Mahaffey, had settled their case for $400,000. The Petricks claimed Mahaffey did not have the authority make an offer to compromise.
In the original case, Mahaffey held back the $400,000 awarded in the settlement until he and the Petricks came to terms on how much of that was owed to Mahaffey. The lower court concluded that the Petricks were due $146,323,18. The jury did not agree with the Petrik’s claim that conditions had been met in which Mahaffey would not be charging them costs.
Judges O’Leary and Ikola wrote the opinion, with the third judge on the panel, Judge Bedworth offering a dissent only on their view of the cost waiver clause.
Read the court’s opinion
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Flying Solo: How it Helps My Construction Clients
February 18, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsTwo and a half years ago, on July 1, 2010, I opened my solo practice. At the time, I really had no insight into how big this change would be from a positive, customer service, perspective.
When I made the decision to go solo with my construction law practice, I knew I wanted to have flexibility to serve my client base of contractors and subcontractors in Virginia. I started some flat rate billing and had the ability to take cases that were below the dollar value of those that my old firm was willing to take. I also knew that I would be a master of my own destiny for better or worse (and it has been much more of the former than the latter).
What I did not realize is the impact that owning my own business would have on my perspective. I have always believed that, in most cases where construction disputes occur, mediation is a great option. However mediation only occurs with conflict. For any business, whether construction or otherwise, conflict creates expenses that were not likely to have been anticipated or built in to the budget. Litigation is not something that most businesses can, or should, build into their operating budgets.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
To Require Arbitration or Not To Require Arbitration
December 31, 2014 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsMany, if not most, construction contracts that I review during the course of my practice day include a mandatory arbitration clause. Most of these refer in a blanket manner to AAA Construction Industry Rules. The topic for this post is not whether such clauses are enforceable or whether they are one tool in the contracting tool box in a state where the contract is king. I picked the title of this post carefully because I wanted to discuss whether such clauses should be required as a routine part of all construction contracts and, if so, how those clauses can and should be written.
I have previously shared my thoughts on mandatory arbitration and its desirability in numerous spots here at Construction Law Musings (you can search arbitration or check out the ADR page for more). In short, my opinion is that arbitration was initially conceived with the purpose of streamlining the dispute resolution process and to correspondingly lower the costs associated with such dispute resolution. Arbitration, when used correctly, can, in certain very industry specific cases, help by using an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators that have some expertise in the particular area of the construction industry or the particular specialized issue that will turn the case one way or the other. All of these goals are good and I applaud them.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Blockbuster Breakwater: Alternative Construction Method Put to the Test in Tampa Bay
August 14, 2023 —
Scott Judy - Engineering News-RecordOn June 7, 2023, Tampa Bay news reporters trekked to the Sunshine Skyway bridge for a Florida Dept. of Transportation press conference that would explain the mystery behind the hundreds of curiously shaped concrete structures lining nearly the entire length of the span’s mile-plus-long south fishing pier access road.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Phoenix Flood Victims Can’t Catch a Break as Storm Nears
September 17, 2014 —
Brian K. Sullivan – BloombergA week ago, Hurricane Norbert pumped tropical moisture across the U.S. Southwest, touching off record rainfall in Phoenix and Tucson that killed at least two people, flooded hundreds of homes and shut highways throughout the region.
This week, Hurricane Odile moved onto the Baja California peninsula after becoming the strongest system since 1967 to hit that part of Mexico, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said.
While it isn’t time to get the rowboat out again for the morning commute, the earth in the desert Southwest doesn’t absorb water very well, the way a Florida swamp or Louisiana bayou might. A lot of rain can be far more unpredictable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian K. Sullivan, BloombergMr. Sullivan may be contacted at
bsullivan10@bloomberg.net
Judge Tells DOL to Cork its Pistol as New Overtime Rule is Blocked
November 23, 2016 —
Evelin Y. Bailey – California Construction Law BlogEarlier this year we informed you that the federal Department of Labor intended to raise the minimum salary for individuals classified as executive, administrative, and professional (“white collar”) exempt employees. The result? About 4.2 million workers classified as exempt would become eligible for overtime pay on December 1, 2016, the effective date of the new rule. Businesses would need to pay $47,476 starting on December 1, 2016 to maintain the exempt status of workers.
However, a combination of business groups and states sued to invalidate the regulation, requesting expedited and emergency injunctive relief.
On November 22, 2016, a federal district court in Texas granted the emergency motion for a preliminary injunction barring the DOL from enforcing its new overtime rule. The injunction will remain until the resolution of this legal challenge to the rule.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Evelin Y. Bailey, California Construction Law BlogMs. Bailey may be contacted at
ebailey@wendel.com
Will Superusers Future-Proof the AEC Industry?
May 13, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessDesign professionals who leverage tools and technology and, at the same time, have people skills, are essential to the future of the industry. They are Superusers, the protagonists of the latest book by Randy Deutsch.
Randy Deutsch is an architect, educator, workshop leader, writer, and international keynote speaker. I had a chance to interview him about his book, Superusers: Design Technology Specialists and the Future of Practice.
First, I was curious to know why he chose this topic for his fourth book. He explains: “Right now, it made a lot of sense to focus on the individual, not focus on collaboration and building teams, and really define what each individual team member should be.”
Who Are Superusers?
IT, technology, and tool specialists are typically experts in a relatively narrow field. Designers, especially architects, must have a wider perspective. Superusers are design technologists; liaisons between business needs and technology solutions. They demonstrate certain skillsets and mindsets.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
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
