Best Lawyers® Recognizes 38 White and Williams Lawyers
September 13, 2021 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is proud to announce that 30 lawyers were recognized in the 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® 2022 and eight were recognized as “Ones to Watch.”
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.
Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Retainage: What Contractors Need to Know and Helpful Strategies
June 04, 2024 —
Gerard J. Onorata - ConsensusDocsIntroduction
Most, if not all, construction contracts contain a provision for “retainage.” The origin and concept of retainage dates back to the railroad boom that embraced Great Britain in the 1840s. In its simplest terms, retainage is a mechanism by which an owner or general contractor withholds disbursement of funds from the payment of a requisition in order to secure future performance of a contract and/or to pay for repair of defectively performed work. Retainage typically ranges from five to ten percent, with the amount being reduced as the project progresses to substantial and final completion. One of the reasons for withholding retainage is to incentivize a contractor to complete its work in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. While this may be well-intentioned in concept, it all too often leads to abuse that impacts project cash flow and raises tension between the parties. This typically happens on projects that have delay issues, deficient drawings, and/or claims of defective work. When a project has “gone bad,” the withholding of retainage is one of the first things that an owner will latch onto in order to leverage its position against a contractor. In order for a contractor to put itself in the best position possible, the following negotiation techniques and protective measures should be kept in mind.
Know Your Applicable Statute
Every state except West Virginia has statutes in place that govern the payment of retainage on public projects. On federal projects, the amount of retainage withheld shall not exceed ten percent as set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”). The common thread running through these statutes is the payment of interest as a remedy when the retainage is not timely paid. Historically, most retainage statutes were applicable only to publicly funded projects. This has recently changed with a substantial number of state legislatures recognizing that the payment of retainage on private projects was a serious enough problem to warrant regulation. These include Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Vermont. New York’s retainage laws relating to private projects were enacted only this past November.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gerard J. Onorata, Peckar & AbramsonMr. Onorata may be contacted at
gonorata@pecklaw.com
Five Pointers for Enforcing a Non-Compete Agreement in Texas
June 08, 2020 —
Kristopher M. Stockberger - The Grindstone Lewis Brisbois' Labor & Employment Blog1. The Devil’s in the Details
Under Texas law, for a non-compete agreement to be enforceable, it must meet strict requirements as to timing, geography, and the type of conduct that it prohibits. While courts have enforced agreements for between one and two years, your situation could be subject to a shorter time period. If the geographical scope of the agreement is too broad or vague, that could render the agreement unenforceable. Also, the type of conduct prohibited by your agreement should be tied to the specifics of your business, because categorical barriers to other employment are often not enforced. If an employer knowingly instructs an employee to enter an overbroad non-compete agreement, the employer runs the risk of paying the employee’s attorneys’ fees.
2. Timing on the Front End
If an employee has been with an employer for years and the employer suddenly decides to have her sign a non-compete without any other meaningful change in the employee’s role, then the agreement will probably not be enforceable, unless the employee receives “consideration.” In this context, consideration is something of value, other than money or benefits, which the law deems to warrant protection by a non-compete agreement. For example, allowing an employee to learn the secret formula to Coca-Cola or to gain access to an employer’s confidential financials constitutes legally sufficient consideration given to an employee in exchange for the employee’s promises in a non-compete agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kristopher M. Stockberger, Lewis BrisboisMr. Stockberger may be contacted at
Kris.Stockberger@lewisbrisbois.com
Canada Home Resales Post First Fall in Eight Months
October 15, 2014 —
Greg Quinn – BloombergCanadian existing home sales fell from a four-year high in September (TNBHICY%), the first decline in eight months, led by Calgary and Edmonton in oil-rich Alberta.
Sales fell 1.4 percent to 41,666 units, the Canadian Real Estate Association said today from Ottawa. From a year earlier sales rose 10.6 percent and the average price climbed 5.9 percent to C$408,795 ($362,100).
The decline came in part because of a shortage of “affordably priced single family homes,” Beth Crosbie, CREA President, said in the report.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Quinn, BloombergMr. Quinn may be contacted at
gquinn1@bloomberg.net
Power & Energy - Emerging Insurance Coverage Cases of Interest
November 30, 2020 —
David G. Jordan & Tiffany Casanova - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Power & Energy sector faces a multitude of risks that impact output and profitability, requiring sound risk management and robust insurance programs. As of recent, like most industries, there have been significant challenges facing the industry in light of COVID-19. These issues, including decreased product demand as well as supply- side issues, have been well documented. However, other issues continue to impact Power & Energy providers, with significant insurance coverage implications that are worthy of note. Below is a summary of three open cases of interest, where declaratory relief has been sought by energy providers’ insurance carriers, seeking an avoidance of coverage.
1. Fracking Dispute and “Intentional Acts”
In the Texas case of The James River Insurance Co. v. Clearpoint Chemicals LLC et al., No. 4:20-cv-0076 (N.D.Tex), James River Insurance Company (“James River”) is asking a federal district court to declare that it does not owe defense or indemnity to its insured for acts it defines as both intentional and/or malicious acts.
Reprinted courtesy of
David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Casanova may be contacted at TCasanova@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures
April 13, 2017 —
Justin K. Fortescue & Ciaran B. Way - White and Williams LLPThe US District Court for the Southern District of New York recently vacated an arbitration award finding that a party-appointed arbitrator’s undisclosed relationship with the party appointing him was significant enough to demonstrate evident partiality. Certain Underwriting Members at Lloyd’s of London, et. al. v. Ins. Companies of America, Inc., Nos. 16-cv-232 and 16-cv-374 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2017).
In the arbitration, the panel was asked to determine whether the reinsurance contracts, covering workers’ compensation policies, only applied when multiple claimants were injured as the result of the same loss occurrence. After a three-day hearing, the arbitration panel issued an award in favor of the ceding company, Insurance Companies of America (ICA). After the award was issued, Lloyd’s discovered that ICA’s arbitrator had significant undisclosed relationships with principals at ICA and moved to vacate the award in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Justin K. Fortescue, White and Williams LLP and
Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Allocating Covered and Uncovered Damages in Jury Verdict
March 01, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen a liability insurer defends an insured from a third-party claim, they oftentimes do so under a reservation of rights. A reservation of rights letter is issued to the insured that identifies certain coverage exclusions or reservations relative to the insurance policy that may impact the insurer’s duty to indemnify the insured for damages. In other words, just because the insurer is defending its insured does not mean it will be indemnifying its insured for damages asserted in the third-party claim.
Under Florida law, the party claiming insurance coverage has the initial burden to show that a settlement or judgment represents damages that fall within the coverage provisions of the insurance policy. An insured’s inability to allocate the amount of a judgment between covered and uncovered damages is therefore generally fatal to its indemnification claim. However, the burden of apportioning or allocating between covered and uncovered damages in a general jury verdict may be shifted to the insurer if the insurer did not adequately make known to the insured the availability and advisability of a special verdict.
QBE Specialty Ins. Co. v. Scrap Inc., 806 Fed.Appx. 692, *695 (11th Cir. 2020) (internal citations omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.
The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”
With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.
The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”
In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.
The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”
The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”
In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
