Providence Partner Monica R. Nelson Helps Union Carbide Secure Defense Verdict in 1st Rhode Island Asbestos Trial in Nearly 40 Years
December 31, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomProvidence, R.I. (November 22, 2024) - On November 21, 2024, a Providence County jury returned a unanimous defense verdict for Union Carbide Corporation after a nine-day trial presided over by Associate Justice Richard A. Licht. Tim McGowan of Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber LLP, Eric Cook of Willcox Savage, and Monica R. Nelson of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP represented Union Carbide at trial. Elliott Davis of Shook Hardy & Bacon was Union Carbide’s appellate counsel.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers, Vincent L. Greene IV, Nathan D. Finch, and Ashley Hornstein of Motley Rice LLC, represented the family of Mrs. Bonnie Bonito in the first asbestos matter to go to trial in Rhode Island in close to 40 years and requested nearly $25 million in compensatory damages for the death of Mrs. Bonito from her alleged exposure to Union Carbide’s asbestos, among many other asbestos-containing products, through the work clothes of her husband. The plaintiffs’ proffered theory of liability against Union Carbide Corporation is known as a “take-home” exposure claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Do Municipal Gas Bans Slow the Clean Hydrogen Transition in Real Estate?
June 06, 2022 —
Sidney L. Fowler, Robert G. Howard & Emily Huang - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogClean hydrogen has the potential to play a significant role in the energy transition by serving as a carbon-free form of energy storage and heat production. In real estate, hydrogen could provide heating, replace or supplement natural gas in many applications, or store excess rooftop solar power. The United Kingdom, United States and Japan
are all homes to pilot projects attempting to scale out hydrogen for use in communities.
As we have
discussed previously, many cities have recently passed ordinances banning the inclusion of natural gas infrastructure in new commercial and residential buildings. These bans can create headaches for real estate developers and inject uncertainty into development plans.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury,
Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and
Emily Huang, Pillsbury
Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Huang may be contacted at emily.huang@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
AGC Seeks To Lead Industry in Push for Infrastructure Bill
May 01, 2019 —
Jennifer Seward - Engineering News-RecordThe ongoing call for better infrastructure funding, along with workforce innovation and an enhanced focus on diversity and inclusivity, is taking center stage at the Associated General Contractors of America. The association’s leaders emphasized that these issues are crucial to the industry’s future as more than 2,800 attendees gathered for AGC’s annual convention in Denver April 1-4.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Seward, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “I Never Had a Chance”
May 29, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - Lexology“I never had a chance.”
Such was the plea of a general contractor to a Maryland federal court after having been terminated for failure to perform.
“The Agreement provides no express right to cure,” found the court, weighing in on the contractor’s wrongful termination claim. Indeed, the contract was also very clear on termination, allowing for termination for cause on numerous bases, including a common catchall: if the contractor “persistently fails to perform the provisions of this Agreement.”
In advance of the actual date of termination, the owner wrote to the contractor, in accordance with the contract: “Notice is also given that seven days from the date of this correspondence, [owner] will exercise its [termination] rights under Section 13.2.2.2 of the Contract." The communication from the owner contained no discussion of allowing the contractor an opportunity to cure its alleged default.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
New Certification Requirements for Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns and Service-Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business Concerns Seeking Public Procurement Contracts
March 27, 2023 —
Jennifer Harris, Timothy D. Matheny & Abby Bello Salinas - ConsensusDocsEffective January 1, 2023, Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (VOSBs) and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns (SDVOSBs) will be required to obtain Small Business Administration (SBA) certification to participate in any federal government agency VOSB or SDVOSB sole source or set-aside prime contracts. This change originated from a Final Rule (87 FR 73400) published by the SBA on November 29, 2022. As a result of this Final Rule, not only will VOSBs and SDVOSBs be required to re-visit, and in some cases re-apply for various certifications, but these new regulations will also impact joint ventures that rely on their member’s VOSB or SDVOSB status to bid public work.
New Regulation
Previously, a VOSB and SDVOSB could self-certify to perform set-aside and sole source projects on non-U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) procurements—a VOSB and SDVOSB only needed to be certified by the VA Center for Verification and Evaluation (CVE) when bidding on VA procurements contingent on its status.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Harris, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Abby Bello Salinas, Law Clerk, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Harris may be contacted at jharris@pecklaw.com
Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute
October 24, 2021 —
Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaApplying Louisiana law, a recent federal court decision exemplifies why policyholders should thoroughly read claims-made policies to understand when notice is due to insurers and truthfully complete policy applications. In Admiral Insurance Company v. Dual Trucking, Inc.,1 the Court determined the insurer, Admiral Insurance Company (“AIC”), owed no duty to defend or indemnify Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC (“DTT”), Dual Trucking of Montana, LLC (“DTM”), and Dual Trucking, Inc. (“DTI”) (collectively, the “Dual Entities”) under two Environmental Impairment Liability Policies (“EIL Policies”) and four Contractor Pollution Liability Policies (“CPL Policies”). The Court justified its decision because the Dual Entities: 1) did not give notice during the 2012-2013 EIL Policy period; 2) had discovered or knew of, but did not disclose, potential pollution conditions before the inception of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy and before the expiration of the extended reporting period of the 2012-2013 EIL Policy; 3) failed to provide AIC with notice during the extended reporting period of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy of claims for which the Dual Entities were seeking coverage; and 4) materially misrepresented known facts on the CPL Policy applications.
I. Factual Background.
The Dual Entities were Louisiana-based companies that provided oilfield equipment rental services. In 2011, the Dual Entities leased land in Montana under three leases, collectively referred to as “the Bainville site.” Shortly afterward, the Dual Entities applied for, and AIC issued, an EIL Policy and two CPL Policies with a policy period of October 1, 2012, to October 1, 2013. AIC renewed all three policies for the October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, policy period.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. McDonald may be contacted at
MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com
The American Rescue Plan Act: What Restaurants Need to Act on NOW
March 22, 2021 —
Michael Krueger - Newmeyer DillionThe American Rescue Plan Act (“Act”) was passed by the Senate over the weekend and passed by the House today. President Biden is set to sign the Act into law on Friday, March 12th. The Act has $1.9 Trillion in relief funds with $28.6 Billion set aside for the restaurant industry in the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (“Fund”). The Fund has apportioned funds into two funding groups; $5 Billion for restaurants with annual gross revenue under $500,000 and $23.6 Billion for restaurants over $500,000 in annual gross revenue.
Differences from the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”)
This is a grant program with no loan documents or forgiveness applications. Instead, each restaurant entity can apply for and receive up to $10M in grant funds through the Act. The amount a restaurant receives is based on the sum of the restaurant’s gross revenue in 2019 minus the gross revenue in 2020 minus PPP and EIDL money received. For example, Restaurant A made $7M gross revenue in 2019, made $3M gross revenue in 2020 and received $1M in PPP and EIDL combined. ($7M - $3M -$1M =$3M) The restaurant will receive $3M in grant funds directly from the SBA (as long as funds are available).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Krueger, Newmeyer DillionMr. Krueger may be contacted at
michael.krueger@ndlf.com
Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Several other insurance companies were party to this case. In the earlier case, the US District Court of Appeals for Arizona had granted a summary judgment to Ohio Casualty Group and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. At the heart of it, is a dispute over construction defect coverage.
The general contractor for Astragal Luxury Villas, GFTDC, contracted with American Family to provide it with a commercial liability policy. Coverage was issued to various subcontractors by Ohio Casualty and National Fire. These policies included blanket additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to GFTDC. The subcontractor policies had provisions making their coverage excess over other policies available to GFTDC.
The need for insurance was triggered when the Astragal Condominium Unit Owners Association filed a construction defect claim in the Arizona Superior Court. CFTDC filed a third-party claim against several subcontractors. The case was settled with American Family paying the settlement, after which it filed seeking reimbursement from the subcontractor’s insurers. The court instead granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and National Fire.
American Family appealed to the Ninth Circuit for a review of the summary judgment, arguing that the “other insurance” clauses were “mutually repugnant and unenforceable.” The Ninth Circuit cited a case from the Arizona Court of Appeals that held that “where two policies cover the same occurrence and both contain ‘other insurance’ clauses, the excess insurance provisions are mutually repugnant and must be disregarded. Each insurer is then liable for a pro rate share of the settlement or judgment.”
The court noted that unlike other “other insurance” cases, the American Family policy “states that it provides primary CGL coverage for CFTDC and is rendered excess only if there is ‘any other primary insurance’ available to GFTDC as an additional insured.” They note that “the American Family policy purports to convert from primary to excess coverage only if CFTDC has access to other primary insurance as an additional insured.”
In comparison, the court noted that “the ‘other insurance’ language in Ohio Casualty’s additional insured endorsement cannot reasonably be read to contradict, or otherwise be inconsistent with, the ‘other primary insurance’ provision in the American Family policy.” They find other reasons why National Fire’s coverage did not supersede American Family’s. In this case, the policy is “written explicitly to apply in excess.”
Finally, the Astragal settlement did not exhaust American Family’s coverage, so they were obligated to pay out the full amount. The court upheld the summary dismissal of American Family’s claims.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
