Traub Lieberman Attorneys Burks Smith and Katie Keller Win Daubert Motion Excluding Plaintiff’s Expert’s Testimony in the Middle District of Florida
September 20, 2021 —
Burks A. Smith, III & Kathryn Keller - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner, Burks Smith, and Associate, Katie Keller, represented a national property insurer in a breach of contract action brought by a homeowner in the Middle District of Florida for substantial property damage alleged to have been caused by hail and wind. Throughout the course of litigation, the homeowner disclosed his expert, which is the same individual that prepared the homeowner’s estimate of damages and causation report. The expert’s credentials list that he is a general contractor, independent adjuster, and inspector. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller moved under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude testimony and introduction of any evidence prepared by the homeowner’s expert. Mr. Smith and Ms. Keller argued that the homeowner’s expert was not qualified to render expert testimony in this case, as he did not have the requisite qualifications to render an expert opinion, the methodology utilized by the expert to form his opinion was not sufficiently reliable, and his anticipated testimony was not helpful in the case, as it is imprecise and unspecific. Therefore, the expert’s opinions did not meet the standards for admission of expert testimony as set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and should not be admitted as expert testimony at trial.
Reprinted courtesy of
Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman and
Kathryn Keller, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Keller may be contacted at kkeller@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Using the Prevention Doctrine
April 22, 2019 —
David Erhart - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogThe following scenario happens regularly in the construction industry. A contractor on a project reaches out to a subcontractor to perform work. Excited about the prospect of performing the work, the subcontractor signs a contract and puts it nose to the grindstone. After dutifully completing the work the subcontractor turns to the contractor and asks to be paid. But, the contractor refuses saying that there is a provision in the subcontract that says the contractor is only obligated to pay the subcontractor if the contractor receives payment from the owner. So the contractor has completed the work, but has no money to show for it.
One potential remedy for a subcontractor in this situation is the use of the prevention doctrine. “Under the prevention doctrine, ‘if a promisor prevents or hinders fulfillment of a condition to his performance, the condition may be waived or excused.’” Cox v. SNAP, Inc., 859 F.3d 304, 308 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 7171, 725 (4th Cir. 2000)). “Put simply, ‘where a party to a contract is the cause of the failure of the performance of the obligation due him or her, that party cannot in any way take advantage of that failure.’” Haddon Hous Assocs v. United States, 711 F.3d 1330, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245; Williston, § 39:4).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Erhart, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Erhart may be contacted at
derhart@grsm.com
Summarizing Changes to NEPA in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (P.L. 118-5)
September 05, 2023 —
Anthony B. Cavender & Marcus Manca - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was signed into law on January 1, 1970, and it has rarely been amended or revised since then. NEPA is basically a procedural statute which requires Federal permitting authorities, before a major federal project is approved, to carefully consider the significant environmental consequences of the proposed federal action. NEPA has been employed to conduct a probing review of wide variety of federal projects and actions, and the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has promulgated a comprehensive set of rules and guidance documents that must be followed or consulted. (See 40 CFR Section 1500 et seq.) The first set of NEPA rules was issued in 1978, and very little was done to bring the rules up to date until 2020. The first phase of this review has been completed, and a second and final phase will soon be underway. The NEPA review process includes the use of “categorical exclusions,” environmental assessments and environmental impact statements to measure the environmental impact of a proposed project. Over time, the rules and their implementation and judicial interpretation have become ever more complex, and an enormous body of NEPA case law has resulted.
The recent Congressional debt limit deliberations provided an opportunity to revise some of these procedures, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act, signed into law on June 3, 2023, included at Title III, a section devoted to “Permitting Reform.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury and
Marcus Manca, Pillsbury Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Notice and Claims Provisions In Contracts Matter…A Lot
February 27, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesTechnical contractual provisions in contracts can carry the day. Whether you like it or not, and whether you appreciate the significance of the provisions, they matter. Notice provisions in a contract mean something. Following the claims procedure in a contract means something. The moment you think they don’t mean anything is the moment they will be thrown in your face and used as a basis to deny your position for additional money or time. You may think these provisions are being used as a “gotcha” tactic. They very well might be. But these are provisions included in the contract you agreed to so you know this risk before any basis for additional money or time even arises.
The recent bench trial opinion in Metalizing Technical Services, LLC v. Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Ins. Co., 2023 WL 385413 (S.D.Fla. 2023) illustrates the reality of not properly complying with such provisions. The keys when dealing with any notice or claims provision, or really any technical provision in your contract, is to (a) negotiate the risk before you sign the contract, (b) chart the provisions so your team know how to ensure compliance, and (c) make sure you comply with them. Period!
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
Ninth Circuit Reverses Grant of Summary Judgment to Insurer For Fortuitous Loss
July 01, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's issuance of summary judgment regarding coverage for damages when the insured's plant had to be shut down due to an accident. Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace American Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 10946 (9th Cir. April 15, 2019).
Ingenco operated a gas purification plant which converted raw landfill gas into usable natural gas. The final step in the purification process involved the removal of excess nitrogen from the landfill gas. The gas was directed through adsorbent beads, to which nitrogen adhered, contained within pressure vessels.The beads could not withstand the direct pressure of the landfill gas inflow. which, if untreated, could grind the beads down into dust. To reduce the force of the gas flow on the beads, a "diffuser basket" was suspended from the top of each bead-filled pressure vessel. The diffuser basket acted as a shield that prevented the full force of the incoming landfill gas from striking the beads directly.
In 2010, metal brackets securing a diffiuser basket broke. This resulted in damage to other components and an eventual shutdown of the entire facility. The plant remained idle for several months as Ingenco investigated alternative nitrogen filtration options and undertook repairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Alabama “occurrence” and subcontractor work exception to the “your completed work” exclusion
November 18, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Town & Country Property, LLC v. Amerisure Ins. Co., No. 1100009 (Ala. Oct. 21, 2010), property owner Town & Country contracted with insured general contractor Jones-Williams for the construction of a car dealership. All of the construction work was performed by Jones-Williams subcontractors. After completion, Town & Country sued Jones-Williams for defective construction. Jones-Williams’ CGL insurer Amerisure defended. The case was tried and a judgment was entered against Jones-Williams in favor of Town & Country. After Amerisure denied any obligation to pay the judgment, Town & Country sued Amerisure in a statutory direct action.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Congratulations to Partner Vik Nagpal on his Nomination for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!
March 27, 2023 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is honored to share that Downtown San Diego and Encinitas Managing Partner Vik Nagpal is nominated for West Coast Casualty’s Jerrold S. Oliver Award of Excellence!
Every year, West Coast Casualty recognizes an individual who is committed, trustworthy, and has contributed to the betterment of the construction defect community. The award is named after the late Judge Jerrold S. Oliver who is considered a “founding father” in the alternate resolution process in construction claims and litigation. Each year, members of the construction community are asked to nominate individuals who invoke the same spirit as Judge Oliver.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: Trigger and Allocation
January 24, 2022 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn one of the top insurance-coverage decisions of 2021, the Montana Supreme Court at the end of the year handed down a landmark decision adopting the continuous trigger of coverage and “all sums” allocation, finding a duty to defend and ruling that the qualified, or “sudden and accidental” pollution exclusion did not apply. Nat’l Indem. Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021). The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reserved in part the rulings entered by the trial court, largely upholding a $98,000,000 judgment for the State against its CGL insurer for the policy years 1973 to 1975. The ruling thus helps ensure coverage for the hundreds of claims alleging that the State had failed to warn claimants of the dangers of asbestos exposures to workers in vermiculite mining and milling operations in Libby, Montana, operated by W. R. Grace (the “Libby Mine”).
Representing amicus curiae United Policyholders (“UP”), Hunton Andrews Kurth supported the position of the policyholder, the State of Montana, on the key rulings on trigger of coverage, allocation, and the pollution exclusion, with the court specifically citing to the Hunton brief in adopting all-sums allocation. This first post in our series covering the Montana Supreme Court’s decisions will address the court’s rulings on trigger of coverage and allocation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
