Balestreri Potocki & Holmes Attorneys Named 2020 Super Lawyers and Rising Star
July 06, 2020 —
Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe law firm of Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is pleased to announce that Shareholders
Thomas A. Balestreri, Jr. and
Joseph P. Potocki have been selected as 2020 Super Lawyers and Associate
Robin H. Smith has been named a 2020 Rising Star.
Each year no more than 5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected to receive the honor of being included in the Super Lawyers list and no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers are selected to the Rising Stars list.
Balestreri has been selected to the Super Lawyers list in the areas of Construction Litigation. Balestreri has dedicated most of his 30 plus years in practice to the representation of developers, property owners, and general contractors in litigation, negotiations, and risk management. A seasoned trial lawyer, he has tried a number of high exposure cases with great success.
Selected as a Super Lawyer in the area of Construction Litigation, Potocki’s practice concentrates on litigation, transactional matters and construction contract drafting and negotiation. His extensive litigation experience involves high-value disputes relating to a wide variety of issues in the real estate, business and construction arenas.
Smith has been named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers in the area of Civil Litigation. In her varied litigation practice, Smith represents individuals and business entities in complex catastrophic personal injury matters. She also represents employers in labor and employment matters and a variety of businesses, including automobile dealers, in breach of contract, unfair competition, unfair business practices, defamation, and consumer claims.
Super Lawyers, a Thompson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is headquartered in San Diego, California. The firm provides comprehensive counsel to large and small companies across a wide range of established and emerging industries. Balestreri Potocki & Holmes is located in downtown San Diego at 401 B Street, Suite 1470. More information about the firm can be found at: www.bph-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri Potocki & Holmes
Fourth Circuit Clarifies What Qualifies As “Labor” Under The Miller Act
May 08, 2023 —
Jeffrey Hummel - The Construction SeytUnder the Miller Act, 40 U.S.C. §§ 3131 et seq., contractors hired to work on federal construction projects are required to furnish payment bonds in order to ensure payment to certain persons that provide labor for the project. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently issued a published decision clarifying the type of work that qualifies as “labor” under the Miller Act. Elliot Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company (issued April 26, 2023).
In that case, the U.S. Department of Defense hired Forney Enterprises (Forney) as the prime contractor on a renovation project at the Pentagon. Forney retained Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (Fidelity) to provide the required Miller Act payment bond. Forney then entered into a subcontract with Elliott Dickson (Dickson), a professional engineer, to work as a project manager on the contract. Dickson primarily supervised labor on the site, but also performed other tasks, including logistical and clerical duties, taking various field measurements, cleaning the worksite, moving tools and materials, and sometimes even watering the concrete himself. Dickson’s work required him to be onsite on a daily basis.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey Hummel, SeyfarthMr. Hummel may be contacted at
jhummel@seyfarth.com
Can an Owner Preemptively Avoid a Mechanics Lien?
May 25, 2020 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupVarious sections of the California Civil Code, beginning with section 8000, protect the right of contractors, subcontractors and suppliers in the construction industry to obtain payment for work performed and materials supplied to construction projects. Under these statutes, unpaid claimants are entitled to use mechanics liens, stop payment notices and other methods to protect their right to payment. Mechanics liens allow unpaid claimants to sell the property where the work was performed in order to obtain payment. Stop payment notices force the owner or the bank to set money aside to pay unpaid claimants. Article XIV of our California Constitution even elevates the mechanics lien remedy to a “constitutional right”. The system generally works well, and claimants are paid.
As someone who practices and teaches construction law, I have noticed a seldom used statutory tool that seems to provide a mechanism for property owners under certain circumstances to prevent subcontractors and suppliers from imposing enforceable mechanics lien on property where work was performed. Under California Civil Code section 8520, it appears that all that an owner of property need do to avoid a mechanics lien on its property is to give a proper notice (per Civil Code section 8100 et seq.) to a person who has a mechanics lien right (a subcontractor or supplier) that the owner is invoking Civil Code section 8520 and that if the claimant is unpaid for work performed or materials supplied to the owner’s property that the claimant must either provide the owner with a stop payment notice or forfeit the right to a mechanics lien on the owner’s property. This would allow an owner to avoid a mechanics lien on its property if the claimant failed to send a stop payment notice to the owner.
Providing the “notice” under Civil Code section 8100 appears to be easy. It can be sent by “registered or certified mail or by express mail or by overnight delivery by an express service carrier”. It can even be by “hand delivery”. As far as the notice itself, it would seem that it can be very simple and easily performed under the process described below, which can be implemented within the office of any owner or developer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Another Reminder that Your Construction Contract Language Matters
June 06, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Musings, I have often (some might say too often) discussed the fact that in Virginia (as well as other places), your construction contract language will be strictly enforced. I have also discussed the need for attorney fees provisions as well as other language in order to mitigate your risk as a contractor. A recent case from the City of Roanoke Circuit Court discussed both of these principals and their intersection.
In LAM Enterprises, LLC v. Roofing Solutions, Inc., the Roanoke Court looked at a contract between LAM and Roofing Solutions, Inc. that contained two provisions of the construction contract between the parties. The first provision limited the liability of Roofing Solutions to the contract price. The second provision is a relatively typical “prevailing party” attorney fees provision in which the winner of any lawsuit would be entitled to collect its attorney fees. For the specific language of these provisions, I commend the opinion linked above for your reading.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Flood Sublimit Applies, Seawater Corrosion to Amtrak's Equipment Not Ensuing Loss
November 10, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurers were granted summary judgment on three issues regarding Amtrak's claim for damages caused by Hurricane Sandy. Amtrak v. Aspen Sec. Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16074 (2nd Cir. Aug. 31, 2016).
Hurricane Sandy caused flooding which damaged two of Amtrak's tunnels under the East and Hudson Rivers. Seawater from the flooding caused extensive damage to equipment in the tunnels. The district court granted summary judgment to the insurers on the following issues: (1) the damage caused by an inundation of water in the tunnels was subject to the policies' $125 million flood sublimit; and (2) the corrosion of equipment after Amtrak pumped out the seawater was not an "ensuing loss" and therefore was also subject to the flood sublimit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
It’s Too Late, Lloyd’s: New York Federal Court Finds Insurer Waived Late Notice Defense
June 05, 2023 —
Latosha M. Ellis & Janine A. Hanrahan - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA New York federal judge recently ruled that an insurer waived its late notice defense because a generic reservation of rights was insufficient to preserve it. As a result, the policyholder’s claim was preserved despite being submitted more than three months after the loss—a delay which would ordinarily be fatal under New York law. The decision underscores the importance both of timely submission of claims and careful attention to reservation of rights letters.
Background
Mave Hotel Investors LLC (“Mave”) owns a small hotel in Manhattan that was insured by Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”). From October 2017 to October 2020, Mave contracted with a housing network to temporarily house homeless families and their children in the hotel. When the contract with the housing network terminated in October 2020, Mave alleged that the rooms were severely damaged and that it had to pay $1.4 million to repair them.
Reprinted courtesy of
Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Janine A. Hanrahan, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Ellis may be contacted at lellis@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Hanrahan may be contacted at jhanrahan@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability
January 06, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows.
An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler
Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision.
This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Rancosky Adopts Terletsky: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Sets Standard for Statutory Bad Faith Claims
September 28, 2017 —
John Anooshian & Sean Mahoney - White & Williams LLPEarlier today, in a case of first impression, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the Terletsky two-part test for proving a statutory “bad faith” claim under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 8371, which requires that a plaintiff present “clear and convincing evidence (1) that the insurer did not have a reasonable basis for denying benefits under the policy and (2) that the insurer knew of or recklessly disregarded its lack of a reasonable basis.” Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance Company, No. 28 WAP 2016 (Pa. Sept. 28, 2017). The court further ruled that proof of an insurer’s “subjective motive of self-interest or ill-will,” while potentially probative of the second prong of the test, is not a requirement to prevail under § 8371. Evidence of an insurer’s “knowledge or reckless disregard for its lack of a reasonable basis” for denying a claim alone, according to the court, is sufficient even in cases seeking punitive damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Anooshian, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Sean Mahoney, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Anooshian may be contacted at anooshianj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Mahoney may be contacted at majoneys@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
