Mich. AG Says Straits of Mackinac Tunnel Deal Unconstitutional
June 03, 2019 —
Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-RecordMichigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (D) has declared unconstitutional a late-2018 law that would create an authority to oversee construction of a key tunnel. The tunnel would house an oil-and-gas pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Yoders, ENRMr. Yoders may be contacted at
yodersj@enr.com
Appellate Court Endorses Discretionary Test for Vicarious Disqualification of Law Firms Due To New Attorney’s Conflict
February 07, 2018 —
David W. Evans and Stephen M. Tye – Publications & Insights In
California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County (1/26/2018 – No. G054981), the Fourth Appellate District considered whether vicarious disqualification of a law firm is mandatory or discretionary where an attorney with a conflict joins a firm and the firm enacts an ethical screen to prevent transmission of confidential information between the new attorney and the rest of the firm.
This case arose from an effort by the California Self-Insurer’s Security Fund (the “Fund”) to be reimbursed for workers’ compensation benefits advanced on behalf of the Healthcare Industry Self-Insurance Program (the “Program”). The Fund hired Nixon Peabody LLP (“Nixon Peabody”) to represent it in connection with this matter. In November 2013, represented by members of Nixon Peabody’s San Francisco office, the Fund filed a lawsuit naming 304 members of the Program as defendants. Approximately 170 defendants have since settled.
Two of the non-settling defendants (“Moving Parties”), were represented by Michelman & Robinson, LLP (“M&R”). From approximately 2009 until February 1, 2017, attorney Andrew Selesnick served as Chair of M&R’s Health Care Department at the firm’s Los Angeles office, managing a team of attorneys who represented clients in the healthcare industry. Commencing in 2014, a team of four attorneys at M&R, including Selesnick, represented the Moving Parties and four other defendants, the latter of whom have since settled. Selesnick was actively involved, including participating in a confidential discussion pertaining to Moving Parties’ liability and damages and receiving many e-mails containing communications about the common defense of the remaining 170 defendants.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown Bonesteel and
Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown Bonesteel
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies
August 14, 2018 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.According to W. Matthew Bryant of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, the Ohio Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not a general contractor's commercial general liability ("CGL") insurance policy may provide coverage for damage caused by a subcontractor's defective construction work.
Bryant explained the status quo in Ohio: “Since 2012, Ohio has followed the rule that a CGL policy would not cover damage caused by a contractor to the contractor's own work.” That could change depending on how the Ohio Supreme Court rules in an upcoming case: “The Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether to affirm or overturn Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., 77 N.E.3d 538 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) ("ONU"), an Ohio Court of Appeals decision holding that CGL coverage may exist for property damage caused by faulty work performed by the subcontractor of an insured general contractor.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Five "Boilerplate" Terms to Negotiate in Your Next Subcontract
November 08, 2017 —
James R. Lynch - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCWhether you negotiate your own subcontracts or rely on your lawyer to do the heavy lifting at contract time, a savvy subcontractor should understand the basic purpose of common subcontract provisions, and be prepared to negotiate for fair and commercially reasonable terms. While most sophisticated subcontractors are skilled at negotiating the core terms of a subcontract—scope of work, price, and time—a few simple but less obvious tweaks to common subcontract terms and conditions can go a long way to protect a subcontractor from unfair results when a dispute arises.
From the desk of an experienced construction lawyer, below are the first three of the top five “boilerplate” provisions that subcontractors too often overlook during contract negotiations, along with tips on language to include and to avoid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Lynch may be contacted at
jlynch@ac-lawyers.com
New Zealand Using Plywood Banned Elsewhere
October 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFCopper chromium arsenate helps protect wood against insect damage and fungal growth. Unfortunately, its use leads to arsenic exposure. The safety concerns over CCA for both construction workers and the people who later use the buildings have led to the CCA-treated plywood being banned or restricted in most countries, including the United States, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and Germany.
New Zealand is not on the list of countries restricting or banning CCA-treated wood. Dr. Merial Watts, a science coordinator for Pesticide Action Network NZ described the product as an “unacceptable public health risk,” and said that “wrapping homes in CCA-treated plywood is a very bad idea.”
One construction official, speaking anonymously, noted that “workers have to handle it with gloves and full body suits,” but those guidelines may not be followed. A foreman on a building site said “I know about the treatment but I don’t take many precautions.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
2021 Executive Insights: Leaders in Construction Law
August 16, 2021 —
Donald Berry - Construction ExecutiveGregory Cokinos, President and CEO, Cokinos | Young
First, experience in the construction industry is of primary importance and vital to successfully negotiating construction contracts and handling construction claims and disputes. Even a mildly complex construction dispute is more than most non-construction lawyers can properly handle. Issues concerning scheduling, productivity, change management and risk shifting (among many others) are complex and unique to construction and can be further complicated by the procedural and substantive law that differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Second, it is essential that your law firm has a culture of representing construction professionals. Understanding construction nomenclature and how construction projects are staffed, organized and documented saves time and money in an already expensive and time-consuming process.
You cannot overstate the advantage of shared resources within an established construction firm when evaluating and handling construction matters. A law firm that dedicates a significant portion of its practice to the construction industry is uniquely positioned to realize this advantage. Finally, as I tell our young lawyers, “success” only comes before “work” in the dictionary. Hard work is the key to successfully negotiating a contract or executing a litigation plan in this complex industry. So, look for a firm that is not afraid of working long days and weekends to achieve success.
Reprinted courtesy of
Donald Berry, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Cameron Kalunian to Speak at Casualty Construction Defect Seminar
October 04, 2021 —
Cameron Kalunian - Lewis BrisboisLos Angeles Partner Cameron Kalunian will speak at the Annual West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar, hosted on October 6-8 at the Aria Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.
In a session on Friday, October 8 at 9:30 a.m. PT titled “Maintaining Relationships in the Storm of Multi-Party Construction Litigation,” Mr. Kalunian, along with one construction general counsel and one insurance coverage counsel, will discuss the impact of litigation on continuing business relationships. The session will specifically focus on balancing risk transfer with business goals in the context of multi-tiered contractor construction projects.
The panel will discuss the best practices for communications between and among clients, indemnitors, claims handling professional, coverage counsel and defense counsel. This session is a must for insurance professionals that handle claims involving bodily injury or property damage claims arising out of construction disputes related to projects with multi-tiered contractors. CLE credits will be available for attorneys, along with CEU credits for insurance claims handlers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron Kalunian, Lewis BrisboisMr. Kalunian may be contacted at
Cameron.Kalunian@lewisbrisbois.com
