Google Advances Green Goal With AES Deal for Carbon-Free Power
May 17, 2021 —
Mark Chediak - BloombergGoogle’s moving forward with its goal of becoming carbon-free by the end of the decade after AES Corp. agreed to supply the tech giant with renewable energy to power its data centers in Virginia.
AES, an international electricity company and power-plant developer, said the deal will result in the construction of 500 megawatts of solar, wind, small-scale hydroelectric and battery storage projects and supply will begin later this year, according to a statement Tuesday. AES and third-party developers will own the facilities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, Bloomberg
Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute
June 02, 2016 —
David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law BlogIn its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”).
In a
prior post, we discussed
Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The
prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute.
HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:
A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.
(Emphasis added.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates Awarded Silver Star Award at WCC Construction Defect Seminar
May 24, 2018 —
CDJ STAFFThe staff of the Construction Defect Journal would like to extend their congratulations to Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., in recognition of his receipt of the Silver Star Award as “Best Expert” at the 25th Anniversary of the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar, hosted at the Disneyland Resort Hotel, in Anaheim CA.
Recipients of the Silver Star Awards were nominated and voted on by their peers, colleagues, and the Construction Defect Community at large, as represented by the 25,000 members who received emails on the subject.
Along with “Best Expert,” recognition was also given to the best judge, mediator, plaintiff attorney, developer attorney, subcontractor attorney, coverage counsel, and insurance claims professional. Awards were handed out last Thursday during a special ceremony at this year’s Seminar.
To Don, and all the worthy awardees, congratulations again!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists
July 11, 2022 —
Newmeyer DillionNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – July 6, 2022 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that partner James Ficenec has been selected to the 2022 Norther California Super Lawyers list. Additionally, partner Tara Dudum and associates Brandon Clouse and Jacqueline McCalla have been selected to the 2022 Northern California Rising Stars list by Super Lawyers. Each year, no more than 5 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively, of the lawyers in the state are selected to receive this honor. The attorneys will be recognized in the July 2022 issues of Northern California Super Lawyers Magazine, San Francisco Magazine and Sactown Magazine.
James Ficenec is a partner in the Walnut Creek office. With incredible business acumen, Jim has counseled and defended clients across a variety of industries by advocating for their rights and legal protections as both a transactional attorney and business litigator.
Tara Dudum is a partner in the Walnut Creek Office. Tara's practice focuses primarily on business and employment law and her clients span across industries, including retail, e-commerce, real estate, manufacturing, hospitality, and beyond. She often acts as outside counsel for clients, providing day-to-day legal advice to owners, executives, supervisors, and human resource professionals.
Brandon Clouse is an associate in the Walnut Creek Office. As a part of the firm's construction and real estate litigation group, Brandon litigates disputes on behalf of clients concerning construction and real estate matters.
Jacqueline McCalla is an associate in the Walnut Creek Office. Jacqueline takes pride in assisting local businesses and entrepreneurs as well as Fortune 500 companies with all aspects of litigation, from inception through trial. Jacqueline's practice ranges across business, construction defect, employment and insurance disputes.
Super Lawyers 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 patented selection process evaluates candidates on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement, resulting in a comprehensive, credible and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Rising Stars list is developed using the same selection process except candidates must be either 40 years old or younger, or have been in practice for 10 years or less.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For over 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 60 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lease-Leaseback Battle Continues as First District Court of Appeals Sides with Contractor and School District
August 17, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogEarlier, we wrote about Davis v. Fresno United School District (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 261, a Fifth District California Court of Appeals decision that sent shock waves through the school construction industry and raised questions regarding the use of California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery (Education Code sections 17400 et seq.).
California’s lease-leaseback method of project delivery provides an alternative project delivery method for public school districts than the usual design-bid-build method of project delivery. Under the lease-leaseback method of project delivery, a school district leases its property to a developer, who in turn builds a school facility on the property and leases it back to the school district. One of the benefits of the lease-leaseback method of project delivery is that school districts do not need to come up with construction funds to build school facilities since they pay for the construction over time through their lease payments to the developer. Critics, however, argue that because lease-leaseback projects do not need to be competitively bid, they are ripe for cronyism between developers and school districts.
In Davis, a taxpayer successfully brought suit against the Fresno Unified School District challenging the propriety of a lease-leaseback project because the entirety of the District’s “lease payments” occurred while the project was being constructed and thus, successfully argued the taxpayer, there was no “true” lease of a facility since it was under construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada is Just the Beginning
August 28, 2023 —
Payne & Fears LLPOn June 3, 2023, Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo signed into law
AB 398 (the Act) which modifies the Nevada insurance code by restricting the types of liability policies that can be offered in the state.
The End of Eroding Limits Policies in Nevada
First, the Act prohibits liability insurers from issuing “eroding limits” or “burning limits” policies. These are insurance policies under which defense costs decrease policy limits. Most professional liability policies are eroding limits policies. As of Oct. 1, 2023, insurers in Nevada may no longer issue or renew any policy where policy limits are eroded by defense costs.
This change may result in higher premiums on these types of policies to compensate for the higher payouts they will now have to provide in Nevada.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Payne & Fears LLP
District of Oregon Predicts Oregon’s Place in “Plain Meaning” Pollution Camp
March 29, 2017 —
William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Federal District Court for the District of Oregon recently decided that Carbon Monoxide constitutes a pollutant within the meaning of a pollution exclusion in a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policy.
In Colony Ins. V. Victory Constr. LLC, No. 3: 16-cv-00457-HZ (Mar. 14, 2017), the District Court considered whether there was coverage for a pool company that allegedly failed to warn of the “risks of carbon monoxide poisoning associated with operating the heater in an insufficiently ventilated area,” leading to carbon monoxide sickness.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
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
