Published in the Construction Management Association of America (CMAA) Southern California Chapter's Summer 2010 Newsletter.
Recent appellate decisions indicate that it may be desirable to include an express contractual provision regarding the choice of law that governs any arbitration issues. Contracts often provide for arbitration of disputes. However, those contracts may not specify whether they are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act or state law.
MPP attorney Pamela A. Palmer is co-author of this article published in the Winter 2010 issue (45:2) of the American Bar Association's Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal.
We had previously advised you about a case in which the California Court of Appeal held that a design professional owed an obligation to pay for the defense of its developer client pursuant to a contract of indemnity, even though the plaintiff had not alleged that the design professional had erred, and even though the jury eventually found that the design professional was not negligent in performing its services.
The design professional in that case sought review from the California Supreme Court or, in the alternative, an order depublishing the Court of Appeal's opinion. The Supreme Court recently denied the design professional's petition, which means that the UDC case remains the law in California.
Published in the March/April 2010 issue of the Construction Management Association of America's CMAdvisor.
Published in the April 2010 issue of Communiqué, the official publication of the Clark County Bar Association.
On January 15, 2010, the California Court of Appeal held that a design professional owed a duty to defend its developer/client pursuant to a contract of indemnity even though the jury found that the design professional had not been negligent in performing its services. In UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, a residential condominium homeowners association sued UDC, the developer of the project, and UDC cross-complained against its design professional, CH2M Hill, seeking to enforce indemnity provisions in their contracts. Five days before the end of the trial on UDC's indemnity claim, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Crawford v. Weather Shield, which held that a contractual indemnitor incurs a duty to defend the indemnitee as soon as the indemnitee tenders its defense to a claim asserting that the indemnitee was at fault. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict finding CH2M Hill was not negligent and that it did not breach its contract with UDC. Regardless, the trial court found that, under Crawford, the indemnity provision in the contract obligated CH2M Hill to pay UDC’s defense costs.
Construction contracts between general contractors and subcontractors are often modified by change orders related to scope of work revisions during construction. If litigation ensues, the subcontractor may claim that the general contractor violated California’s various prompt-payment statutes. The California Court of Appeal recently provided some new insight in this area. In Martin Brothers Construction v. Thompson Pacific Construction, the Court of Appeal held that a general contractor who had a good faith dispute with a subcontractor could withhold 150 percent of the amount due without violating the prompt-payment statute requirements of California's Public Contract Code. The Court also ruled that parties to a construction contract could contractually "opt out" of the timing requirements for progress payments contained in California's Business and Professions Code.
After four years and extensive briefing, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit finally issued its watershed opinion concerning the judiciary’s role in considering climate change issues. The Court emphatically reversed the district court, vacated the judgment and remanded the matter for additional proceedings. Is so doing, the Court of Appeals further cracked the door for potential judicial solutions to global climate change.
LACBA County Bar Update, November 2009, Vol. 29 No. 10
Click HERE to view article.
On April 30, 2008, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP presented a paper and seminar on the subject of Climate Change Litigation in the U.S.: Theories of Liability and Insurance Issues. The level of interest expressed about that subject at that time combined with ongoing developments relating to climate change litigation suggested the desirability of periodically updating that presentation. This third update complements the initial presentation along with our June and December 2008 updates.
This article presents an overview of the potential areas of legal liability involving the sales force, and a framework for training sales representatives on legal issues, both to prevent lawsuits and to aid the company in successfully defending itself and its products in pending litigation.
Background information about the case and the Economic Loss Doctrine, as well as a discussion of the decision and its effects.
On April 30, 2008, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP presented a paper and seminar on the subject of Climate Change Litigation in the U.S.: Theories of Liability and Insurance Issues. The level of interest expressed about that subject at the time combined with ongoing developments relating to climate change litigation suggested the desirability of periodically updating that presentation. This is another in that ongoing series of updates.
Article written for the College of Law Practice Management journal following the presentation given by George Brandon on Social Networking at the COLPM 2008 Annual Conference in Chicago.
Published in the September 2008 issue of Construction Executive.
On April 30, 2008, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP presented a paper and seminar at the Old Library, Lloyds Building in London on the subject of Climate Change Litigation in the U.S.: Theories of Liability and Insurance Issues. The level of interest about this subject, as reflected by the attendance at the seminar, the number of inquiries following the seminar and the response of other insurers with whom we have shared our paper, combined with the rapid pace of new developments relating to climate change litigation in the short period since that seminar was presented, suggests the desirability of periodically updating that presentation. The purpose of this brief update is to do just that.
Article for American Health Lawyers Association Publication, June 2008
Technical problems can cause difficulty when attempting to comply with ethical rules regarding retainer of client files.
LACBA County Bar Update, June/July 2008, Vol. 28 No. 6
Simpson Strong-Tie Co., Inc. v. Gore
LPL eAdvisory, May 2008
Article written for MPP's London seminar, Climate Change Litigation in the U.S.: Theories of Liability and Insurance Issues.
Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Winthroub
LPL eAdvisory, March 2008
Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
LPL eAdvisory, December 2007
Beal Bank, SSB v. Arter & Hadden, LLP
LPL eAdvisory, October 2007
Appeared in the publication "Rx for the Defense" - the newsletter for the DRI.
What is metadata? Although the document on your computer screen looks like a two-dimensional piece of paper, it is really akin to a three-dimensional folder. The current version on the screen is the top document in the folder. But behind the screen is the rest of the folder, including all the draft versions, and it is stored on your computer. So, you did not just e-mail one document; you e-mailed an entire folder. You provided your opponent with a great deal of information: prior versions, edits, the identity of authors and editors, dates of alterations, the time expended on editing and the electronic notes that your client attached. See, e.g., Hricik and Jueneman, “The Transmission and Receipt of Invisible Confidential Information, 15 No. 1 Prof. Law 18 (2004).