Our team of attorneys works to achieve successful resolutions for our clients from the start. Our “recent wins” section provides an explanation of the successful results we have achieved for our clients through advantageous settlements, motions and other stages of the litigation, including trial and appeal. We always strive to efficiently attain winning results for our clients in order to maximize the outcome and minimize the expense on every case.
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
Some Results from our Attorneys
Our attorneys obtained a defense verdict in a multi-million dollar construction defect case venued in Orange County. The case involved a homeowner, the general subcontractor, the architect and ten subcontractors, including our client. Our client performed the roofing and waterproofing work at the custom residential project, valued at over $8 million. The alleged defects against our client focused on defective roof work and water intrusion from the decks. The plaintiff asked for $1 million in damages and allocated in his closing argument the largest percentage to our client. Following the defense verdict for our client, we sought our costs from the plaintiff.
Our attorneys handled a contentious construction defect case concerning a $20 million single family custom home. We represented a total of four client-contractors in this litigation. For three of our client-contractors we obtained dismissals in exchange for waivers of costs, including the window manufacturer. We saved the insurer the settlement authority they provided to us and pushed for a waiver of costs. For the fourth client-contractor, we settled for only $1,200. Our clients were the very few in the case who were dismissed for waivers of costs.
In this highly contentious, 5 year old litigation, which recently settled for $2,010,000, we received dismissals for two client-contractors for the collective total of $32,000. The first move in our strategy was to establish that neither plaintiffs nor developer had any evidence of negligence against our clients. During this process, we elicited testimony from the plaintiffs’ expert that the defective construction was attributable to another contractor. The expert’s lack of knowledge as to whose scope of work he was testifying greatly damaged his credibility, not only as to his opinions about the insured’s work, but also to that of other subcontractors’ work. The second move was successfully blocking both developer’s and plaintiffs’ access to our clients’ experts for depositions. Both developer and plaintiffs noticed the experts’ depositions after the discovery cutoff, said depositions necessary for the case against our clients. Since we successfully elicited testimony from both plaintiffs’ and developer’s experts that eviscerated any case said parties had against our clients, their only recourse was to elicit testimony from our clients’ experts tending to prove some kind of negligence. Notwithstanding the judge’s initial intent to permit access to our clients’ experts, we successfully convinced her that the Code of Civil Procedure did not permit such a ruling and she found in our clients’ favor. Finally, we successfully opposed an application for determination of good faith in settlement filed by another subcontractor. This subcontractor settled with the plaintiffs solely for a waiver of costs under the guise that an indemnity agreement between the two parties made the subcontractor an unnecessary party to the litigation. We successfully proved to the court that it was plaintiffs’ own expert who testified about defective work attributable to this subcontractor and that such evidence was sufficient to show that a waiver of costs was not within the ballpark of this subcontractor’s liability, the determining factor in a good faith ruling. Had this subcontractor been successful in its application – generally a foregone thought with any settlement in such a case – our client could have been stuck funding deficiencies attributable to this subcontractor. Following this ruling and the foreclosure on counsel to depose our clients’ experts we settled out the clients cheaply.
We represented a painting subcontractor in a construction defect action involving a 112-unit condominium complex in Alameda County. The general contractor brought our client into the case on a cross-complaint for express indemnity based on an onerous indemnity provision contained in the parties’ subcontract. The provision provided not only for “Type I” indemnity, but also for an immediate obligation to pay all of the general contractor’s defense costs for the entire action (including claims unrelated to our client’s work). The general contractor demanded in excess of $1.2 million from our client. Through aggressive and targeted discovery, we uncovered key information to support a motion for summary judgment to rescind the subcontract, and the onerous indemnity provision therein, based on procedural and substantive unconscionability theories. Shortly after we filed our client’s summary judgment motion, we received a call from the general contractor stating it wished to discuss settlement. We quickly obtained a favorable settlement for less than 4% of the general contractor’s demand.
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Some Results from our Attorneys
Our attorneys recently negotiated a favorable settlement on behalf of a corporate employer and its supervisors in a multi-party sexual harassment lawsuit. In this case, the alleged harassers were arrested based on plaintiffs’ claims of rape, sexual battery and assault. We successfully settled the action on behalf of the corporate employer reducing its risk of significant exposure for punitive damages and where plaintiffs’ initial demand exceeded seven figures.
Our attorneys also recently obtained summary judgment in federal court on behalf of a major national retail employer in a multi-party lawsuit involving claims of disability and race discrimination as well as unlawful employment practices. Further, our attorneys obtained summary judgment in favor of a national employer and its management in a multi-party action in state court for wrongful termination and sexual harassment brought by bargaining unit employees.
INSURANCE COVERAGE
Some Results from our Attorneys
A developer sued its primary insurer for bad faith. The primary insurer, attempting to spread its liability exposure, sued approximately 25 of the subcontractors’ insurers. The primary insurer alleged the subcontractors’ insurers owed a defense and indemnity to the developer through their additional insured endorsements. Although the court held an expansive point of view on the duty to defend, our attorneys persuaded the court that a timing mechanism in its insurer-client's additional insured endorsement precluded coverage for the developer and thereby developer's insurer could not seek contribution from their insurer-client. The disagreement between the parties concerned the ongoing operations language in the additional insured endorsement. The court granted our insurer-client’s motion for summary judgment and awarded costs.
PREMISES LIABILITY
Some Results from our Attorneys
After two weeks of trial, our attorneys obtained a directed verdict in favor of our general contractor client in a multi-million dollar personal injury claim involving allegations of negligence and premises liability. The plaintiff, a prominent orthopedic surgeon, was allegedly injured in a fall in a darkened stairway at an apartment complex where our client was performing work. The plaintiff contended that our client’s work caused or contributed to the conditions which led to the fall. He sought damages that included, without limitation, past and future medical expenses and several million dollars in lost earning capacity. Skane Wilcox is currently seeking costs from the plaintiff.
Our attorneys successfully achieved a defense jury verdict in an action in which the plaintiff was seeking in excess of $600,000.00 in damages against our general contractor client. The plaintiff's claims arose out of repair work performed at his residence in order to repair damage caused by a large tree falling during a storm on to a portion of the plaintiff's deck and koi pond. The plaintiff was seeking to recover on a negligence claim against the general contractor in relation to his bad faith claim against the insurer defendant. However, our attorneys were able to defeat this claim by motion in limine. The only remaining claim against the client was for breach of contract, in which the plaintiff claimed the contract required the use of a structural engineer. Our attorneys were able to defeat this claim by establishing that the terms of the contract did not require a structural engineer, our client did not breach the contract, and even if a breach could have been established the plaintiff suffered no damage as a result. Additionally, our attorneys obtained a judgment against the plaintiff in excess of $22,000.00.
In a premises liability action, our attorney prevailed on motion for summary judgment and fully extracted our client, a roofing contractor, from a case where both the plaintiff and a co-defendant were pursuing claims against our client. The plaintiff claimed serious injuries due to a ceramic roof tile allegedly striking him in the head. The plaintiff claimed the parties failed to repair a dangerous condition, and it was alleged our client either failed to inspect the roof properly and/or contributed to the roof tile accident. The plaintiff claimed serious neurological and physical impairment, and the case went to trial. However, prior to trial, our attorney successfully defeated all of plaintiff’s causes of action against our client.
In a premises liability wrongful death action involving the death of a school security guard, our attorneys defended the roofing subcontractor involved in the rehabilitation of a school campus at which the decedent school security guard was employed. The plaintiff, the decedent’s wife, brought suit against the general contractor and in turn the general contractor sued our client and other subcontractors working on the project. The plaintiff alleged negligence and premises liability claiming that the decedent died as a result of injuries he sustained after slipping and falling on rocks deposited on a stairway on the subject property. The case primarily involved a dispute as to whether our client was involved in the construction operations at or around the time of the injury incident. Through analysis of the client job file and multiple depositions our attorneys were able to establish that the client was not on site and therefore could not be found liable for the alleged incident. Negotiations thereafter took place and we positioned the drafting of a motion for summary judgment. Prior to the drafting of the motion, but after discovery, we offered a nuisance value cost of defense settlement in lieu of the filing of such a motion.
The plaintiff, an employee of our client, was seriously injured while working on a major home renovation project and claimed thousands of dollars in damages. The plaintiff allegedly walked onto an unsupported sheet of plywood in the demolition area (away from the plaintiff’s work of installing caissons) and fell nine feet onto concrete and suffered serious injuries. Following this incident, the plaintiff received worker’s compensation benefits for his medical expenses and lost wages. The plaintiff claimed he experienced significant pain during recovery from the surgery, continued to experience pain long after the accident and was expected to have some level of permanent back pain. Following the incident, the project site was inspected by Cal-OSHA as part of the accident investigation and the client was issued a citation for not ensuring that the plaintiff was using a fall restraint harness, as specified under Section 1670 of the California Code of Regulations. Although the citation was later dismissed for lack of evidence, the general contractor on the project used the citation as the basis for a cross-complaint against our client. However, during the litigation, we maintained that entering the demolition area was not within the area or scope of plaintiff’s work, and therefore Section 1670 should not apply. During his deposition, the Cal-OSHA inspector admitted that it was now his understanding that section 1670 did not apply under the circumstances and that given his present understanding he would not have issued the citation to the client. During mediation and subsequent settlement negotiations by the parties, we maintained our position that our client had limited liability and ultimately succeeded in settling the cross-complaint for nuisance value.
Our attorneys successfully succeeded on a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury, construction site accident case. The plaintiff was a demolition laborer who was struck in the head by a falling light fixture during the demolition of an old hospital building. He was severely injured and claimed in excess of $500,000 in future lost wages. We represented the owner of the hospital building and won a motion for summary judgment after the court agreed there can be no liability where the property owner did not actively cause the accident, but merely owned the property.
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
Some Results from our Attorneys
In a products liability action involving allegedly faulty plumbing fittings, our attorneys defended one of the product-wholesalers in Nevada’s largest class-action lawsuit in history. The class-plaintiffs, numerous Nevada homeowners, alleged the defective plumbing fittings were of an improper metal that would prematurely fail through corrosion, causing damage to their homes. The manufacturer filed a third-party complaint against the developers and other parties. Through discovery, our attorneys determined the client was not significantly involved in the stream of commerce of the product, thus limiting any possible liability. We conducted discussions with the product’s manufacturer, and arrived at an extremely favorable settlement for the client, thus removing the client from any further exposure through the settlement between the manufacturer and plaintiffs.
Skane Wilcox regularly represents a large appliance manufacturer. In a construction defect case wherein we represented this manufacturer, the plaintiffs claimed property damage due to an allegedly defective washer. The plaintiffs claimed there was a defect in the front-load washer which caused water to damage their property in the thousands of dollars. We were able to prove there was no defect, but an installation error as well as prove to the plaintiffs their damages were limited to nuisance value. The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss our client for a waiver of costs.
Our attorneys represented a bicycle manufacturer whose component part was alleged to have broken when a foreign object became lodged in the spokes of the bicycle wheel, causing permanent injury to the rider and loss of past and future wages. We were able to show that plaintiff had pre-existing injuries and to cast doubt on the plaintiff's theory regarding how the accident occurred. This allowed us to settle the case for our client for approximately $100,000 (with only $40,000 being paid by our client) even though a plaintiff in a similar case, with no loss of wage claims, had recently been awarded $720,000 by a California jury.
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY - AGENTS & BROKERS
Some Results from our Attorneys
Our attorneys brought a motion for summary judgment on the client-broker's duty to notify an insured of the cancellation of the policy. The plaintiffs claimed our client was responsible for notifying them that their insurance policy was being cancelled. Subsequent to the cancellation of the policy, the plaintiffs were sued for personal injury. The court granted the motion for summary judgment and awarded costs. The plaintiffs were claiming our client should be held liable for over $200,000 awarded against the insured from a binding arbitration award regarding the personal injury claim, in addition to pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees.
In a broker liability case where the plaintiffs were seeking over $2 million in damages from our client, we successfully obtained a dismissal after aggressively pursuing the defense. The plaintiffs’ avocado orchard was destroyed in a wildfire. They claimed our client failed to procure the appropriate policy that would cover the orchard loss, despite that there was no insurance available at the time they purchased their policy. The plaintiffs chose to dismiss the case after we explained how the plaintiffs would be unsuccessful in their case against our client.