A recent federal court opinion emphasizes the importance for a contractor to comply with a contract provision requiring written and
In the last few years, the Kentucky Supreme Court has written lengthy, and somewhat conflicting, opinions on one of the
In Kentucky, individuals and companies providing professional services, including architects and engineers in construction projects, have the advantage of a
In our everyday lives, we often encounter such messages as, “Management is not responsible for (fill in the blank).” If
One of the hallmarks of the US economy is the creativity of its businesses and residents. And, most importantly, laws in the US encourage creativity in the marketplace through Trade Secret statutes, which have been adopted in all fifty states. What constitutes a Trade Secret can involve a very technical analysis.
Recent cases from the Supreme Courts of Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana raise the issue whether Contractors get any liability coverage at all when they purchase commercial general liability (CGL) policies. The Ohio and Kentucky opinions may be reversing coverages that contractors expected to have for at least the last 25 years.
Courts over the years have adopted rules which are intended to discourage frivolous lawsuits. One such rule prohibits putting the amount of claimed damages in the complaint, thereby creating “headline news” or intimidating the person sued. Also, Supreme Court decisions have limited the amount of punitive damages that may be awarded.
In the homebuilding business in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky, builders are quite aware of the perils of constructing homes on steep hillsides and fill sites. As a result, they ordinarily consult with a soils engineer during or before excavating for foundations on steep hillsides and fill sites with “soft” soils.
Many individual entrepreneurs and small businesses may not earn profits in the first or second year of business. And they may not have a steady stream of profits, or an expected amount of profits, in the first five or so years in business. If such a business is forced to file a lawsuit because a parts supplier or other vendor or customer breaches its contract, the business cannot recover lost profits.
Whether a consumer is purchasing a vehicle from a used car lot or any product online, it is prudent to keep in mind the old axiom “buyer beware.” But in the everyday sale of real estate, it is just as prudent to be guided by the maxim “seller beware.”
It is commonly understood that a spouse cannot be forced to reveal marital communications, a confessor cannot reveal a penitent’s sins, and an attorney cannot reveal a client’s confidential information. But late last year a court in Ohio held that attorneys could be forced to reveal client communications in a bankruptcy proceeding.
When a construction Contractor presents a delay damage claim against the Owner, the Contractor must be aware of time limits in the contract for making such a claim. The same is true for Subcontractors making delay damage claims against the Prime Contractor.
Last month, a federal court in Texas celebrated a rare event in the long and contentious history of church-state relations in the United States. In a “prayer-in-public-schools” case, what the court celebrated was a landmark settlement agreement which the complaining students and the school district hammered out and agreed to in a voluntary mediation process. A copy of the settlement agreement appears in the very brief court opinion approving the agreement as a model for other school districts.
In ordinary conversation, the “attractive nuisance” legal doctrine is often used to describe conditions which are just the opposite of what the law considers an attractive nuisance. Often we hear references to any condition that would attract children as an attractive nuisance subjecting the property owner to liability if the child is injured. But a recent case from the Ohio Court of Appeals held to the contrary, namely that a condition, such as a lake or pool, that a child would sense as possibly dangerous is not an attractive nuisance at all.
Last month, a North Carolina state court jury awarded $25 million in a child abuse case in which a six-year-old boy (now age 14) was rendered quadriplegic and unable to speak when battered by the mother’s boyfriend, an all too familiar tragedy these days. What was unusual in this case was that the award was rendered against a North Carolina hospital and physicians practicing at the hospital.
Freedom of contract, especially in regard to allocating risks of loss and damages, is a hallmark of construction law. The Economic Loss Doctrine (ELD) is intended to enshrine the principle of voluntary risk allocation by prohibiting participants in construction projects from suing for their economic losses in the absence of a contractual relationship. Recent court decisions have broadly construed economic loss to include the cost of repair (Tennessee), damage to any part of a building under construction (Indiana, Hawaii and Utah), damage to reputation and a company’s goodwill (Kentucky), loss of profits (Texas and Arizona) and additional financing costs (Ohio).
The problems experienced by car accident victims trying to recover for medical bills, lost wages, and other harm are real. One of the most frequent problems we encounter as lawyers is a lack of sufficient insurance to cover a victim’s damages. This problem has increased in severity in difficult economic times as many drivers elect the minimum insurance coverage or none at all. The rising costs of health care exacerbate the problem. Without sufficient insurance, innocent victims of drunk or careless driving struggle to pay medical bills and suffer financial hardship from lost time at work, permanent disability, or both.
Potential Supreme Court Decision Could Close Avenue for Medicaid Providers’ Legal Challenges to State Rate Cuts
Over the past two decades, healthcare providers that serve Medicaid-eligible patients have seen the payments they receive for those services from their states’ Medicaid programs become increasingly inadequate to cover the actual cost of care. Medicaid providers have responded with different legal tactics to challenge Medicaid rate cuts over the years, but their most recent strategy has been preemption actions under the Supremacy Clause—a strategy that may soon become the subject of a Supreme Court opinion.