On May 4, 2018, the Third Circuit in Liberty Woods International v. MV Ocean Quartz affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action for cargo damages while onboard the MV OCEAN QUARTZ. The dismissal was based on the fact that the liability was governed under the carrier’s bill of lading, which contained a foreign forum selection clause for South Korea. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that section 3(8) of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA), which permits in rem suits, invalidates the South Korean forum selection clause because South Korea does not recognize in rem suits.

In Kopetic v. The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (April 12, 2018), Lewis Brisbois’ client, a governmental entity who owns a container terminal in New York Harbor, was sued by an injured longshoreman who worked for the company operating the container terminal.

The California Legislature has narrowed the scope of enforceable indemnity agreements applicable to licensed architects, engineers, and land surveyors through its amendment of Civil Code § 2782.8. This represents an important development in the allocation of risk in the construction community, since Section 2782.8 previously limited indemnity clauses only as to design professional service contracts with local public agencies entered into on or after January 1, 2007. 

Lewis Brisbois recently obtained a summary judgment dismissal of a third-party suit alleging that the firm’s insured steel company client must indemnify and defend the general contractor in an injured worker's suit.

In January of this year, the California Supreme Court finally decided the long-standing question of whether the “Right to Repair Act” (SB800) provides the sole remedy in California residential construction defect cases, or whether homeowners can also pursue common law remedies (such as strict liability, negligence, etc.) in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241.

Until recently, there has been a split in the courts of appeal in California regarding the extent to which contractors are excused from the prompt payment requirement for retentions. One rule permitted contractors to withhold retention payments to subcontractors if there was any good faith dispute between them, whether or not the dispute was directly related to the work for which the retention was given. The other rule limited a contractor’s ability to withhold retention payments to good faith disputes which specifically involved the work for which the retention was held.

In a recent case, Lewis Brisbois successfully moved a federal court to compel arbitration of all of a contractor’s claims against an engineering firm and to preclude an interlocutory appeal of the ruling.

Seattle Partner V. Andrew Cass recently co-wrote an article featured in the Summer 2018 issue of the New Mexico Law Review.