Premises Liability

Elizabeth I. Stewart | Low, Ball & Lynch | October 2016 Victor M. Regalado v. Jeffrey M. Callaghan Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District (September 22, 2016) Generally, when employees of independent contractors are injured in the workplace, they cannot sue the party that hired the contractor to do the work, but are instead limited… Continue reading Premises Liability

Clarification on Architect’s/Engineer’s Liability for Safety During Construction

Stan Martin | Commonsense Construction Law LLC | September 20, 2016 With underlying facts showing less-than-stellar actions on the part of more than one player, the Mississippi Supreme Court has clarified and confirmed the applicable standard for when a design professional should be liable for safety on a construction project. The case is McKean v. Yates… Continue reading Clarification on Architect’s/Engineer’s Liability for Safety During Construction

California Appellate Court Holds No Liability for Contractor in Slip and Fall Lawsuit, Due to “Accepted Work” Doctrine

Sharifi Firm | Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog | July 19, 2016 In a premises liability case, the California Court of Appeal recently reviewed whether a contractor that performed tile work for a property management company could be held liable for injuries suffered by an individual who slipped on the wet tiles.  After slipping and falling, the… Continue reading California Appellate Court Holds No Liability for Contractor in Slip and Fall Lawsuit, Due to “Accepted Work” Doctrine

Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

Chadd Reynolds. | Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLP | May 7, 2016 In Cowart v. Schevitz, the Georgia Court of Appeals clarified the instances in which an out-of-possession landlord can be liable in a premises liability claim. No. A15A2036, 2016 WL 563114, at *4 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2016). In this case, the… Continue reading Georgia Court Clarifies Landlord Liability for Construction Defects

Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

Tred R. Eyerly | Insurance Law Hawaii | December 23, 2015 The court found that the contractor was entitled to relief under the contractual indemnity provision, but not the policy’s additional insured clause. Chatelain v. Fluor Daniel Constr. Co., 2015 La. App. LEXIS 2257 (Ct. App. La. Nov. 10, 2015). Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA… Continue reading Indemnity Provision Provides Relief to Contractor; Additional Insured Provision Does Not

%d bloggers like this: