|
Inside this issue:
Texas “Loser Pays” Legislation Brings Significant Changes to Texas Civil Practice
By Amanda Y. Sirk, Esq.
On May 30, 2011, the Texas legislature and Governor Rick Perry enacted House Bill 274. The legislation is entitled “Reform of Certain Remedies and Procedures in Civil Actions and Family Law Matters” and took effect on September 1, 2011. The new law has significantly changed the legal framework for civil actions in Texas and provides a fee-shifting provision that gives the law its popular “Loser Pays” moniker. The “Loser Pays” law includes dismissing a case at an earlier phase in the litigation if it lacks any basis in law or fact; expediting cases with $100,000 or less in controversy; allowing interlocutory appeals with greater ease; encouraging settlement offers; and designating responsible third parties earlier during the course of litigation.
Pennsylvania’s New ‘Fair Share Act’ Provides a More Equitable Distribution of Damages among Design Professional Defendants
By Megan E. Lehman, Esq.
On June 28, 2011 Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into legislation a bill that significantly limits the potential liability of defendants in negligence cases by altering the Pennsylvania Courts’ application of the legal theory known as ‘joint and several liability.'
Design Professionals’ Gains in New Jersey’s Economic Loss Doctrine
By Eric Cohen, Esq.
Donovan Hatem LLP secured a critical New Jersey Appellate Division decision that explicitly exonerates design professionals from tort liability when sued by a third party with whom the design professional has no privity, as long as the third party has contractual avenues through which it may recover.
Nevada Supreme Court Strictly Enforces Certificate of Merit Statutes
By Sa'adiyah K. Masoud, Esq.
The Supreme Court of Nevada entered its ruling in OTAK Nevada, LLC v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 127 Nev. Adv. Op. 53 (2011) granting extraordinary relief to the architect. In short, the court held that Nevada law mandates that any complaint filed against a design professional for professional malpractice, whether a complaint, cross claim or counterclaim, must be filed with a valid certificate of merit to maintain a professional liability claim. Any complaint lacking a certificate of merit cannot be amended and must be dismissed. In a corollary holding, the court held that, in multi-party litigation, each party asserting professional malpractice allegations must prepare a certificate of merit particularized to its claims, and cannot rely on any other party’s certificate of merit.
New Jersey Appellate Court Limits Liability Based upon Reasonable Contractual Provision
By Jacqueline J. Rompre, Esq.
New Jersey appellate court recently upheld the decision of a New Jersey superior court enforcing a limitation of liability clause in a contract for environmental consulting services. The claim in VMD Associates, LLC and Atlantic Delta Corporation at Montgomery, Inc. v. Melick—Tully and Associates, P.C., 2011 WL 3503160 (N.J. App. 2011) arose out of a contract between Melick-Tully and Associates, P.C. (“MTA”) and a real estate developer (the “Developer”) pursuant to which MTA provided a remediation plan for an environmentally contaminated property in Somerville, New Jersey (the “Property”).
|
