Subrogation Representative Cases - Law Firm White and Williams LLP Attorneys Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Representative Cases:

Massachusetts. A structural collapse occurred at a large retail center. Claims were brought against the general contractor and subcontractor arising out of demolition activities they were carrying out. The case involved questions of the proper means of demolition, lighting conditions, construction management and contract interpretation. Defendants challenged our damages regarding restoration time and business interruption. We were able to settle the case for seven figures, about 70% of the damages, after suit and extensive discovery but before trial preparation
District of Columbia. After unusually heavy rainfall, water accumulated behind a wall of a neighboring property which did not maintain storm water inlets. The wall collapsed causing a large release of water onto our client's property and subsequent water damage. We brought claims against the neighboring property owner for their failure to maintain the storm inlets and for allowing the water to accumulate unnaturally behind the wall. The claims involved a complicated analysis of weather conditions, hydrostatic pressure, notice issues and rejoinders to the Act of God defense and the Common Enemy Doctrine defense. The case was settled for six figures, approximately 50% of the damages, before trial.
Wisconsin. A factory was damaged by fire resulting from pranks committed by two teenaged boys who broke in after hours. Despite the ages of the boys and the Intentional Act defense, a settlement of close to $600,000 (the policy limits) was obtained from the carriers of the parents and boys on a theory of failure to supervise and negligence, after suit and aggressive discovery, but before trial.
Virginia. A warehouse was damaged by water flow from a failed sprinkler pipe fitting. Prompt investigative efforts including interviews by counsel of knowledgeable personnel and collection and examination of debris by experts counsel retained, resulted in the building of a strong case against a contractor whose carrier was persuaded to pay almost $500,000 approximately 85% of the damages, without the necessity of a lawsuit.
Virginia. We received an assignment 5 months after the loss because previous counsel was unable to develop a theory and believed the strict contributory negligence law of Virginia would be fatal. The case involved an explosion resulting from our insured hitting a gas line while digging in a quarry. Our insured failed to follow a required and standard procedure of periodically using an instrument to test for gas, because the area involved was known to have underground gas pockets. The explosion took place when the insured lit a torch in order to do work in the area and the undetected gas ignited. Our assigned lawyer traveled to the site, interviewed all crew members and was shown the site and learned that another company had been hired to mark the ground surface in order to identify known gas lines, but failed to do so. We filed suit against that company, who did not do sufficient discovery to learn of the gas testing procedure and the likely contributory negligence by our insured, and settled for about 75% of the damages in the early phase of discovery.
Connecticut. A fire, originating in the area of a fireplace, completely destroyed home. Claims were brought against the contractor who had performed work on the fireplace several years before the loss. Despite the fact that the fire had destroyed virtually all physical evidence, the case settled for seven figures.
District of Columbia. Fire caused by contractor who was using a torch to install roofing material. Fire caused substantial damage to our insured's adjoining building. The defense argued that the claimed damages were excessive. We obtained a favorable settlement prior to trial.
New Jersey. Fire destroyed a 33,000 square foot home that was under construction. Investigation resulted in the filing of claims against various contractors involved with the construction project. We obtained a multimillion dollar settlement.
New York. Structural and cosmetic damage to existing apartment building caused by demolition and construction activities at adjoining lot. We brought claims against the contractors performing that work alleging their negligence caused the damage. The contractors argued that the damage was preexisting. We settled the case in the high six figure range.
New Jersey. Fire destroyed an eight unit condominium that was under construction. Investigation revealed that heat from a roofers torch caused the fire. We brought claims against the roofer. A favorable settlement (a ninety-two percent recovery) was reached within one year of the fire.
Maine. Fire in a dining hall at a boys camp. Claims were brought against painting contractor and alarm company. The claim against the painting contractor settled for policy limits. The claim against the alarm contractor went to trial with the jury awarding several million dollars. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reversed the judgment in a reported decision, Camp Takajo, Inc. v. SimplexGrinnell, L.P., 957 A.2d 68 (ME, 2008). We subsequently settled the case for a confidential amount that was satisfactory to the client.
Maine. A boiler fire destroyed a historic building owned by a local fraternal organization. The cause of the fire was determined after a comprehensive fire scene investigation lasting nearly one month. Suit was commenced against the heating contractor who serviced the boiler shortly before the fire. We resolved the case at mediation.
Pennsylvania. A fire occurred shortly after two different contractors performed hot work while renovating an apartment building. Neither contractor accepted fault and suit was commenced against both companies. After four days of trial, a jury returned a verdict in favor of our client and against the defendants in equal proportion. We obtained a verdict for all claimed damages.
Connecticut. Fire destroyed a large marina. Claims were brought against the contractor performing welding work at the time of the fire. Based upon the age of the buildings, use of the property and the fact that the claim was paid at replacement cost, the damages evaluation involved a complicated commercial appraisal of the property. We reached a favorable seven figure settlement at mediation.

Should you have any questions or comments regarding the above cases, please direct your inquires to Peter T. Parashes, Esquire at 215-864-7178. All Claims are evaluated on a case-by-case basis and the recent verdicts or settlements listed above are based upon a unique set of facts and legal standards and are not indicative of future results.