Our attorneys have defended numerous professionals over the past 30 plus years across a broad range of professions – architects, engineers, CPA’s, law enforcement professionals, medical professionals, and insurance professionals. Representing professionals in any field requires a certain approach unlike defending most other insureds. Not only are the issues complex and technical, but more importantly, the insured’s professional standing, license and reputation may be at risk. Our attorneys provide a level of comfort and demonstrate an understanding that there is much more than a monetary penalty at stake.
Urban Flood Control Program: Our attorneys assisted with the drafting and negotiation of a Cooperative Endeavor Agreement for a $1 billion drainage improvement program with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and, subsequently, successfully defended lawsuits by third-party residents who claimed damages as a result of the drainage improvements.
Structural Engineer Sued for Acts of Negligence: A national grocery chain experienced subsidence and differential settlement at a newly constructed food store. Suit was filed against multiple architects, engineers, and contractors based on separate acts of negligence occurring during the design/build phase as well as during post-construction repair efforts. The Firm was retained to defend the project’s structural engineer. Through diligent document review and research, firm attorneys obtained dismissal of all claims on both the design/build phase and repair phase on summary judgment.
Defense of Class Action Wrongful Demolition: The firm defended two contractors embroiled in a class-action claim by 78 property owners asserting wrongful demolition of storm damaged residences in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The homeowners asserted claims against Parish authorities, engineers and the general contractor alleging that the defendants failed to follow proper administrative and regulatory procedures in demolishing hurricane-damaged homes, failed to provide the required notice prior to demolishing the homes, and failed to provide notice of available appeal remedies after homes were designated for demolition. The general contractor subcontracted the actual demolition and debris removal work to a number of subcontractors, including two subcontractors insured by two different long-time insurer clients of the firm. The general contractor filed third-party demands against each of the subcontractors demanding contractual defense and indemnity of and from the claims in the overlying action. After reviewing the relevant contracts, we filed Motions for Summary Judgment asserting the legal deficiency of the contractual indemnity claims. The motions were granted, allowing our clients to exit the matter, which for others, still rages on today.