Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

Architectural, Engineering and Construction Defect Litigation

The Architectural, Engineering and Construction Defect Litigation Practice Group of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin clearly understands the relationship between construction professionals and their respective responsibilities. Our practice group has a considerable number of years of experience in defending construction industry cases. The practice includes representation of owners, developers, general contractors, construction managers, subcontractors and design professionals. This group quickly develops an understanding of the project and contract documents in order to identify key issues early, then proceeds to develop those issues into sound defense strategies. Our practice group's litigation experience includes initial negotiations, construction claims, arbitration proceedings and jury trials involving all phases of construction litigation.
 
Our defense approach is aimed at the early identification of key issues and is predicated on developing the earliest possible defense strategies tailored to the individual case and client. The application of this strategy is carried out by a team approach consisting of experienced partners, associates and paralegals capable of handling the basic, as well as the highly sophisticated and complex, construction litigation matters.
 
The Architectural, Engineering and Construction Defect Litigation Practice Group of Marshall Dennehey consists of a diverse group of professionals with considerable experience handling matters throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Ohio, West Virginia, Florida and New York. The group prides itself on its multi-jurisdictional range of experience and substantial number of cases handled.
 
We look forward to your inquiries and remain at your disposal for presentations or seminars which your company may desire.

Pages

Sep 1, 2012
We successfully defended an architect and his firm against allegations of professional negligence claimed by the plaintiff - a developer/owner of a $7 million commercial project our client helped design. The plaintiff was initially seeking damages...
Feb 1, 2012
After extensive briefing and argument, we successfully obtained dismissal of a professional negligence case against an architectural/engineering firm. The plaintiff failed to serve an Affidavit of Merit, and we moved to dismiss under N.J.S.A. 2A:53:...
Jan 2, 2012
We successfully obtained a no cause from the jury in a very complex medical malpractice/wrongful death/construction/engineering malpractice case tried for 45 days. Plaintiff's demand had been $20 million. The theory of the case was that our...
Oct 17, 2011
Attorney successfully argued a motion for summary judgment in favor of our client, an architectural firm. Plaintiff alleged that our client's breach of the standard of care led to plaintiff's tripping and falling on a ramp at a construction site....
Aug 18, 2011
Attorney obtained summary judgment on behalf of a civil engineer in a claim involving flooded residential properties for which the builder claimed the site of storm water management plans were defective. The attorney demonstrated that the builder's...
Aug 18, 2011
Attorney obtained summary judgment on behalf of an architect in a claim involving a restaurant employee who sustained serious burns in an accident involving kitchen equipment. The attorney demonstrated that the architect's scope of services for the...
Jan 12, 2011
Attorney obtained summary judgment on behalf of the architect for an airport construction project.  The summary judgment was on two counts of a three count action alleging design errors.  Dismissal was subsequently obtained as to the third count,...
Jul 19, 2010
Attorney obtained summary judgment on behalf of a structural engineering firm that had prepared plans and specifications on a large condominium project. The complaint alleged multiple defects, primarily related to the roof, windows and building...
May 17, 2010
Attorney obtained a dismissal on the pleadings of plaintiff's Complaint wherein it was alleged that plaintiff suffered damages arising from the construction of a barn, by plaintiff's neighbor, on a farm downhill and across the street from plaintiff'...
Oct 26, 2009
Attorney obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death action filed against an engineering firm performing construction engineering inspections on an Interstate roadway project for a state’s Department of Transportation. Citing the state’s statutory law...

Pages

Pages

Law Alerts July 1, 2011
Bids were accepted, and a contract was awarded for improvements to a solid waste facility. Subsequent to the signing of the contract, the second-lowest bidder, Cetco, challenged the awarding of the contract, claiming that certifications of..., Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2011
Law Alerts April 1, 2011
In a Per Curiam decision, which was not approved for publication, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division recently reversed a trial court's order dismissing several Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) claims against the developer..., Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2011
Law Alerts April 1, 2011
On January 1, 2011, California SD 972 became effective. The law reduces a design professional's liability when entering into contracts with public agencies. Under the previous law, construction design professionals were under a "duty to..., Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2011
Law Alerts April 1, 2011
On Monday, November 15, 2010, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its decision in this controversial case. The issue in Dean was whether the economic loss doctrine, a judicial construct which bars recovery in tort for damage a product causes only to..., Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2011
Defense Digest Article March 1, 2011
Florida - Construction , Key Points: Does a general contractor need more then just a building license? Potential liability issues or exposure for a GC actually doing work on a job site without the appropriate license..., Defense Digest, Vol. 17, No. 1, March 2011
Law Alerts January 1, 2011
This case dealt with a dispute when a homeowner stopped making payments to the contractor who was constructing a first-floor extension and second-floor addition. The contractor filed suit, and the homeowner counter-claimed for costs to repair the..., Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011
Law Alerts January 1, 2011
The owner/developer of a property had a contract to build a new Family Courthouse in Philadelphia. The owner paid the architect for its original plans. After governmental review, revisions were made, and a revised set of plans were prepared. The..., Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011
Law Alerts January 1, 2011
This case dealt with personal liability of a home improvement contractor under the Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”). In this case, the trial court dismissed the individual defendants and only imposed liability upon the corporate entity for the CFA..., Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011
Law Alerts January 1, 2011
This case addresses “Pay-if-Paid” clauses. Such clauses are sometimes included in subcontracts and state that a general contractor has no duty to pay a subcontractor until the general contractor has been paid by the owner for the work performed by..., Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011
Law Alerts January 1, 2011
In this case, the homeowner was alleging a breach of contract for the repair and remodeling of a home. The homeowner’s arbitration demand named both the contracting company as well as its owner individually. The owner never objected to his personal..., Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011

Pages

Chair

John H. Osorio
Chair, Architectural, Engineering and Construction Defect Litigation Practice Group
(856) 414-6007
jhosorio@mdwcg.com

Additional Contacts

Michael J. DeCandio
Senior Counsel
(904) 358-4203
mjdecandio@mdwcg.com

Related Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."