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 January 1, 2011
In this construction contract dispute, the court awarded prejudgment interest, but not attorneys fees, to a roofing contractor under the Delaware Construction Prompt Payment Act, 6 Del. C. § 3506 where the owner failed to give specific notice within..., Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011
Law Alerts July 1, 2010
In this case, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal, relying on Moransais v. Healthman, 744 So.2d 973 (Fla. 1999), explained that an extra-contractual remedy against a negligent professional is necessary because contractual remedies may be..., Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2010
Law Alerts July 1, 2010
The Supreme Court of Florida found that the economic loss rule does not preclude an action by fishermen against polluters who damaged the fishing industry in Tampa Bay. Further, the Court found that the polluters owed a special duty of care to the..., Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2010
Law Alerts July 1, 2010
The architect/defendant designed a parking garage. A collapse occurred during construction, resulting in death and injury. The architect's professional liability insurance applied and was exhausted. It then sought coverage from its general liability..., Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2010
Law Alerts July 1, 2010
The court in the above action reviewed and applied Florida, Alabama and Louisiana law regarding the economic loss rule. As it pertains to Florida, relying upon Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. American Aviation, Inc., 891 So.2d 532 (Fla...., Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2010
Law Alerts July 1, 2010
The owner of a mobile home park alleged Township officials vexatiously acted to prevent him from expanding and further developing the park in violation of his constitutional right to use and develop his property. The owner also alleged that the..., Case Law Alert - 3rd Qtr 2010
Law Alerts April 1, 2010
The Massachusetts state court recently held that a plaintiff claiming design negligence for the placement of a fence post around a softball diamond could not defeat the defendant's, the architect, Motion for Summary Judgment. The court specifically..., Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2010
Law Alerts April 1, 2010
Florida has a notice and Right to Repair statute, F.S. 558, et seq, which was first promulgated in 2003. The Legislature enacted this statute to allow for the notification of potential construction defect claims prior to litigation. It also gave the..., Case Law Alert - 2nd Qtr 2010
Defense Digest Article March 1, 2010
New Jersey -- Indemnification & Contribution , Key Points: Supreme Court's ruling underscores importance that parties avoid piecemeal litigation. Keep an eye on potential third party claims for contribution and indemnification. Failure to..., Defense Digest, Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2010
Law Alerts January 1, 2010
Once again eschewing rigid application of the New Jersey Affidavit of Merit Statute, NJSA 2A:26- to 29, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a per curiam affirmation of the Appellate Division's decision in this case. Here, the plaintiffs were a..., Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2010

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."