Dante C. Rohr

We obtained summary judgment in favor of our client on the plaintiff’s general contractor’s contractual indemnity and defense claims. The general contractor claimed it was owed defense and indemnity under its subcontract with our client. In a prior proceeding, the court entered judgment in favor of the owner against the general contractor for breach of contract and breach of warranty but rejected the owner’s claims of negligence and violation of the Florida Building Code. The court agreed with our arguments that the general contractor was estopped from bringing its contractual defense and indemnity claims against the subcontractor because there was a prior judicial determination that neither the general contractor nor our client was negligent, and the general contractor’s liability was based on its breach of contract and warranties. The court further agreed that the general contractor could not show that the subcontractor was negligent, where it had taken the position that there was no negligence in the construction and it did not present any affirmative evidence to support a claim of negligence on the part of the subcontractor.   

We successfully upheld an arbitrator’s ruling in a $13 million construction defect case, defeating claims that our client negligently recommended windows and doors for a coastal Florida home. The owners’ direct claims against the general contractor and our client, the window and door supplier and installer, were arbitrated. The owners claimed the window company misrepresented the fitness of the windows and doors for use in Florida’s coastal environment. We argued that the windows and doors were specified by the owner and architect and that our client performed proper due diligence by visiting the manufacturing facility and consulting with the manufacturer’s engineers with regard to the application. The arbitrator found no liability as to our client because there was no evidence it was negligent in its recommendation of the product.

We obtained a motion to dismiss in a data breach class action arising out of a ransomware attack against a hospital network. The attack compromised personal information of over 90,000 patients. In state court, our motion to dismiss was granted for lack of standing. The state court also granted our motion as to each cause of action for failure to state a claim on the basis that no implied contract existed with the entities for privacy protection and the negligence claims were not available under Florida law.

We obtained an order of dismissal through pretrial motions in a complex legal malpractice action heard before the United States District Court. It arose out of an underlying first-party coverage action that involved hundreds of thousands of dollars in connection with building damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. The plaintiffs filed a complaint against our clients, certain individuals and a law firm, alleging claims for legal malpractice.  Our motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of the defendants asserted that an order for dismissal should be entered because: (1) the plaintiffs’ expert failed to offer an opinion on causation and damages; (2) the individual claims of the plaintiffs should be dismissed since the plaintiffs did not establish an individual claim; and (3) the plaintiffs failed to come forward with proofs to satisfy the punitive damages standard in New Jersey. The court granted our motion for summary judgment.   

We obtained the dismissal of a former employee accused of trademark infringement. A spray foam insulation company brought a claim for trademark infringement against a former employee. The plaintiff claimed that it had used the mark in connection with its business for over eight years, thereby establishing secondary meaning of the mark in connection with spray foam insulation in the New Jersey market. The plaintiff further alleged the defendants used the mark in marketing and promoting their competing spray foam insulation business in New Jersey. There was no valid claim against our client as there were no facts pled to support the threshold issue, that the plaintiff held a protectable mark. The complaint pled only conclusory allegations that the mark had secondary meaning, and there were no allegations that our client had any interest in the allegedly offending mark.

The lawsuit was brought by 54 condominium unit owners of a 608-unit, age-restricted planned development against the homeowner’s association board, the property manager and the sponsor/developer, for the early transfer of control of the condominium association. Dismissal of the board and the property manager was granted in what was properly a unit owner-sponsor/developer dispute over control of the association. The unit owners alleged that the sponsor/developer was no longer offering new units for sale; rather, they were only renting units, thereby triggering the turn-over provisions in the by-laws. No claims against either the board or the property manager were properly pled in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed as to both.

The declaratory judgment complaint was filed against the landlord that leased three quarries to the insured tenant. The landlord sued its tenant for breach of contract and environmental clean-up costs. The landlord sought coverage as an additional insured to the tenant’s CGL policy. The insurer denied coverage. The court granted our motion for summary judgment in favor of the insurer, agreeing that the counterclaims alleged intentional acts that were not occurrences as defined in the policy, nor did the claims fall within the personal or advertising coverage under the policy. The court further held that, even if coverage were found, it is limited to such damage or injury “caused in whole or in part by the insured’s acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on the insured’s behalf in the performance of its ongoing operations for the additional insureds.” In light of this clear language in the policy, it follows that coverage was denied because the counterclaims were based solely on the acts or omissions of the landlord, not on the acts or omissions of the tenant or those acting on its behalf. Lastly, the court agreed that there would be no coverage available to the landlord as exclusions apply.