A general contractor subcontracted with the firm’s client, S&S Sprinkler, to retrofit an existing sprinkler system in an old grocery store that was being remodeled into a Club 4 Fitness facility. After the project was completed, a leak occurred in the building causing significant damage. The cost to remedy the damage caused by the leak exceeded $500,000. The general contractor alleged that S&S Sprinkler’s workmanship caused the leak and resulting damages, and filed in federal court seeking those damages, plus costs and attorney’s fees. At trial, our client proved that the leak originated in an area of the building where it had never performed work. There was also evidence that the leak originated from other factors, such as aging pipes, weather events and water pressure problems. The jury sided with our client, dismissing the suit with prejudice, thus allowing our client to seek reimbursement of all costs and attorney fees.
Louisiana’s Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed judgment in favor of the firm’s client, a general liability insurer, in an insurance coverage dispute. The insured roofing contractor was sued after a fire started during a roof repair and caused damage to multiple buildings. The general liability policy at issue was subject to an endorsement that excluded coverage for damage caused during a “torch down” roofing operation. The trial court rejected the roofer’s claim that the exclusion was unambiguous and/or inapplicable and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the ruling was affirmed. The court held that, under a plain reading of the exclusion, “damages caused by the use of hot tools to perform roofing repairs, triggers the Torch Down Roofing Exclusion, and precludes coverage.”
TWPD is excited to announce the opening of its fourth office in Covington, Louisiana. Expanding our presence in St. Tammany and the surrounding parishes is part of our ongoing effort to better serve our clients and the local communities in which they do business.
The Firm’s New Orleans lawyers secured dismissal of a Pennsylvania credit union from a suit filed in Louisiana. The credit union was not registered to do business in Louisiana, did not employ anyone in Louisiana, did not advertise or solicit business in Louisiana, and did not maintain any branches in Louisiana. The credit union’s only connection to the Louisiana case was that it financed a loan to the Plaintiffs for remodeling their home after it was damaged during Hurricane Ida. Because the credit union did not have constitutionally sufficient contact with Louisiana, the firm filed an Exception of Lack of Personal Jurisdiction on the credit union’s behalf. Following oral argument and post-hearing briefs from the parties, the Court sustained the Exception and dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against the credit union. The Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial, which was quickly denied.
The success we have seen is because of the way we built our practice. It’s about more than routine strategies. It’s about creative resolutions to difficult legal questions. It’s about how we treat our clients and each other and how we work together to build the best possible defense for every single case. It's practice, made perfect.