 |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
The technical, engineering concepts we have learned in the handling
of product liability cases and aviation accident cases easily transfers
to the concepts encountered in defending architects and engineers.
Gary Jacobs has for the last 15 years represented architects and
engineers for multiple carriers in cases involving claims wherein
architects and engineers have been alleged to have failed to meet
the standard of care. Recently, in addition to the usual claims for
malpractice including negligent design and incorrect structural
calculations, we have defended architects who have expanded their
practice into assisting their clients in obtaining development permits
from local government entities. Those claims generally allege that
the type of project that the architect assisted in obtaining permits
was not the highest and best use for the land, and the developers
claimed that as a result, the architect is responsible for the difference
in the profit that would have been obtained had the architect
recommended a different plan for the project.
Recently, we settled a substantial case for a relatively nominal sum in
which we defended a Canadian structural engineering company
sued in federal court in Los Angeles by an industrial contractor
arising from the retrofitting of a factory located in Southern California,
which processed diatomaceous earth.
We have become familiar with reading engineering drawings,
change orders and contract documents involved in defending
engineers. Two of our attorneys took engineering courses in college,
and one was actually employed as an aeronautical engineer for 5
years before going to law school.
of product liability cases and aviation accident cases easily transfers
to the concepts encountered in defending architects and engineers.
Gary Jacobs has for the last 15 years represented architects and
engineers for multiple carriers in cases involving claims wherein
architects and engineers have been alleged to have failed to meet
the standard of care. Recently, in addition to the usual claims for
malpractice including negligent design and incorrect structural
calculations, we have defended architects who have expanded their
practice into assisting their clients in obtaining development permits
from local government entities. Those claims generally allege that
the type of project that the architect assisted in obtaining permits
was not the highest and best use for the land, and the developers
claimed that as a result, the architect is responsible for the difference
in the profit that would have been obtained had the architect
recommended a different plan for the project.
Recently, we settled a substantial case for a relatively nominal sum in
which we defended a Canadian structural engineering company
sued in federal court in Los Angeles by an industrial contractor
arising from the retrofitting of a factory located in Southern California,
which processed diatomaceous earth.
We have become familiar with reading engineering drawings,
change orders and contract documents involved in defending
engineers. Two of our attorneys took engineering courses in college,
and one was actually employed as an aeronautical engineer for 5
years before going to law school.
| MM&J, 4333 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 110, Westlake Village, CA 91361 Home Contact Us Terms and Conditions of Use |
