Author: dsbclaw

Home/Articles Posted by dsbclaw
Halloween Firm Web

DSBC Celebrated Halloween 2017

Halloween Firm Web
Every year, Derrevere Stevens Black & Cozad celebrates Halloween with an office costume contest.

Although unplanned, this year turned out to be “The Year of Winnie the Pooh.”
Both Michael Stevens’ and Jon Derrevere’s teams showed up to the office in Winnie the Pooh garb.
 

Everyone looked spectacular but as with any contest, there can only be one winner for each category.
Here they are…
halloween winners web
(Pictured from left to right)

Funniest: Fran Minchew as Foghorn Leghorn
Best Overall: Candy Lobeck as a Jellyfish
Best Group: Jon Derrevere, Jamie Gordon, Bill Vertes, Jessica Mannix and Jennifer Bedner as Winnie the Pooh
Most Original: Jessica Mullendore as a Unicorn
Cutest: Mary Grecz as Winnie the Pooh

 
We hope everyone had a Happy Halloween!

Big Firm News!

The West Palm Beach-based law firm of Derrevere Hawkes Black & Cozad has recently changed its name to Derrevere Stevens Black & Cozad. Along with the name change, Michael B. Stevens has become the Managing Partner for the firm’s new satellite office in Boston, Massachusetts. Mr. Stevens manages the Insurance Subrogation and Real Estate Divisions for the firm.

The firm would also like to recognize Peri Rose Huston-Miller as the newest Partner at Derrevere Stevens Black & Cozad. As a member of the firm’s Architect and Engineer Professional Liability Division, Ms. Huston-Miller concentrates her practice on complex commercial litigation, construction defects and insurance coverage claims.

In addition, Derrevere Stevens Black & Cozad would like to welcome Attorney Marjorie Levine to the firm. Ms. Levine is the sixth member of our Architect and Engineer Professional Liability Division.

Michael Stevens and Teddy Stevens to Speak at 2017 NASP Annual Conference

Michael Stevens and Teddy Stevens will be speaking at the National Association of Subrogation Professionals Annual Conference in Austin, Texas on November 7, 2017.

The title of the presentation is: Yes, but is it classy (ethical)?: A year in review of effective/ineffective communications and how to handle it with class. A re-education on how to communicate with each other in a way that is polite, respectful, effective, and especially – ethical.

Starting with ethical standards applicable to all attorneys, the session will go through real life anonymous examples of communications from the past year that show the highs and lows people have used to express themselves to opposing counsel, clients, third-parties, courts, the media, and others. This session will shed light on the dark side of poor communicators and help everyone handle those situations with more class, and in turn, greater success.

For more information, visit the event website.

Bryan Black Spoke at 2017 AIA Conference on Understanding Ethics in Architecture

Attorney Bryan W. Black, an Allied Member of the American Institute of Architects, spoke at the organization’s Conference on Architecture on April 29, 2017 in Orlando, Florida. The event featured workshops, seminars, tours and events lead by industry-leading architects and design professionals.

Mr. Black, who represents architects and other designers throughout the State of Florida, participated in the conference alongside John Ehrig, FAIA and Martin Smith, AIA in a panel discussion titled “Let’s Make a Shady Deal: Understanding Ethics in Architecture.”

Bryan Black Obtains Final Summary Judgment in Construction Defect case involving claim against Individual Architect

December 22, 2016 – 900 Biscayne Condominium Association v. 900 Biscayne, LLC, et al:
Counsel for Defendant Architect: Bryan W. Black.

This action arises out of claims asserted by 900 Biscayne Condominium against the Developer, Designers, Contractor and Subcontractors. 900 Biscayne, LLC (Developer) also filed cross and third party claims, including claims against certain individual Architects.

The Client, a principal of Architectural Firm, was one of the individually named architects sued in the action for professional negligence. The Client was not the Architect of Record who signed and sealed the Project design documents.

Final Summary Judgment was sought on the basis that under Florida Law, an officer, agent, member, manager or employee of a corporation of limited liability company is only professionally liable and accountable for negligent and wrongful acts of misconduct committed by that person, or by any person under that person’s direct supervision and control, while rendering professional services on behalf of the corporation. Fla. Stat. 621.07.

The Court found that the information submitted by the Developer, at best, established Client’s role was probably minimal in contract administration, but didn’t establish any violation of professional standards as an architect. The conduct claimed of is in the character of acting as a principal of Architectural Firm, as opposed to the acts of an individual architect in a professional capacity. Therefore, Final Summary Judgment was entered in favor of the Client as an individual architect, completely removing him individually from this action.

Bryan Black Obtains Final Summary Judgment in Personal Injury Case involving claim against Architectural Company

December 7, 2016 – Smith v. Calvary, et al:
Counsel for Architect: Bryan W. Black.

This action arises out of personal injuries sustained by Plaintiff that occurred while Plaintiff was descending stairs in the center aisle of a theater on the Subject property.

Plaintiff sustained serious injuries to his legs which have led to multiple surgeries and extensive medical care. Plaintiff alleged that the Architect was negligent for failing to include handrails in its design of the center aisle in the theater.

At the time of Plaintiff’s fall, the design and construction of the property had been completed for more than four years, the Certificate of Occupancy had been issued and Owner had complete custody and control of the Property.

The Architect filed a motion for Summary Judgment based solely on the Slavin Doctrine. This doctrine stands for the position that liability is cutoff after the owner has accepted the work performed, if the alleged defect is “patent” which the owner could have discovered and remedied.

At the time of the hearing on Architect’s Motion, the only opposition asserted was from the Property Owner, who claimed the alleged dangerous condition asserted by Plaintiff was a “latent” defect. However, there was overwhelming evidence by way of correspondence to establish that the condition was open and obvious and Owner knew of and had previously discussed the stairs as a “safety concern”. These discussions included obtaining quotes for the installation of handrails, both before and after Plaintiff’s accident.

The Court granted Architect’s Motion holding (1) that Owner had standing to oppose Architect’s Motion and (2) that the alleged defect was patent and the Architect had no legal duty to Plaintiffs and cannot be found at fault or liable as a matter of law, citing Slavin v. Kay, 108 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1979); Easterday v. Masiello, 518 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1988).

After the entry of the Order Granting Summary Judgment, the Owner moved for Rehearing, which was denied.