Tokyo Building Flaws May Open Pandora's Box for Asahi Kasei
October 28, 2015 —
Kathleen Chu, Joji Mochida & Katsuyo Kuwako – BloombergJapanese real estate investment trusts are joining apartment owners and regulators in pushing Asahi Kasei Corp. for answers on an apartment building sagging sideways on the outskirts of Tokyo, as concerns are mounting that it may not be an isolated case.
REITs including Advance Residence Investment, Nippon Accommodation Fund Inc., Daiwa House Residential Investment Corp. and Japan Rental Housing Investment Inc. have all asked Asahi Kasei for details on what other buildings might be flawed, according to the trusts. Asahi Kasei disclosed on Thursday the names of prefectures where the company has undertaken work in the past 10 years on more than 3,000 buildings, after the land ministry requested the data. The sites include 342 schools, 257 medical and health-care facilities, 696 housing complexes and 217 office buildings, the firm said.
Asahi Kasei, the subcontractor of the project, said a unit didn’t properly install foundation piles at an apartment building in Yokohama, and the division falsified data on the work. The scandal has sent Asahi Kasei’s shares down more than 21 percent since Oct. 13, when news of the flawed building first emerged. Shares of Sumitomo Mitsui Construction Co., the contractor, plunged 25 percent and those of Mitsui Fudosan Co., which sold units at the Yokohama project in 2006, have tumbled 5 percent since then. All three companies said that the impact of the incident on their earnings is not yet clear.
Reprinted courtesy of Bloomberg reporters
Kathleen Chu,
Joji Mochida and
Katsuyo Kuwako Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Enacts New Claims Resolution Process for Public Works Projects
January 19, 2017 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIf you’re a public entity or contractor involved in public works construction you should be aware of a new law,
AB 626, which took effect on the first of this year and establishes a new mandatory claims resolution process for disputes on public works projects. Here’s what you need to know:
What is the new law and where is it codified at?
AB 626 added new Public Contract Code Section 9204 that according to the bill’s author, Assemblymember David Chiu of San Francisco, establishes “a claim resolution process applicable to any claim by a contractor in connection with a public works project.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Is it time for a summer tune-up?
September 20, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday readers are in for a treat. Lance Godard, founder of The Godard Group, has provided marketing and business development solutions to global law firms for nearly 20 years. He has particular expertise developing strategies that allow lawyers to identify client opportunities, communicate their messages, and grow their practices. Lance has been called a “provocative and engaging leader in the legal profession and social media” and was named one of the “20 Twitterers Lawyers should follow on Twitter.” He is the founder of 22 Tweets, live Twitter interviews with practicing lawyers, which provides a forum for lawyers to tell their story using social media.
The market appears to be picking up. Clients are getting back to work. New opportunities can’t be far behind. What are you doing to find them? To make sure they show up on your radar? To put yourself in a position to see those opportunities that do present themselves, and to land the work when you pitch for it? Maybe it’s time for a marketing tune-up.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
The Impact of Sopris Lodging v. Schofield Excavation on Timeliness of Colorado Construction Defect Claims
January 26, 2017 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn October 20, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals announced the Sopris Lodging, LLC v. Schofield Excavation, Inc.[1] decision. The Sopris decision significantly altered the potential pitfalls awaiting a general contractor in pursuit of third-party claims as well as potential defenses available for a subcontractor defending against third-party claims.
By way of background, the Sopris construction defect case arose out of the following facts: TDC was the general contractor for the construction of a hotel owned by Sopris Lodging. On March 11, 2011, Sopris Lodging sent TDC a notice of claim regarding alleged construction defects. On May 24, 2013, Sopris Lodging filed a complaint in district court asserting construction defect claims against one of the subcontractors of the hotel, and against the general contractor’s principals, but not the general contractor. Contemporaneous with the filing of the suit, Sopris Lodging and TDC entered into an agreement to toll the statute of limitations on Sopris Lodging’s potential claims against TDC. In August 2013, Sopris Lodging joined the general contractor to the suit. A year later, in 2014, the general contractor joined a variety of subcontractors as third-party defendants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Jean may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Insurer Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Construction Defect Claims
February 10, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer unsuccessfully moved for summary judgment, contending it had no obligation to defend two related underlying construction defect cases. Amerisure Ins. Co. v. R.L.Lantana Boatyard, Ltd., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2466 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 9, 2012).
An engineering report noted design construction defects and deficiencies in visible, physical improvements at The Moorings at Lantana Condominium. In two lawsuits, The Moorings sued the developer, R.L. Lantana Boatyard ("RLLB"), and the contractor, Current Builders of Florida.
Current Builders was insured by Amerisure. RLLB was named as an additional insured under the Amerisure policy.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lenders and Post-Foreclosure Purchasers Have Standing to Make Construction Defect Claims for After-Discovered Conditions
August 12, 2013 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswelll, LLCThe Colorado Court of Appeals has decided a case which answers a question long in need of an answer: do banks/lenders have standing to assert construction defect claims when they receive title to a newly-constructed home following a foreclosure sale or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure? The decision was released on August 1, 2013, in the case of Mid Valley Real Estate Solutions V, LLC v. Hepworth-Pawlack Geotechnical, Inc., Steve Pawlak, Daniel Hadin, and S K Peightal Engineers, Ltd. (Colorado Court of Appeals No. 13CA0519).
The background facts of the case are typical of a Colorado residential construction defect case generally. A developer contracted for an analytical soil engineering report from a geotechnical engineering firm (H-P) which made a foundation recommendation. The developer’s general contractor then retained an engineering firm (SPKE) to provide engineering services, including a foundation design. The general contractor built the foundation in accordance with the H-P and SPKE criteria and plans.
The house was not sold by the developer and went into default on the construction loan. These events resulted in a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure to a bank-controlled entity which purchased the house for re-sale. Shortly after receiving the developer’s deed, the bank-related entity discovered defects in the foundation that resulted in a construction defect suit against the two design firms and related individuals.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. can be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall
December 30, 2019 —
Jonathan R. Harwood - Traub Lieberman PerspectivesOn September 30, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner Jonathan Harwood obtained summary judgment in an action involving a guest injured in a fall at a wedding. Traub Lieberman’s client owned the property where the fall occurred. Plaintiff fell while exiting a row of seats after the bridal party had recessed down the aisle. Plaintiff claimed that she tripped over the raised side of a paper runner that had been placed in the aisle at the property. Plaintiff brought an action against Traub Lieberman’s client (the owner of the building) and the florist that had provided the runner. The owner had provided the bridal party with access to the property but did not assist in the set up for the wedding or have any employees present during the ceremony. The florist had supplied the runner for the wedding. The florist commenced a third-party action against the bride, whose wedding party had actually placed the runner in the aisle. Plaintiff asserted that the runner had become bunched and crumpled during the ceremony, creating a dangerous condition. She further asserted that the owner was responsible for her injuries since the dangerous condition existed on its property and it should have an employee present to insure no dangerous conditions existed.
During the course of discovery, Mr. Harwood established that no one representing the owner was present during the wedding, had any involvement in the placement of the runner or had received any complaints about the runner. In support of the motion for summary judgment Mr. Harwood introduced pictures showing, in conjunction with deposition testimony, that there were no problems with the runner minutes before plaintiff’s fall. Mr. Harwood also argued that the alleged defect did not involve the property itself, absolving the owner of any obligation to plaintiff. In granting the motion for summary judgment, the court held that evidence and testimony showed that the owner neither created the condition nor had actual or constructive notice that any dangerous condition existed. The court also held that there the owner did not have any duty to have a representative present during the wedding since the property itself was not dangerous or defective. Finally, the court held that the condition of the runner was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub LiebermanMr. Harwood may be contacted at
jharwood@tlsslaw.com
A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)
March 06, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelIt is already early in 2022, but several important environmental cases have already been decided by the federal district and federal appellate courts.
THE COURTS OF APPEAL
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
West Virginia State University Board of Governors v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al.
On January 10, 2022, the court decided this case, in which Dow and the other defendants attempted to remove a state groundwater contamination lawsuit to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the presence of a significant federal question. Both the federal district court and the appellate court rejected these arguments and remanded the lawsuit to the state court. For many years, Dow and other parties had been engaged in a RCRA hazardous waste cleanup at an industrial site located in Institute, West Virginia. RCRA permits and corrective action authorizations were issued or supervised by EPA. The plaintiffs complained that the groundwater cleanup, insofar as it affected their property, was deficient, which compelled them to supplement the ongoing federal cleanup with a lawsuit based on West Virginia causes of action and unique to their property. After a careful review of the record, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendants were not acting under the “subjection, guidance or control” of the EPA, and therefore the federal officer removal statute did not apply. Moreover, there was no federal question to resolve as the separate state lawsuit did not challenge a CERCLA cleanup nor did it arise from the RCRA remedial measures that had been taken.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
