Condominium Construction Defect Resolution in the District of Columbia
October 26, 2017 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogNewly constructed and newly converted condominiums in the District of Columbia often contain concealed or “latent” construction defects. Left undetected and unrepaired, defects in the construction of a condominium can cause extensive damage over time, requiring associations to assess their members substantial repair costs that could have been avoided by making timely developer warranty claims.
This article provides a general overview of how Washington DC condominium associations transitioning from developer control can proactively and successfully identify defects and resolve construction defect claims with condominium developers and builders.
Condominium Association Responsibility for Timely Evaluation of Common Element Construction
Condominium associations are charged with the responsibility of overseeing and maintaining condominium common element facilities, typically consisting of building roofs, exterior walls, foundations, lobbies, common hallways, elevators, surrounding grounds, and the common structural mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. Following the period of developer control, it is incumbent upon a condominium association’s first unit owner elected board of directors to evaluate the construction of the condominium common element facilities and determine whether the existing, developer-created, budget and reserve fund are adequate to cover the cost of maintaining, repairing, and ultimately replacing the condominium facilities over time.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.Mr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
Hurricane Ian: Florida Expedites Road Work as Damage Comes Into Focus
October 10, 2022 —
Derek Lacey - Engineering News-RecordHurricane Ian’s devastation is coming into view days after the storm decimated southwest Florida. Work is underway to rebuild much of the state’s electrical, transportation and other infrastructure, with certain emergency road repairs expedited and restoration of power prioritized after the storm's devastation left millions in the dark and washed out roadways serving as the only access to barrier islands such as Sanibel Island and Pine Island.
Reprinted courtesy of
Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Transplants Send Nashville Home Market Upwards
October 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHome sales and prices are up in Nashville, Tennessee, but it isn’t the locals who are responsible. “People are moving from Florida, California, Texas, Arizona. People come from New York and New Jersey and can’t believe the home values and low taxes,” said Margaret Dixon, a Tennessee realtor. And they’re moving to areas that the locals haven’t embraced. They “don’t have imaginary boundaries in their heads.”
As a result, home sales are up 22% in the third quarter with a 9% rise in prices, as compared to the same quarter last year in Davidson County, where Nashville is located. In adjacent Williamson County, sales were up even more, with a 31% increase in volume and a 12% increase in price. Smyrna, home of Nissan’s LEAF electric car, saw a 25.5% increase in sales volume.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steel Component Plant Linked to West Virginia Governor Signs $1M Pollution Pact
January 04, 2023 —
Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-RecordBluestone Coke, a 100-year old Birmingham. Ala. factory that produces a key component in steelmaking and is partially owned by West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, must pay nearly $1 million under a Dec. 9 state consent decree for violating federal clean air rules by releasing toxic emissions from coke ovens.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Skilled Labor Shortage Implications for Construction Companies
July 15, 2019 —
Tony James & Keith Maciejewski - Construction ExecutiveThe construction industry is facing one of the most significant labor shortages it has ever seen. This labor shortage has far-reaching implications for worker safety and construction quality—both of which could adversely impact a company’s bottom line if investments are not made to address the issue.
What’s causing the labor gap?
There are two underlying trends driving this phenomenon:
- More experienced workers have either not returned to the industry after the Great Recession or are now retiring as they’ve concluded their careers.
- The construction industry has long struggled to attract new, younger workers to the industry, and this problem has only worsened as the broader economy boomed. As a result, construction firms must compete with other industries, such as health care, technology and engineering, for young talent.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tony James & Keith Maciejewski, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases
November 26, 2014 —
Casey J. Quinn - Newmeyer & Dillion LLPIn Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder.
The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim.
A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id.
Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006).
In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id.
It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ.
Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy.
About the Author
Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Finds That $400 Million Paid Into Abatement Fund Qualifies as “Damages” Under the Insured’s Policies
November 21, 2022 —
Lorelie S. Masters & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn
Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, et al., the Court of Appeals for Ohio’s Eighth District reversed the lower court, finding that money paid by the insured into an abatement fund was “damages” as that undefined term was used in the policyholder’s insurance policies. 2022-Ohio-3031, ¶ 1. Sherwin-Williams is a cautionary tale about how insurers may try to narrow the meaning of undefined terms in their insurance policies.
The dispute in Sherwin-Williams focused on coverage for $400 million that the policyholder and other defendants were ordered to pay into an abatement fund to be used by California cities and counties to mitigate the hazards caused by lead paint in homes. Id. ¶ 1. Although the underlying litigation proceeded in California, Ohio law governed coverage, which raised issues of first impression in Ohio. Id. Among other things, the insurers argued that the money paid into the abatement fund did not qualify as “damages” under the policies. Id. ¶ 57. The insured argued that, because the insurers did not define “damages” in the policies, the term had to be given its ordinary meaning. Id. ¶ 56.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
