Commercial Real Estate Brokerages in an Uncertain Russian Market
March 28, 2022 —
Cait Horner & Adam J. Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogSeveral commercial real estate firms have joined the growing list of companies temporarily suspending – or outright terminating – property and facility management operations in Russia amid economic sanctions and mounting international pressure. CBRE is the latest to make such a move, discontinuing its Russian leasing, investment and property management operations and denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in a statement issued March 7th. Other major players, including Savills, Knight Frank, and Colliers, have already suspended operations in the country, citing similar concern for international sanctions and the humanitarian impact of the invasion. Colliers is going even further to suspend operations in Belarus as well. Recently, global real estate service giant JLL switched course, issuing a formal statement that “with great sadness,” it will begin the process of separating from its domestic operations in Russia, though not commenting on whether the separation will be temporary or permanent. This is a significant change from just earlier this month , where, when asked about pulling operations from the country, JLL stated it would stay abreast of the situation abroad and continue to ensure the safety of its people and clients.
Now that CBRE and Dallas-based JLL have joined the list, Houston-based powerhouse Hines appears to be continuing its “wait and see” approach. Hines currently owns Russian assets valued at $2.9 billion, nearly 2 percent of its entire $160 billion asset portfolio, and its property management portfolio manages more than 243 million square feet worldwide. While other firms have temporarily suspended current operations, Hines has gone so far as to say it will avoid servicing any future investments in the country, though it did similarly condemn Russia’s actions. With JLL’s recent decision , if Hines does take a stronger stance, it will likely happen soon.
Reprinted courtesy of
Cait Horner, Pillsbury and
Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury
Ms. Horner may be contacted at cait.horner@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massachusetts District Court Holds Contractors Are Not Additional Insureds on Developer’s Builder’s Risk Policy
August 31, 2020 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Factory Mut. Ins. Co. v. Skanska United States Bldg., No. 18-cv-11700-DLC, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95403 (Skanska), the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts considered whether contractors on a construction job were additional insureds on the developer’s builder’s risk insurance policy. After a water loss occurred during construction, the builder’s risk insurance carrier paid its named insured for the resultant damage, and subsequently filed a subrogation action against two contractors. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that the anti-subrogation rule barred the carrier from subrogating against them because they were additional insureds on the policy. The court found that based on the particular language of the additional insured provision in the policy, the defendants were not additional insureds for purposes of the subrogation action.
Skanska arose from property damage that occurred during a construction project where Novartis Corporation (Novartis) endeavored to construct a biomedical research building in Cambridge, Massachusetts and retained Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska) as the general contractor. In turn, Skanksa hired J.C. Cannistraro, LLC (JCC) as a subcontractor. Novartis secured a builder’s risk insurance policy from Factory Mutual Insurance Company (Factory Mutual). The policy defined “Insured” as Novartis and its subsidiaries, partnerships and joint ventures that it controlled or owned. The policy included another provision, titled “Property Damage,” which stated that the policy “insures the interest of contractors and subcontractors in insured property… to the extent of the Insured’s legal liability for insured physical loss or damage to such property.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Pre-Suit Settlement Offers and Construction Lien Actions
July 21, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIt is unfortunate, but in certain matters, a construction lien foreclosure action is not actually driven by the principal amount in dispute. Oh no. Rather, it is driven by attorney’s fees. That’s right. Attorney’s fees. This is true even though Florida applies the significant issues test to determine the prevailing party for purposes of attorney’s fees. However, oftentimes the prospect of attorney’s fees is enough for parties to fear that exposure.
There is a 1985 Florida Supreme Court case that I like to cite if applicable, C.U. Associates, Inc. v. R.B. Grove, Inc., 472 So.2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 1985), that finds, “in order to be a prevailing party entitled to the award of attorney’s fees pursuant to section 713.29 [a construction lien claim], a litigant must have recovered an amount exceeding that which was earlier offered in settlement of the claim.” Accord Sullivan v. Galske, 917 So.2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (explaining that although contractor is receiving a judgment in his favor, he may not be the prevailing party if the homeowner offered to settle prior to the lawsuit for an amount equal to or greater than the award in the judgment).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection
May 18, 2020 —
Kyle Janecek & Jason Morris - Newmeyer DillionMost landlords and property managers are now familiar with steps they should be taking to reduce the spread of COVID-19. But what if a tenant or employee has tested positive with COVID-19? Unfortunately, many landlords and property managers are grappling with this very question. While there’s some clarity as it pertains to evictions in the landlord-tenant context, other considerations like disinfection, required notices, and maintenance, are evolving or unclear. Here are steps landlords and property managers can take in response to an employee or tenant testing positive with COVID-19.
Measures Landlords Can Take for Employees
For workplaces, there is a large variety of guidelines and procedures that are generally available to review. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has valuable guidance available online here and here. The Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) has valuable guidance available online here. In short, if there is an incident where one employee may have exposed others to COVID-19, here are five steps employers should take:
- Send the affected employee home and instruct them not to return to work until the criteria to discontinue home isolation are met in consultation with healthcare providers, and state and local health departments. Make sure to maintain all information about employee illnesses as a confidential medical record.
- Ask the affected employee whether they have had close contact with any other workers.
Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion and
Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rhode Island Affirms The Principle That Sureties Must be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can be Held Liable for Principal’s Default
August 21, 2023 —
Dennis Cavanaugh & Tasnuva Islam - Construction Law ZoneMost bond forms in use today, including the standard form AIA A312-2010, contain express condition precedents that trigger a surety’s obligations under the bond. Under a performance bond, the bond obligee is required to provide formal notice to the surety that the principal has materially defaulted and that the surety must begin to perform under the terms of the bond. This principle is grounded in the idea that the surety should have an opportunity to address the default and investigate the claim so as to mitigate its own liability. Failure to provide sufficient notice will discharge the surety of its obligations under the bond.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dennis Cavanaugh, Robinson & Cole LLP and
Tasnuva Islam, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Cavanaugh may be contacted at dcavanaugh@rc.com
Ms. Islam may be contacted at tislam@rc.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Guardrail Maker Defrauded U.S. of $175 Million and Created Hazard, Jury Says
October 22, 2014 —
Patrick G. Lee – BloombergSecret changes by Trinity Industries Inc. to its guardrail systems were found to have cheated the U.S. government, exposing the company to $1 billion in damages and penalties and sending shares plummeting as states question the safety of the product.
The east Texas jury’s verdict comes as scrutiny of the highway-safety product called the ET-Plus intensifies across the country after it’s been blamed for multiple deaths. The Federal Highway Administration this month asked all states to start submitting information on crashes involving the ET-Plus to the agency’s safety office.
The agency will evaluate the findings of the case and “consider whether it affects the continued eligibility of the ET-Plus,” Brian Farber, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said in an e-mail.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick G. Lee, BloombergMr. Lee may be contacted at
plee315@bloomberg.net
Hurricane Harvey Victims Face New Hurdles In Pursuing Coverage
September 07, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiJust as Hurricane Harvey departs the state, a new law in Texas, effective September 1, 2017, is going to make it more difficult for home and business owners to pursue claims against their insurance companies.
Prior Texas law imposed liability on an insurer who violated the Insurance Code for the amount of the claim, interest on the amount of the claim at an annual interest rate of 18 percent, and reasonable attorney fees. H.B. 1774 was recently enacted to address legal actions for claims arising from damage to or loss of property due to hailstorms, lightening, wind, hurricane, rainstorm and other natural events.
The bill creates additional procedural hurdles before a policy holder can file a lawsuit against the insurer. A written notice must be provided to the insurer at least 61 days before filing a lawsuit. The notice must include a statement of the acts giving rise to the claim, the specific amount alleged to be owed, and amount of reasonable and necessary attorney's fees already incurred by the policy holder. Once notice is received, the statute allows the insurers to send a written request to inspect, photograph, or evaluate the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
PSA: Virginia Repeals Its Permanent COVID-19 Safety Standard
May 10, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn January of 2021, Virginia was one of the first states to adopt a permanent workplace safety standard setting out employer requirements for COVID safety. Later that same year, the Virginia Department of Labor and Industry updated the standard to make it less confusing and more easily complied with.
Now, as of March 21, 2022, DOLI has repealed that permanent standard in response to the changes in COVID guidance and other new information. Instead of a permanent standard, DOLI provides “Guidance for Employers to Mitigate the Risk of COVID-19 to Employees.” This guidance, along with the advice of counsel, should help you in moving forward during the next phase of the COVID pandemic.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
