Safe Harbors- not just for Sailors anymore (or, why advance planning can prevent claims of defective plans & specs) (law note)
August 17, 2011 —
Melissa Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaHave you ever considered a “Safe Harbor Provision” for your Owner-Architect or Owner-Engineer contract? Maybe it is time that you do.
As you are (probably too well) aware, on every construction project there are changes. Some of these are due to the owner’s change of heart, value engineering concerns, contractor failures, and material substitutions. Some may be because of a design error, omission, or drawing conflict. It happens.
A “Safe Harbor Provision” is a provision that establishes an acceptable percentage of increased construction costs (that is, a percentage of the project’s contingency). The idea is that if the construction changes attributable to the designer is within this percentage, no claim will be made by the Owner for design defects.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Almost-Collapse of a Sarasota, Florida Condo Building
July 11, 2021 —
Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ StaffFive years ago, residents of the Dolphin Tower in Sarasota, Florida were forced to evacuate after cracks appeared in their fourth-floor condominium units.
“My assistant calls me and says, ‘[Kris] thinks the building is falling down,’” David Karins of Karins Engineering told Sarasota Magazine. “I said, ‘I doubt that.’ Then I got there and saw what was going on and I said, ‘You know, the building may be falling down.’”
In July of 2010, city officials ordered all residents to evacuate. Five years and $11 million dollars in rehabilitation and residents were finally able to move back in last month.
The Herald-Tribune had previously interviewed John Bonacci, an engineer at Sarasota’s Karins Engineering: “I’d say yes, there was grave danger. It was luck that it didn’t come all the way down. Getting shoring in there quickly was instrumental in preventing it from collapsing.”
Read the full story, Sarasota Magazine...
Read the full story, Herald-Tribune...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic
April 06, 2020 —
Lori Smith & Patrick Devine - White and Williams Taking Care of Business BlogIncreasingly, M&A transactions are using representation and warranty insurance (RWI) to bridge the gap between a buyer’s desire for adequate recourse to recover damages arising out of breach of representations in the purchase agreement and a seller’s desire to minimize post-closing risk and holdbacks or purchase price escrows traditionally used as the means to satisfy such obligations. When it works, RWI provides a significant benefit to both parties: it mitigates the buyer’s risk in the event that the seller’s representations and warranties prove untrue, and it permits the seller to reduce the portion of the purchase price that it would otherwise have to leave in escrow to cover future claims for breach of those representations and warranties. However, as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the global economy, insurers are now expressly adding COVID-19 exclusions to their RWI policies. If RWI insurers decline coverage for these losses, the allocation of risk in the representations and warranties (and related indemnity provisions) will be more critical than the parties contemplated when they negotiated the transaction documents.
Unlike in the case of a natural disaster, insurers cannot quantify the economic fallout that may result from the coronavirus pandemic. This uncertainty breeds systemic concern about the number of insurance claims that covered parties of all varieties will bring, which in turn creates an industry-wide reluctance to cover the claims. Based on discussions with market participants, we understand that, at the present time, 70% to 80% of RWI insurers are broadly excluding losses resulting from COVID-19 and similar viruses, epidemics, and pandemics (including government actions in response thereto), 5% to 10% are narrowly excluding specific coronavirus-related losses that are more likely to be implicated in a particular transaction (e.g., losses caused by business interruption), and 10% to 15% may be willing to narrow their exclusions upon completion of the underwriting process, depending on their comfort level after conducting rigorous and heightened diligence. Insurers’ concerns are wide-ranging, but the representations and warranties causing the greatest distress appear to be those regarding customer retention, supply chain matters, undisclosed liabilities, and the absence of changes between the date of the seller’s most recent financial statements and the transaction closing date.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Smith, White and Williams and
Patrick Devine, White and Williams
Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at devinep@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado
June 20, 2022 —
Spencer Soper - BloombergAmazon.com Inc. should better prepare workers for extreme weather events, according to federal regulators who investigated a deadly tornado strike on a company warehouse in Edwardsville, Illinois.
The storm ripped through the facility in December, killing six workers and injuring several others, prompting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to launch a probe. At the time, Amazon said the facility complied with all construction regulations and that proper safety procedures were followed when the tornado struck. But several workers told Bloomberg that training for such events was minimal and mostly entailed pointing out emergency exits and assembly points.
An OSHA report released on Tuesday echoed those concerns. The agency said a bullhorn that was supposed to be used to tell workers to take cover was locked up in a cage and inaccessible. In interviews with investigators, some employees couldn’t recall ever participating in emergency drills and said they mistakenly took shelter in a bathroom on the south side of the building rather than in designated restrooms on the north side.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Spencer Soper, Bloomberg
UPDATE - McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court
June 05, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Glenn T. Barger, & David A. Napper - CGDRB News & PublicationsThe matter has been fully briefed since last year and the construction industry anxiously awaits the California Supreme Court's highly anticipated decision regarding McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132. Numerous amicus briefs have also been filed including one by the Association of Southern California Defense Counsel, with the immediate past president of the organization, CGDRB's Glenn T. Barger, Esq., listed as the attorney of record. The Supreme Court will consider the issue of whether the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, thereby resolving the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District's holding in McMillin Albany, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District's holding in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, on this particular issue. Oral argument is still pending and CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the progress of this case. Stay tuned.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Glenn T. Barger and
David A. Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations
May 27, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Tennessee Supreme Court has refused to construe an ambiguous definition of actual cash value to allow for deduction of labor costs as part of depreciation calculations where that subset of repair costs are not clearly addressed in the policy. Despite the split of authority nationwide, the Tennessee case presents a straightforward application of policy interpretation principles to a common valuation issue in first-party property claims.
In Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Co., No. M2017-2546-SC-R23-CV (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2019), insureds brought a class-action lawsuit against their property insurer, Auto-Owners, alleging breach of contract. The plaintiffs each owned buildings damaged by a hail storm and had each submitted claims to Auto-Owners. Auto-Owners accepted the claims and determined that the losses would be determined on an actual cash value basis. In performing those valuations, Auto-Owners depreciated both the building materials and the labor costs associated with repairing the properties. The insureds challenged the labor cost depreciation. Auto-Owners moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response, the insureds requested that the district court certify to the Tennessee Supreme Court whether, “[u]nder Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as ‘the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss,’ or (2) states that ‘actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation?”’
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Thank You Once Again for the Legal Elite Election for 2022
December 18, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThank you once again to those in the Virginia legal community who elected me to the Virginia Business Legal Elite in the Construction Law category for the 16th consecutive year. The 16 consecutive years of election to the Legal Elite in the Construction Category span my time as a solo construction attorney. The fact that you all have continued to elect “100%” of the lawyers at The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC for the last 12 years is most gratifying and only confirms that my decision to “go solo” over 12 years ago was a good one. To be included in this list of top construction attorneys is both humbling and gratifying. For the complete list of the Virginia construction lawyers that were elected along with me, see the
2022 Virginia Business Legal Elite in Construction Law.
So without further ado, thank you to all of you who voted for me. I truly appreciate your continued confidence and support of my construction law practice. Your yearly votes always prod me to learn and continually improve to meet your expectations and keep my practice at this high level. I also couldn’t do this without the great support from friends and family (not to mention clients), so my gratitude goes out to these great folks.
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
Tick Tock: Don’t Let the Statute of Repose or Limitations Time Periods Run on Your Construction Claims
February 28, 2022 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Wascher v. ABC Ins. Co., No. 2020AP1961, 2022 Wisc. App. LEXIS 110 (Feb. 9, 2022), the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin considered whether the plaintiffs were barred — by Wisconsin’s 10-year statute of repose for improvements to real property claims and the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract claims — from bringing a lawsuit against the original builders of their home. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of contract against the masonry subcontractors, asserting that they improperly installed the exterior stone cladding. The court found that the plaintiffs’ claims against the original builders were time-barred.
In 2005, the plaintiffs, Thomas and Pamela Wascher (the Waschers) retained Mathwig Builders (Mathwig) as the general contractor for the construction of their home in Greenville, Wisconsin. Mathwig subcontracted defendants Natural Surfaces, LLC (Natural Surfaces) and Carved Stone Creations (CSC) to install the stone cladding on the exterior walls and patio for the home. On November 3, 2008, the Township of Greenville inspected the home and granted the Waschers permission to occupy the residence. The Waschers moved into the home within the next few weeks. In early 2009, the Waschers discovered efflorescence on the stone cladding for the patio. In 2010, the Waschers hired CSC to repair the stone cladding. CSC removed some stone, which revealed that flashing had not been installed behind the stone, which caused water to infiltrate the stone and patio.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
