What Does “Mold Resistant” Really Mean?
December 21, 2016 —
Duane Craig – Construction InformerMold resistant building products offer to reduce the long term risks builders and architects face, but it’s important to know how companies verify their products are truly mold resistant. Here’s the deep story.
It may come as a surprise to many but we live in a world that is infested with mold. Some sources put the number of species of mold, or fungi, at three hundred thousand or more. Most of these fungi spend their time doing useful things like breaking down complex substances into simpler compounds. For example the single-celled forms of fungi, called yeast, make bread, beer, and wine possible. Even most of the multi-celled, or hyphae molds, serve the planet by decomposing organic matter so it can be recycled and reused by other life forms on earth.
Outdoor Mold Dominates
The built environment definitely has its share of mold. But new research has found that most of the mold occurring inside is actually of the outdoor variety. In “The Diversity and Distribution of Fungi on Residential Surfaces” study, Rachel I. Adams and researchers “sampled fungi from three surface types likely to support growth and therefore possible contributors of fungi to indoor air: drains in kitchens and bathrooms, sills beneath condensation-prone windows, and skin of human inhabitants. ” They took the samples at a university housing complex that didn’t have any mold problems.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Duane Craig, Construction InformerMr. Craig may be contacted at
dtcraig@constructioninformer.com
Montana Theater Threatened by Closure due to Building Safety
January 14, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFPhil Henderson, owner of Stevensville Hardware which is adjacent to the theater, has sued the Stevensville Playhouse, alleging that one of the theater building’s walls leans over into his property, according to the Bitterroot Star. Henderson stated that the leaning wall is interfering with construction plan, and he also alleges that the building is not safe and should be condemned.
A building inspector hired by Henderson declared that “…it seems necessary to notify the Stevensville Playhouse that their structure is to be immediately considered unsafe for entry, occupancy, etc.” However, another engineering firm presented a different view on the situation: “The playhouse has withstood many snow storms and earthquakes during its life and will likely continue to function well into the future. We do not mean to downplay the need to perform the recommended repairs, but we do not feel that the building needs to be condemned at this point.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims Four Years Later: What Have We Learned?
September 23, 2024 —
Patrick McKnight - The Dispute ResolverFour and half years ago the COVID-19 pandemic spread around the globe, bringing with it interesting, but challenging, legal problems for construction attorneys. Construction projects ground to a halt. Ever-changing guidance from authorities ranging from the U.S. Department of Labor to local health authorities resulted in a web of evolving obligations for general contractors and subs alike. One of the most closely watched legal questions was the wave of business interruption claims filed by plaintiffs, many of whom owned businesses impacted by government shutdowns. During the opening months of the pandemic, I
noted that hundreds of business interruption claims had been filed by insureds across the country. At that time, the only thing certain was that although the outcome remained unknown, virus exclusions were likely to become more likely in the future. Needless to say, much has happened since early 2020.
What does the data say about the outcome of business interruption claims?
In sum, plaintiffs have had an uphill battle. A helpful resource for analyzing the outcome of business interruption suits is the
Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker (“Tracker”), an insurance law analytics tool offered by Penn Carey Law of the University of Pennsylvania. According to its website, “[t]he Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker is a multi-sourced database and dashboard through which to view the unfolding insurance litigation arising out of the pandemic in federal and state courts. Widely cited in briefs, judicial opinions, and the press, the tracker also serves as a proof of concept for new methods to identify, track, and understand emerging case congregations in real time.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLPMr. McKnight may be contacted at
pmcknight@foxrothschild.com
Ethical Limits on Preparing a Witness for Deposition or Trial
October 28, 2024 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverIn this week’s blog post, we are going to take a brief look at ethical issues associated with preparing a witness for a deposition or to testify at trial. Most attorneys would agree that it is permissible to meet with a witness before the witness’s deposition to discuss what to expect. On the other hand, there is no question that advising a witness to provide false testimony would be improper. But what about the area in between those two extremes? For instance, can an attorney suggest to a witness how to phrase answers to anticipated questions that, while true, might not be the way the witness would have answered the question absent the attorney’s coaching?
A little over a year ago, the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued ABA Formal Opinion 508: The Ethics of Witness Preparation. The opinion provides certain examples of things that are and are not permissible in preparing a witness for a deposition or trial.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Preliminary Notices: Common Avoidable But Fatal Mistakes
August 26, 2019 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupIn the California building and construction industry, service of a “Preliminary Notice” is a prerequisite for Subcontractor and Supplier claims for payment through the Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice and Payment Bond Claim process. Without proper drafting and service of a Preliminary Notice, these extremely valuable claims cannot be protected. Unfortunately, despite the vital importance of the Preliminary Notice, Subcontractors and Suppliers often make common self-defeating mistakes that make their Preliminary Notice efforts completely ineffective, resulting in loss of their claims rights. The purpose of this article is to list some of these common mistakes in the hope that the reader will avoid such mistakes, preserve the integrity of the Preliminary Notice, and protect the claims rights it makes available:
Not Sending out the Preliminary Notice Within 20 Days After Supplying Labor or Materials:
The protection of a Preliminary Notice begins 20 days before it sent out. This means that if a Subcontractor or Supplier claimant delivered $100,000 in materials on February 1, that same claimant must serve the Preliminary Notice on or before February 21 (the sooner the better), or the claimant will not be able to pursue an enforceable Mechanics Lien, Stop Payment Notice or Payment Bond claim for that $100,000. There are very few exceptions. Best practice: A Subcontractor or Supplier must send out the Preliminary Notice as soon as an agreement to provide work or materials to a California construction project is in place (See California Civil Code 8204).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
LaGuardia Airport Is a Mess. An Engineer-Turned-Fund Manager Has a Fix
May 26, 2019 —
Sree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam - BloombergThierry Déau’s engineering training in France led him early in his career to building government-funded infrastructure. But it was his entrepreneur father back home in Martinique who inspired him to strike out on his own in 2005. He started Paris-based Meridiam to finance, build, and manage long-term projects. Now, with €7 billion ($7.83 billion) in seven funds and nine offices across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and North America, Meridiam is playing a key role in high-profile projects such as the upgrade of New York’s LaGuardia Airport and a road tunnel under the Port of Miami. Déau describes Meridiam’s investment approach in an interview with Bloomberg Markets.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sree Vidya Bhaktavatsalam, Bloomberg
Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos
October 11, 2017 —
Christian Singewald, Wesley Payne & Jonathan Woy - White and Williams LLPLawsuits against talcum powder manufacturers have recently made headlines for the multimillion dollar verdicts returned in favor of plaintiffs with ovarian cancer. However, lawsuits brought by individuals with mesothelioma who did not work in occupations traditionally associated with asbestos exposure represent another potential liability for talcum powder manufacturers and retailers. In such cases, expert testimony linking mesothelioma to trace amounts of asbestos in talcum powder should be carefully scrutinized.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Christian Singewald,
Wesley Payne and
Jonathan Woy
Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Payne may be contacted at paynew@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Woy may be contacted at woyj@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
