Focusing on Design Elements of the 2014 World Cup Stadiums
June 30, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFWhile Garret Murai on his California Construction Law blog admits that the construction of Brazil’s World Cup stadiums has been problematic (construction worker deaths, delays, and cost overruns), he focused on the design work: “…there’s no denying that the venues are stunning, and for a country known for its beauty as well as beauties (think the Girl From Ipanema), dare I say even sexy.”
For instance, Murai described the Estadio do Maracana (constructed in 1950 and renovated in 2013) as looking “a bit like the front of the USS Enterprise.” He goes onto explain how the stadium was originally constructed for the 1950 World Cup, and “famous” attendees include Frank Sinatra and the Pope.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homeowners Should Beware, Warn Home Builders
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn the aftermath of a tornado in central Illinois, home builders are warning homeowners to be wary of scam artists. “We need to protect consumers from repair scams,” said Lisa Scott, the executive director of the Home Builders Association of Greater Peoria. “After a devastating storm, people come in from outside the area to offer help,” she said, noting that some will be offering help they won’t actually provide.
“This isn’t about supporting our members,” she said, “this is about having somebody who stands by their work instead of paying cash for a roof job and having no one to call when a few months later, it starts leaking.” She further warns, “you shouldn’t be paying cash. You should have a contract.”
One home builder, David Whitehurst, owner of P & W Builders, noted that “there will be a lot of people out there trying to make a quick buck that aren’t qualified to do the work.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Attorney Writing Series on Misconceptions over Construction Defects
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFMark Wiechnik, a litigation partner at Herrick, Feinstein LLP, has started a seven-part series in which he looks at the misconceptions homeowner board members have when they’re facing construction defect lawsuits. He opens by setting the scene of unit owners “complaining of leaks, roof problems, mold and myriad of other issues”, but conflicting views on what to do about them. In his series, he looks at some of the most common mistaken assumptions and discusses how board members should respond.
Wiechnik’s first misconception examined is the claim that “we should file a homeowners warranty claim right away!” He notes that this is “rarely a good idea,” since if the building is more than two years old, the warranty will only be worthwhile if the building is near collapse. He also notes that once you file a warranty claim, “the association is precluded from ever filing a lawsuit on that issue.”
Additionally, Wiechnik points out that filing a warranty claim puts everything into the hands of an arbitrator, who gets control of the whole process and whose decision is final, whether the association is happy with the results. Further, he notes, “the program favors builders and contractors over the homeowners.”
In his second section, he looks at the fears that if the developer is bankrupt, there is no point is suing. Here he notes that the money for repairs does not come from the developer, but “from the developer’s and subcontractor’s insurance carriers.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado’s Need for Condos May Spark Construction Defect Law Reform
January 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFOn January 6th, Ed Sealover of the Denver Business Journal reported that Denver Mayor Michael Hancock has asked Colorado legislators “to pass a reform law that will make it easier to build condos without fear of getting sued.” Hancock is one of several mayors “to advocate for a construction defects reform proposal that was killed by Democrats in a committee last year.”
The problem, Sealover notes, is that only “2 percent of new housing in the state is multifamily units made for ownership—far lower than the 20 to 25 percent of such housing stock in other states represented by condos.”
There is some dissent as to whether reforming construction defect laws is the solution to the housing problem: “Taking away rights of homeowners to get shoddy construction fixed in what is likely the most expensive purchase in their life is not the way to fix the lack of affordable housing,” Lynea Hansen, spokeswoman for a group of construction defect homeowners told Sealover.
Furthermore, on January 7th, Sealover reported that Democrats “expressed skepticism” about a need to reform the laws, saying “they need more data on what is causing owner-occupied multifamily housing to be such a small part of the new housing market.” Moreover, Senate President-elect Morgan Carroll stated that she “wants to look into issues like why it is so hard to get insurance for building condominiums or examine why some areas of Colorado are seeing condo development and others aren’t.”
Read the full story, January 6th article...
Read the full story, January 7th article... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When OSHA Cites You
April 22, 2024 —
Michael Metz-Topodas - Construction ExecutiveWith the strong bonds that form among construction project teams, workers looking out for each other helps keep safety foremost in everyone’s mind. But sometimes, even the very best intentions alone can’t prevent an occasional misstep—a forgotten hard hat, a sagging rope line—which can and often does result in an OSHA citation. These regulatory reminders can bring unfortunate consequences: penalties, higher insurance premiums, potential worker injury claims, loss of bidding eligibility, loss of reputation and even public embarrassment, because citations are published on OSHA’s website.
Due to citations’ adverse effects, contractors have incentives to minimize them. They can do this by asserting available defenses, because a citation is only an alleged violation, not a confirmed one. But making defenses available begins well before a citation is issued, well before OSHA arrives to a construction site and well before a violation even occurs. Instead, contractors’ ongoing safety programs should incorporate the necessary measures to preserve OSHA citation defenses in three key areas: lack of employee exposure, lack of employer knowledge and impossibility.
EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE
To sustain a citation against an employer, OSHA must not only identify an applicable standard that the company violated but also show that the violation exposed employees to hazards and risk of injury. Absent evidence of actual exposure, OSHA often makes this showing by asserting that performing job functions necessarily exposes employees to the cited hazard.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Metz-Topodas, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Metz-Topodas may be contacted at
michael.metz-topodas@saul.com
NTSB Sheds Light on Fatal Baltimore Work Zone Crash
April 25, 2023 —
Justin Rice - Engineering News-RecordThe National Transportation Safety Board recently released conclusions of a preliminary investigation into a March 22
crash that killed six construction workers when an errant car sped through a work zone along the Interstate-695 Beltway in Baltimore.
Reprinted courtesy of
Justin Rice, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Rice may be contacted at ricej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oklahoma Finds Policy Can Be Assigned Post-Loss
April 26, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiOklahoma joined the majority of court in finding that after a loss occurs, the insured can assign the policy to another. Johnson v. CSAA Gen. Ins. Co., 2020 Okla LEXIS 118 (Okla. Dec. 15, 2020).
Johnson's property was damaged in a storm. She filed a claim with her insurer. She also executed an assignment of her claim in order to repair the property with the execution of assignment to Triple Diamond Construction LLC. An appraiser retained by Triple Diamond determined the storm damage was $36,346.06. The insurer paid only $21,725.36 for the loss.
Johnson and Triple Diamond sued the insurer for breach of contract, seeking $14,620.70, not inclusive of interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The insurer filed a motion to dismiss, or an alternative motion for summary judgment to dismiss Triple Diamond as a party. The insurer argued that both the policy and an Oklahoma statute barred the assignment. The district court granted the insurer's motion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
