Duke Energy Appeals N.C. Order to Excavate Nine Coal Ash Pits
April 17, 2019 —
Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-RecordDuke Energy Progress said April 11 it will appeal the North Carolina Dept. of Environmental Quality’s order issued earlier this month to excavate nine remaining large coal ash pits at six power plants in the state and move ash to lined landfills; the firm claims the new mandate at sites previously deemed low-risk will cost up to $5 billion to implement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.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
Lenders Facing Soaring Costs Shutting Out U.S. Homebuyers
October 29, 2014 —
Alexis Leondis and Clea Benson – BloombergClem Ziroli Jr.’s mortgage firm, which has seen its costs soar to comply with new regulations, used to make about three loans a day. This year Ziroli said he’s lucky if one gets done.
His First Mortgage Corp., which mostly loans to borrowers with lower FICO credit scores and thick, complicated files, must devote triple the time to ensure paperwork conforms to rules created after the housing crash. To ease the burden, Ziroli hired three executives a few months ago to also focus on lending to safe borrowers with simpler applications.
“The biggest thing people are suffering from is the cost to manufacture a loan,” said Ziroli, president of the Ontario, California-based firm and a 22-year industry veteran. “If you have a high credit score, it’s easier. For deserving borrowers with lower scores, the cost for mistakes is prohibitive and is causing lenders to not want to make those loans.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Alexis Leondis, Bloomberg and
Clea Benson, Bloomberg
Ms. Leondis may be contacted at aleondis@bloomberg.net; Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
PA Supreme Court to Rule on Scope of Judges' Credibility Determinations
April 20, 2016 —
Max Kimbrough – White and Williams LLPIn IA Construction v. WCAB (Rhodes), the Commonwealth Court reversed the WCJ’s decision to deny the employer’s Modification Petition on the basis that the employer’s medical expert was not credible. In the underlying case, the claimant was determined to have sustained compensable work injuries to his head, neck and back. The employer subsequently filed a Modification Petition, seeking to modify benefits to Partial Disability based on an Impairment Rating Evaluation (IRE) which found that the claimant had a 34% whole body impairment. The WCJ ultimately denied the employer’s Modification Petition, finding that the IRE physician's categorization of the claimant's injuries and interpretation of the claimant's impairment level from his brain injury was not credible.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Max Kimbrough, White and Williams LLPMr. Kimbrough may be contacted at
kimbroughm@whiteandwilliams.com
New York Shuts Down Majority of Construction
March 30, 2020 —
Laura Bourgeois LoBue & Matthew D. Stockwell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogDue to pressure from construction workers, officials, and some construction workers having tested positive for COVID-19, the Empire State Development Corp. (acting on behalf of Governor Cuomo) has frozen all construction in New York today, with the exception of work on hospitals and health care facilities, transit facilities, roads and bridges, affordable housing and homeless shelters.
As a result, commercial construction and condominium projects are on hold, with the exception of work that must be completed to prevent unsafe conditions. Until now, construction has been considered “essential” in New York.
Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Bourgeois LoBue, Pillsbury and
Matthew D. Stockwell, Pillsbury
Ms. LoBue may be contacted at laura.lobue@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Stockwell may be contacted at matthew.stockwell@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala Win Summary Judgment in Favor of Insurer, Determining it has No Duty to Defend
September 18, 2023 —
Traub LiebermanIn a declaratory judgment action brought before the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Traub Lieberman Partner Eric D. Suben and Associate Laura Puhala won summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Foremost Signature Insurance Co. (“Foremost”), obtaining a declaration that it has no obligation to defend or indemnify Defendant 170 Little East Neck Road LLC (“Little East”) in an underlying state court personal injury action.
In the underlying action, a self-employed financial advisor leasing a suite for her business on the second floor of the property at 170 Little East Neck Road (the “Property”), sued Little East in New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County, alleging injuries resulting from slipping on ice on a walkway near an exterior door at the Property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub Lieberman and
Laura S. Puhala, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Suben may be contacted at esuben@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Puhala may be contacted at lpuhala@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
A Tort, By Any Other Name, is Just a Tort: Massachusetts Court Bars Contract Claims That Sound in Negligence
March 20, 2023 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn University of Massachusetts Building Authority v. Adams Plumbing & Heating, Inc., 2023 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 28, 102 Mass. App. Ct. 1107, the Appeals Court of Massachusetts (Appeals Court) considered whether the lower court properly held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were time-barred by the statute of repose because they sounded in tort. The Appeals Court held that while the six-year statute of repose only applies to tort claims, they can also bar claims for breach of contract and indemnification if they sound in tort. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling, finding that the plaintiff’s breach of contract and indemnification claims were just negligence claims disguised as non-tort claims.
In 2013 and 2014, the University of Massachusetts (UMass) retained various contractors to renovate the dining hall for one of its campus buildings, which included the installation of new ductwork for the kitchen’s exhaust system. The dining hall opened for service in September 2014. In the Spring of 2018, it was discovered that the ductwork for the kitchen had collapsed. Further investigation revealed other deficiencies with the exhaust system. On December 1, 2020, UMass filed a lawsuit against various contractors, asserting negligence, breach of contract, and indemnification. The breach of contract claims alleged breach of express warranties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know
February 07, 2018 —
Sarah K. Carpenter – Smith Currie BlogClaims on construction projects are unpleasant, but sometimes unavoidable. Contract with the federal government and you are by statute and by contract required to resolve any and all disputes under the Contract Disputes Act. So what is the Contract Disputes Act? This article sets forth basic information all federal government contractors should know when faced with the necessity of making or defending a claim on a federal project.
What Is the Contract Disputes Act?
The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA or Act) was enacted by Congress to implement a comprehensive statutory scheme for the resolution of government contract claims. The CDA provides a framework for asserting and handling claims by either the government or a contractor. All disputes under the CDA must be submitted to either the U.S Court of Federal Claims or to an administrative board of contract appeals. The vast majority of board cases are handled by either the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The ASBCA is generally responsible for deciding appeals from decisions of contracting officers in the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, NASA, and when specified, the CIA. The CBCA hears disputes from all other executive agencies except the United States Postal Service (USPS), the Postal Rate Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The USPS is served by the Postal Service BCA. In addition, the Government Accountability Office Contract Appeals Board handles contract disputes arising in the legislative branch, and the Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition handles contract disputes and bid protests arising out of Federal Aviation Administration procurements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
