The Hawaii State Senate voted down Senate Bill 2692. Had it been passed, the State Building Code Council would have been abolished and building codes would have become the responsibility of county governments. The bill was opposed by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Their director of code development, Wanda Edwards said that the bill “would have undermined key components that are essential to an effective state building code regime.”
Coverage of the ongoing litigation concerning the Harmon Hotel continues to proliferate. Architectural Record and a number of other news outlets continue to provide additional details and coverage of the matter. Chief among the conditions alleged are improperly installed reinforcing steel inside link beams on 15 floors. MGM Claims that the conditions amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, while Perini (the builder) indicated in a July 12th statement that the buildings problems are related to the design, and the they are “fixable.”
There is significant speculation that MGM Resorts International isn’t interested in repairing the hotel due to a glut of hotel rooms attendant to the troubled economy. In a statement Tuesday Perini reportedly stated that “Repairing and opening the Harmon would only create a greater glut of unused hotel rooms for MGM,” “If market conditions were better and MGM found that demand existed for the Harmon hotel rooms, MGM would not be claiming that the Harmon is unstable.”
MGM asserts that Perini failed to ”properly construct” the project. Clark County’s Department of Development Services has reportedly asked MGM to provide a plan to fix the project by August 15th.
The Harmon is part of the $8.5 billion CityCenter project that opened in the fourth quarter of 2009 and is jointly owned by MGM Resorts and Dubai World.
Prior reports indicated that the owner (MGM) had considered razing the entire project. The future of the project remains uncertain.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alaska Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C-" Grade
February 28, 2022 —
American Society of Civil EngineersJUNEAU, Alaska — The Alaska Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today released preliminary findings from the 2021 Report Card for Alaska's Infrastructure, with the full report slated to be released in coming weeks. Alaska civil engineers gave 12 categories of infrastructure an overall grade of a 'C-' meaning the state's infrastructure is in mediocre condition and requires attention. Alaska has consistently maintained its transportation infrastructure, solid waste and energy sectors despite omnipresent environmental threats, seismic events, permafrost and shore erosion. However, some sectors such as drinking water, wastewater, and Alaska's marine highways have fallen behind due to a lack of funding to keep up with current and future needs. Civil engineers graded aviation (C), bridges (B-), dams (C), drinking water (D), energy (C-), marine highways (D), ports and harbors (D+), rail (C), roads (C), solid waste (C), transit (B-) and wastewater (D).
"Our systems and state agencies have demonstrated commendable resilience in the face of seismic events and other natural disasters," said David Gamez, co-chair, 2021 Report Card for Alaska's Infrastructure. "Unfortunately, we face many other threats, ranging from shore erosion to permafrost, major temperature fluctuations and avalanches. We must keep our foot on the gas to address current and future challenges to prevent power outages, road closures, suspended drinking water services, and many more vital services."
To view the report card and all 12 categories, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/alaska/.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What You Need to Know About “Ipso Facto” Clauses and Their Impact on Termination of a Contractor or Subcontractor in a Bankruptcy
September 12, 2022 —
Martha B. Chovanes & Laurie A. Stanziale - ConsensusDocsWhile contractor bankruptcies have long been an issue in the construction industry, in the aftermath of COVID-19 and the resultant labor, material and supply-chain delays, contractor bankruptcies are of even greater concern. Many construction contracts attempt to protect the upstream party from a bankruptcy filing of its contractor or subcontractor by providing for an automatic right to terminate a contract, referred to as “ipso facto” clauses. However, such clauses are generally unenforceable as bankruptcy laws, specifically Section 365(e) of Title 11 of the United States Code, protect the party filing for bankruptcy (the “Debtor”) from unilateral termination of the contract by the non-Debtor party.
What is an “Ipso Facto” clause? An ipso facto clause is a provision in an agreement which permits its termination by one party due to the bankruptcy, insolvency or financial condition of the other party.
Reprinted courtesy of
Martha B. Chovanes, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs) and
Laurie A. Stanziale, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Ms. Chovanes may be contacted at mchovanes@foxrothschild.com
Ms. Stanziale may be contacted at lstanziale@foxrothschild.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pulled from the Swamp: EPA Wetland Determination Now Judicially Reviewable
September 15, 2016 —
CDJ STAFFLandowners and developers bogged in an EPA wetland determination were recently thrown a life line when the United States Supreme Court determined The Army Corps of Engineer’s (Corps) “jurisdictional determinations” (JD) regarding wetland designations are reviewable by the court. United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc.
Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) landowners and developers who do not have the proper permits can face severe criminal and civil penalties for releasing any pollutant into “the waters of the United States.” Anybody stuck wading through the permitting process will tell you it is difficult, time consuming, expensive, and may eventually prohibit the intended use of the property. Furthermore, there is yet to be a consensus on the definition or scope of the term “waters of the US”. Consequently, a landowners or developers may never be certain whether a permit is necessary before conducting any activity that may discharge a pollutant into a “water of the United States”.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Minahan, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Minahan may be contacted at
sminahan@ldmlaw.com
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Why You May Not Want a Mandatory Mediation Clause in Your Construction Contract
October 26, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI know, you are likely surprised by the title of this post. You’ve read Construction Law Musings for a while now and know that as a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, I have advocated mediation as a great way to resolve your construction disputes short of the expensive and time consuming litigation process. Knowing all of this, you as a reader of this blog (thanks by the way) probably wonder why I think that a mandatory mediation clause may not be the best thing for your construction contracts. I can understand your possible confusion (particularly
in light of this post from @sethsmiley).
Please don’t take the headline as my suddenly taking a new view of mediation. Short of simply resolving the dispute between the parties to the construction contract, mediation still remains number one on my list of construction dispute resolution mechanisms. I still believe that it is useful even when a resolution is not met after a good faith attempt by both sides to come to a business agreement. However, I also believe that mediation works best when entered into voluntarily by the parties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Contractors Pay Heed: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Two Important Issues For Bid Protestors
September 13, 2021 —
Andrew Balland - ConsensusDocsThe United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently decided two cases that are relevant to many disappointed offerors considering a bid protest. One decision rendered in March 2021 confirmed the authority of the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) to hear a protest based on an agency’s breach of an implied-in-fact contract. A second decision issued in February 2021 reversed a COFC decision from last year regarding the timeliness requirements to obtain a CICA stay and their interplay with Department of Defense (DoD) enhanced debriefing regulations.
Federal Circuit Confirms The Court Of Federal Claims’ Jurisdiction Over Procurement-Related Implied Contract Claims
When a contractor’s bid protest is denied by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the unsuccessful protestor may challenge the GAO’s decision as arbitrary and capricious in an action before the COFC. While 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) authorizes the COFC to hear such procurement-related challenges, § 1491(a) also permits the court to adjudicate claims against the United States based on any express or implied contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Balland, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP
