Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Suppliers Must Also Heed “Right to Repair” Claims

October 16, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
“Right to repair” statutes don’t only affect general contractors, but everyone involved in the building of a home, down to those who supply materials, warns Paul Gary in a post on Window & Door. He notes that “if you sell your window or door products in one of the growing number of states with a ‘Notice and Opportunity to Cure’ or ‘Right to Repair’ statute, you need a plan in the event you receive a defect notice relating to your product.” A supplier that receives a statement that a defect exists should, according to Mr. Gary, carefully document not only when the notice was received, but when it was sent, according to postmark, and whether the sender complied with all the regulations. From there, the supplier should determine if there were previous, informal complaints. Finally, determine sales information. At this point, the supplier has the information its insurer will require. His next caution is that in what follows, other may “seek defense and indemnity from you.” And while you may point out problems with the notice,” he counsels that “if you confirm there is an issue with your product, don’t be afraid to make a fair proposal for repair.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

2019 Legislative Session

June 03, 2019 — Steve Heisdorffer – Colorado Construction Litigation
Two bills under consideration as the end of the session nears contain significant changes to Colorado’s Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”). The bills broaden remedies, make more conduct a breach of the CCPA, and include purely private transactions in the type of conduct that falls within the scope of the CCPA. The bills are House Bill 19-1289 (“House Bill”) and Senate Bill 19-237 (“Senate Bill”). As of April 29, 2019, the House Bill has passed the House. The Senate Bill has not progressed past introduction. It is unclear if both houses of the legislature will have an opportunity to vote on either or both bills before the session ends. The House Bill makes a person liable for CCPA violations based on conduct engaged in “recklessly,” not just knowing conduct. No definition of the term “recklessly” is provided in the House Bill, but Colorado’s attorney general testified “recklessly” “means a company or person acted with reckless disregard for the truth.” (Page 2). No explanation was given of what the word “reckless” in the definition of “recklessly” meant in this context. Another provision of the House Bill adds a “catch all” prohibition that labels as a deceptive trade practice knowingly or recklessly engaging in any unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, deliberately misleading, false or fraudulent act or practice. There is no indication how a person could “recklessly” engage in “deliberately misleading” acts or practices. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Heisdorffer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell
Mr. Heisdorffer may be contacted at heisdorffer@hhmrlaw.com

Vermont Supreme Court Reverses, Finding No Coverage for Collapse

May 18, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision for collapse coverage. Commercial Constr. Endeavors, Inc. v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., 2019 Vt. LEXIS 173 (Vt. Sup. Ct. Dec. 13,2019). Commercial Construction Endeavors, Inc. (CCE) built a livestock barn. By late December 2014, the barn was partially complete, with the foundation laid, wood framing erected, and roof trusses installed. In late December, strong winds caused the structure to collapse. CCE started clearing debris and rebuilding the barn, incurring additional labor and material costs. CCE reported the collapse to Ohio Security. The policy covered loss to "Covered Property." Ohio Security determined that the loss was covered for "Off-Premises Property Damage Including Care, Custody or Control." This endorsement provided coverage for damage to real property upon which CCE was performing operations where the damage resulted from those operations. Ohio Security paid CCE $24,750, the full amount available under the endorsement, less a $250 deductible. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Mediation v. Arbitration, Both Private Dispute Resolution but Very Different Sorts

January 24, 2018 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I often get calls from clients, potential construction clients, and other construction and business professionals with questions about arbitration or mediation clauses in the contracts that they are reviewing or drafting. When I get these calls, it often becomes clear that, understandably, there is some confusion as to what each of these alternate dispute resolution processes entails. I thought I’d put together a quick primer on what each is and their differences. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Missouri Construction Company Sues Carpenter Union for Threatening Behavior

February 10, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to KMOV News, Raineri Construction Company in Missouri filed suit against the Local Carpenters’ District Council claiming employees had been “stalked and threatened” by the union. However, the Carpenters Union “denies the allegations” and said “it has the right to protest against a company that doesn’t always meet the union standards for pay and benefits.” Tony Raineri, one of the construction company’s executives, said to KMOV News: “For me it wasn’t such a big deal until they started making threats of bodily harm, started following me and my wife to our home, started following my employees to their homes.” KMOV News reported that a “union representative told News 4’s Craig Cheatham that no one acting on behalf of the Carpenters Union ever threatened, harassed or stalked Raineri, his employees or their clients.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders

January 07, 2015 — William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLP
In Scungio Borst Assocs. v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that an individual principal/shareholder of a property owner could not be held personally liable as an “agent of the owner” for unpaid invoices, penalties, and attorneys fees under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, even though the property owner itself had failed to make payments allegedly due under a construction contract. CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is designed to protect contractors and subcontractors from nonpayment and which, to that end, establishes rules and deadlines for payment under construction contracts between property owners, contractors, and subcontractors. An owner or contractor who does not adhere to the Act’s payment requirements is subject to the imposition of interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees. In this recent case, the property owner, a limited liability company, had retained the plaintiff contractor to perform construction services on a condominium project. Upon completion of the work, the contractor was not paid approximately $1.5 million that it was owed under the contract. The contractor filed suit under CASPA to obtain the payment it was owed plus interest, penalties and fees, and named both the property owner and its individual principal as defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the individual principal on all claims asserted against him, and the contractor appealed, arguing that CASPA allows for claims against both a property owner and its principal when the principal is an “agent of the owner acting with the owner’s authority.” Reprinted courtesy of Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP and William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Lead Paint: The EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule

September 09, 2019 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome Joshua Glazov for the first time. Josh has been a construction lawyer since 1995. He practices at Much Shelist in Chicago and focuses on negotiating and preparing design and construction contracts for owners, contractors, and lenders, as well as preparing for, and confronting, construction related insolvency when a project participant goes bankrupt or a lender goes into FDIC receivership. Josh publishes on these topics at his blogs: Construction Law Today and the Bank Failure Blog. Last month the EPA finally issued their Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule (PDF), the one that sets up new requirements for work on projects that may involve lead paint. The requirements are many complex. You’ll need to become familiar with this rule if you do any renovation , repair, or painting work, especially of your work is on buildings built before lead paint was banned in 1978.

You’ll need to become a certified by the EPA as a Certified Renovation Firm

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Washington’s Court of Appeals Protects Contracting Parties’ Rights to Define the Terms of their Indemnity Agreements

March 19, 2024 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
It has long been the law in Washington that contracting parties are free to draft contractual indemnity agreements to allocate risk arising from performance of the work, and Courts will generally enforce those agreements as written. This well-settled principle was recently reaffirmed in King County v. CPM Development Corp., dba ICON Materials[1] a decision from Division I of the Washington Court of Appeals, wherein one party to an indemnity agreement attempted to evade its contractual obligations by arguing that certain common law indemnity principles supersede the written terms. This appeal followed a multi-week jury trial from which the client and Ahlers Cressman and Sleight legal team, including Lindsay Watkins, Klien Hilliard, and Christina Granquist, obtained a seven-figure judgment in the client’s favor, including an award of all attorneys’ fees and costs. ICON was the general contractor on a Vashon Island Highway Pavement project for King County. Part of the work on the project involved hauling away and disposing of ground milled asphalt (the “millings”) at King County-approved sites. ICON and D&R Excavating Inc., (“D&R”) executed a subcontract for D&R to perform that work. The subcontract incorporated the contract between ICON and King County, including the obligation to stockpile millings only at approved sites. D&R, however, did not obtain the requisite approvals from King County, and placed the millings at various sites on the Island, including locations that King County explicitly rejected. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES