Meet Daniel Hall, Assistant Professor at TU Delft
January 17, 2023 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessWe sat down with
Daniel M. Hall, an assistant professor at
TU Delft, to discuss ways of achieving circularity in the built environment. Daniel will be a keynote speaker at WDBE in September 2023, where he’ll talk more about future circular cities.
Daniel is internationally known for his research on construction management and construction informatics. He did his Ph.D. at Stanford and worked for almost five years as an Assistant Professor of Innovative and Industrial Construction at ETH Zurich. In September 2022, he moved to the Netherlands.
The Delft University of Technology, Daniel’s new home base, strongly emphasizes the circular economy and circularity and has a long history of excellent teaching and research. It provides an inspiring environment for innovating the future.
Why we need to improve circularity in cities
“We cannot keep building the way we’ve been building. We don’t have enough resources; we don’t have enough materials,” Daniel asserts. “Obviously, we have questions around carbon impact. Around 40 percent of all CO2 emissions come from a combination of building operations and building materials.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions
September 01, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the court determined there was an occurrence, coverage was excluded by the business risk exclusions. See Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. Shay Constr. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82839 (D. Colo. July 28, 2011).
White was the general contractor on the project. White had three subcontracts with Shay to provide framing, siding, and related work on the project. Shay was insured under a CGL policy issued by Continental Western.
Two of Shay’s subcontractors furnished materials, labor and equipment to Shay. These subcontractors filed suit in state court alleging they had not been compensated for the work and materials. White and Shay were named as defendants. White cross claimed against Shay, alleging Shay had breached its obligations under the subcontracts. Several allegations sounded in contract. Other allegations, however, contended Shay had performed defective work and had damaged the work of other trades in correcting deficiencies in its own performance.
Shay sought coverage under Continental Western’s policy. Continental Western filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat: Guam’s CERCLA Claim Allowed, a “Roundup” Verdict Upheld, and Judicial Process Privilege Lost
June 14, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a brief account of some of the important environmental and administrative law cases recently decided.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
BP PLC, et al. v Mayor and City of Baltimore
The issue the court confronted was a procedural matter: Can the defendant energy companies use the federal removal statutes (see 28 USC Section 1442) to remove a state law climate change lawsuit to federal court? Here, a group of energy companies were sued by the mayor and city council of Baltimore in state court, where they alleged that the defendants had concealed the adverse environmental effects of the fossil fuel products they promoted and sold in Baltimore City. Several similar lawsuits have been filed in many state courts, where typically it is alleged that the defendants can be sued on various common law theories. Rather than defend these cases in state court, the defendants have sought to remove these cases to federal court because climate change liability appears to be an issue that should be settled at the federal level. These efforts have been unsuccessful, with most federal trial and appellate courts holding that the reasons cited for removal (oftentimes the federal officer removal statute) have not been persuasive. In this case, both the Maryland federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals held they had no jurisdiction to authorize removal, and thus returned the case to the state court. Noting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that a removal action could be countenanced under Section 1442, thus creating a circuit split, the Supreme Court held that a straightforward reading of the removal statute empowers the reviewing court to examine all theories for removal that a district court has rejected. Consequently, the Court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit where it can decide, “in the first instance,” whether there actually exist grounds to remove this case to federal court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Security on Large Construction Projects. The Payment Remedy You Probably Never Heard of
May 07, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogCalifornia has a number of statutory payment remedies available on construction projects. Some, such as the mechanics lien, are relatively well known and often utilized. Others, such as the stop payment notice, are somewhat less so.
However, there’s one statutory payment remedy you may not have heard of at all.
And that is, security requirements for large projects.
What is security for large projects?
Security is required on certain large construction projects to guarantee the payment by owners to direct contractors, and applies if either:
1.
Fee Interest and Contract of Greater Than $5 million: The owner contracting for a work of improvement holds a
fee interest in the property being improved and enters into a construction contract for the improvement of the property greater than
$5 million; or
2.
Less Than Fee Interest, Including Leasehold Interest, and Contract of Greater Than $1 million: The owner contracting for a work of improvement holds less than a fee interest (including a
leasehold interest) in the property being improved and enters into a construction contract for the improvement of the property greater than
$1 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Serial ADA Lawsuits Targeting Small Business Owners
February 04, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJennifer Wadsworth reports in the San Jose Inside that small business owners in the South Bay area of California have been targeted for ADA Compliance lawsuits. Specifically, John Ho, “a wheelchair-bound paraplegic from the Southern California town of Rosemead” has hit close to “80 businesses in San Jose and more throughout South Bay” with ADA complaints. Another resident, Cecil Shaw has also “filed hundreds of lawsuits in federal court through a San Jose-based law firm alleging similar violations.”
According to Wadsworth, these lawsuits have “become a multimillion-dollar industry.” Communities are often hit with “a hundred or more” lawsuits at a time: “Law firms team up with disabled clients to inspect businesses for compliance issues, and then sue in droves, expecting half or more defendants to settle out of court.”
Niccandro Barrita, owner of one of four La Victoria Mexican Restaurants in South Bay, lost an ADA lawsuit. “I thought because when the building was remodeled in 1996 and the city waived the lift requirement that I was in the clear. But that wasn’t the case,” he told San Jose Inside. Barrita claims to have paid $900,000 in attorney fees. His advice to other owners is to be proactive: “Don’t rely on someone to point out a deficiency to you. Find out for yourself if you’re compliant.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors
August 20, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) came out with its decision in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al. The Beacon decision settled a long-standing dispute in California about whether design professionals such as architects and engineers owe a duty to non-client third parties. In finding that the plaintiffs in Beacon could state a claim against the architects of the Beacon project, the Court also sowed the seeds of change in the way contracts are structured between developers, architects, engineers, and even general contractors.
So, how will Beacon change the landscape for developers and general contractors? It is important to understand the factual background in Beacon to predict how the decision may alter the playing field. For a detailed analysis of the Amicus briefs in the Beacon matter from the AIA, the CBIA, and the Consumer Attorneys of California, please click here.
The Beacon case arose from a common development model in California: a developer conceives a multi-unit project, maps the project as a condo development but rents as apartments. Shortly after completion of the Beacon project, the developer sold the entire project and the new owner finalized the existing condominium map and placed the units on the market as condominiums. Although the architects always knew they had designed a residential structure, the project ultimately became a condominium development. The newly formed homeowners’ association filed a construction defect suit against the developers, general contractor, the subcontractors and the architects for design and construction defects.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
In Supreme Court Showdown, California Appeals Courts Choose Sides Regarding Whether Right to Repair Act is Exclusive Remedy for Homeowners
August 10, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogEarlier, we wrote about an appellate court split concerning the Right to Repair Act (Civil Code sections 895 et seq.) which applies to construction defects in newly constructed residential properties including single-family homes and condominiums (but not condominium conversions) sold after January 1, 2003.
The California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, held that the Right to Repair Act does not provide the exclusive remedy when pursing claims for construction defects involving “actual” property damage (e.g., a defectively constructed roof causing actual physical damage due to water intrusion as opposed to a defectively constructed roof that while constructed improperly does not cause actual physical damage). However, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District, in McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which is currently pending before the California Supreme Court, held that the Right to Repair Act does in fact provide the exclusive remedy when pursuing claims for construction defects whether they involve “actual” property damage or merely “economic” damages. For homeowners, they would prefer the option of pursuing remedies under either or both the Right to Repair Act (which includes detailed pre-litigation procedures and statutory construction standards) or under common law claims such as negligence (which do not include pre-litigation procedures and have more flexible standards of care).
The California Court of Appeals for the Third District has now thrown its hat into the ring . . . on the side of McMillan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Remodel Gets Pricey for Town
December 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFUsually when home gets remodeled, it’s the homeowners who encounter unexpected expenses, but in Clearwater, Florida, it’s the town. Clearview has spent about $40,000 trying to determine if changes to a home are a “substantial improvement,” and the bill could get bigger, according to TBNweekly.com.
The home in question, that of David and Aileen Blair, is in a flood zone, and city rules would require the alterations to comply with flood drainage-resistance provisions, but only if it is a “substantial improvement.” The Blairs applied for the remodel permit in April 2001, and it was granted more than 10 years later, in July 2011. Work started soon after until the city put a stop to it.
The Blairs sued, claiming that as the city issued the permit, they assumed the plans were approved, and that the partially-completed renovation now diminishes the value of their home. The city has approved an additional $160,000 in outside legal counsel to respond to the Blair’s lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
