Architect Searches for Lost Identity in a City Ravaged by War
March 14, 2022 —
Donna Abu-Nasr & Mohamed Sheikh Nor - BloombergOmar Degan got used to being ridiculed when he sat down with developers. The architect wanted buildings to incorporate green spaces, use less glass but have bigger windows to allow in more air. They wanted to maximize profit.
Such a clash of visions between designer and constructor could, of course, happen anywhere. But the gulf between them was particularly wide in a place where people have been more focused on survival than sustainability.
Degan, 31, wants to transform the Somali capital of Mogadishu, a lofty ambition in a city that’s been defined by violence, piracy and terrorism over the past three decades. His persistence, though, has led to prominence by championing cultural heritage and buildings that are in tune with the environment during the frenzy of reconstruction in recent years.
Reprinted courtesy of
Donna Abu-Nasr, Bloomberg and
Mohamed Sheikh Nor, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NY Is Set To Sue US EPA Over ‘Completion’ of PCB Removal
June 25, 2019 —
Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-RecordNew York state intends to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for issuing a certificate to General Electric Co. affirming the company completed its $1.7-billion cleanup of about 40 miles of the upper Hudson River, contaminated with PCBs from two former factories. State Attorney General Letitia James said April 11 that a December state study showed elevated PCB levels in river sediment and concentrations in fish, which were not recovering at the rate EPA anticipated.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mary B. Powers, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Message from the Chair: Kelsey Funes (Volume I)
November 06, 2023 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverI am so honored to assume the Division 1 mantle from my friend, Tom Dunn, and look forward to carrying on his good work.
For those of you who don’t know me, I’d like to take this opportunity to share a bit about my background. I grew up in New Orleans and went to LSU for undergraduate and law school. (Geaux Tigers!) I started my practice in 1997 at Phelps Dunbar LLP in Baton Rouge, where I still practice today. I manage the litigation group in the Baton Rouge office of the firm. I practice as a construction lawyer full time and serve on the Construction Panel of the American Arbitration Association and serve as a mediator in construction cases.
I am married to Dr. Chris Funes (the world’s best pediatrician) and we are the parents to two high schoolers. My son is a high school senior and my daughter is a sophomore. So, when I am not lawyering, I have been spending my time lately touring colleges, prepping for homecoming, and helping to teach my daughter to drive (all very relaxing!!). We also have a very sweet (and very hairy) rescue dog, Maggie, who makes sure we get lots of walks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
No Coverage Under Anti-Concurrent Causation Clause
October 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe policy's anti-concurrent causation clause blocked coverage for damage to the home caused by wind and flood. Clarke v. Travco Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104267 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2015).
The insured's home was located about twenty feet from the Hudson River. Hurricane Sandy caused the river to rise, creating damage to the insured's home. The insured did not have flood insurance. During the storm, water flooded the lower level of the house to a level of about four feet. Further, a wooden dock from another property, approximately fifteen feet by ten feet, entered the property and came to rest within the lower level.
The insured submitted a claim under his homeowner's policy to Travco Insurance Company. An investigator concluded that the cause of damage to the home was flood/water. The claim was denied.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 28 in the case of Burch v. Premier Homes. Ms. Burch bought a home after negotiating various addendums to the contract. The contract was a standard California Association of Realtors contract to which both the buyer and seller made additions. At issue in this case was paragraph 17 of the contract which included that “Buyer and Seller agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.”
The seller/defendant’s Addendum 2 “included provisions relating to the arbitration of disputes that may arise.” Ms. Burch’s realtor, Lisa Morrin, told Burch that “she had never seen a proposed contractual provision that would require a home buyer to agree to arbitrate with a builder over construction defects.” Ms. Burch told Morrin that she did not want to buy the property if she would have to give up her rights under California law.
As part of Addendum 2, the buyer had to buy a warranty from the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation. The sale was held up for a while, as Ms. Burch waited for a copy of the warranty. When she received it, she took further exception to Addendum 2. Scott Warren of Premier Homes said he could not sell the property without Addendum 2. Ms. Burch told her realtor that despite the claims made by Mr. Warren that this was for her benefit, she felt it was more to the benefit of Premier Homes. Don Aberbrook of HBW agreed to the clause, contained in the final sentence of Addendum 2, being struck.
Subsequent to buying the home, Burch submitted a claim concerning construction defects. HBW denied the claim and Burch began an action against the defendants. Premier filed a motion to compel arbitration which Burch opposed.
The trial court ruled that the striking out of the arbitration clause at the end of Addendum 2 “created a conflict with respect to the parties’ intent as to the scope of arbitration.” The trial court found that “the parties’ intention was to preserve Burch’s right to make state law claims including her right to a jury trial for any non-warranty claims against the builder.”
The appeals court in their ruling looked at the standard of review and concluded that the purchase agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was required to resolve that ambiguity. As the contract contained contradictory provisions as to whether or not arbitration was required, it was necessary for the trial court to examine these claims. The appeals court found that the evidence supported the conclusions of the trial court.
Finally, the appeals court found that “there was no valid agreement to arbitrate disputes.” The court noted that arbitration can only happen by mutual consent and “it is clear that Burch did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate any construction defect disputes she might have.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State
October 14, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. (No. S239510, filed 8/29/19), the California Supreme Court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy in the insurance context, supporting the application of California law under a choice of laws analysis. In addition, the Court held that the rule generally applies to consent (aka “no voluntary payments”) provisions in first party insurance policies but not to consent provisions in third party liability policies.
Pitzer College discovered soils contamination while building a new dormitory. Under pressure to complete construction before the start of the school year, Pitzer proceeded to remediate the soils, incurring $2 million in expense. Pitzer submitted a claim to Indian Harbor, which provided Pitzer insurance covering legal and remediation expenses resulting from pollution conditions discovered during the policy period.
The policy contained a notice provision requiring Pitzer to provide oral or written notice of any pollution condition to Indian Harbor and, in the event of oral notice, to “furnish … a written report as soon as practicable.” In addition, a consent provision required Pitzer to obtain Indian Harbor’s written consent before incurring expenses, making payments, assuming obligations, and/or commencing remediation due to a pollution condition. The consent provision had an emergency exception for costs incurred “on an emergency basis where any delay … would cause injury to persons or damage to property or increase significantly the cost of responding to any [pollution condition],” in which case Pitzer was required to notify Indian Harbor “immediately thereafter.” Lastly, a choice of law provision stated that New York law governed all matters arising under the policy.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More
July 10, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe recent opinion of Whitley v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1503a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), as a follow-up to this article on the property insurance exclusion regarding the “constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days,” is a beneficial opinion to insureds.
In this case, the insured had a vacation home. A plumbing leak occurred that caused water damage to the home. The plumbing leak occurred during a period of time that lasted approximately 30 days. For this reason, the property insurer denied the claim per the exclusion that the policy does not cover loss caused by repeated leakage of water over a period of 14 or more days from a plumbing system. Summary judgment was granted by the trial court in favor of the insurer based on this exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Stephen Straus Wins Spoliation Motion in Favor of Defendant
June 05, 2023 —
Stephen D. Straus - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Steve Straus represented a refrigeration installation and service company in a subrogation action filed by a property insurer after paying a claim related to extensive water damage at premises on Long Island, New York.
The premises owner purchased a refrigerator, which was sold without a hose to connect to the water source inside the premises. The defendant retailer retained Traub Lieberman’s client to install the refrigerator. Rather than complete the installation using a new water line, the installer used the existing line from the refrigerator that was being replaced. Approximately one week after installation, the owner’s son discovered water on the floor near the refrigerator, and significant water damage in the basement of the residence. The owner filed a claim with the insurer, which sent an investigator to the premises. The retailer also sent a technician to investigate and replace the water supply line. It was reportedly determined that the original line had failed, causing the water release. After the repair, the owner’s son took possession of the old water line, which he kept for a couple of years and then discarded. The insurer initiated a subrogation action against the retailer and the installation company, alleging that the water release was caused by the defendants’ failure to replace the water line when the new unit was installed. Plaintiff claimed that photographs of the old line established that it had been damaged or defective.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen D. Straus, Traub LiebermanMr. Straus may be contacted at
sstraus@tlsslaw.com
