Florida Construction Defect Decision Part of Lengthy Evolution
August 05, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFLawyers are still working out all the implications of Florida Supreme Court’s ruling in Maronda Homes. Three members of the firm Lowndes, Drosdick, Doster, Kantor & Reed PA, Alexander Dobrev, Michael S. Provenzale, and Tara L. Tedrow on the firm’s web site. They characterize it as a “consumer-protection oriented decision,” quoting the court that the “house is the fondest dream and largest investment, both emotionally and financially, for Florida families.”
The court found that Section 553.835 of the Florida laws could not be applied to construction that occurred before the statute become effective in July, 2012. They describe the underlying issue as “the culmination of forty years of evolution to the implied warranty of habitability that is granted by the builder of a new home to the purchaser.” This lead to a 2010 District Court decision that expanded the area covered from “merely the structure itself, along with improvements ‘immediately supporting the residence’” but also those “which provide ‘essential services’ which support the home, make it habitable, or are necessary for living accommodations.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
'Perfect Storm' Caused Fractures at San Francisco Transit Hub
January 08, 2019 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordThe underlying causes of the trouble at San Francisco’s 4.5-block-long Salesforce Transit Center are coming into focus. A combination of low fracture toughness deep inside thick steel plates, cracks present as a consequence of normal steel fabrication and stress levels from loads, which are a function of design, apparently caused brittle fractures in the bottom flanges of the center's twin built-up plate girders that span 80 ft across Fremont Street.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, ENRMs. Post may be contacted at
postn@enr.com
Contractual Waiver of Consequential Damages
January 21, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesContractual waivers of consequential damages are important, whether they are mutual or one-sided. I believe in specificity in that the types of consequential damages that are waived should be detailed in the waiver of consequential damages provision. Standard form construction agreements provide a good template of the types of consequential damages that the parties are agreeing to waive.
But, what if there is no specificity in the waiver of consequential damages provision? What if the provision just states that the parties mutually agree to waive consequential damages or that one party waives consequential-type damages against the other party? Let me tell you what would happen. The plaintiff will argue that the damages it seeks are general damages and are NOT waived by the waiver of consequential damages provision. The defendant, on the other hand, will argue that the damages are consequential in nature and, therefore, contractually waived. FOR THIS REASON, PARTIES NEED TO APPRECIATE WHAT DAMAGES ARE BEING WAIVED OR LIMITED, AND POTENTIALLY THOSE DAMAGES NOT BEING WAIVED OR LIMITED, WHEN AGREEING TO A WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES PROVISION!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong
January 20, 2020 —
Brian S. Wood & Alex Gorelik - ConsensusDocsIn April 2018, the Department of Justice announced a $5M settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently-admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles, and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly.
Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act.
The Statute
Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the Government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP and
Alex Gorelik, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP
Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com
Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When OSHA Cites You
April 22, 2024 —
Michael Metz-Topodas - Construction ExecutiveWith the strong bonds that form among construction project teams, workers looking out for each other helps keep safety foremost in everyone’s mind. But sometimes, even the very best intentions alone can’t prevent an occasional misstep—a forgotten hard hat, a sagging rope line—which can and often does result in an OSHA citation. These regulatory reminders can bring unfortunate consequences: penalties, higher insurance premiums, potential worker injury claims, loss of bidding eligibility, loss of reputation and even public embarrassment, because citations are published on OSHA’s website.
Due to citations’ adverse effects, contractors have incentives to minimize them. They can do this by asserting available defenses, because a citation is only an alleged violation, not a confirmed one. But making defenses available begins well before a citation is issued, well before OSHA arrives to a construction site and well before a violation even occurs. Instead, contractors’ ongoing safety programs should incorporate the necessary measures to preserve OSHA citation defenses in three key areas: lack of employee exposure, lack of employer knowledge and impossibility.
EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE
To sustain a citation against an employer, OSHA must not only identify an applicable standard that the company violated but also show that the violation exposed employees to hazards and risk of injury. Absent evidence of actual exposure, OSHA often makes this showing by asserting that performing job functions necessarily exposes employees to the cited hazard.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Metz-Topodas, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Metz-Topodas may be contacted at
michael.metz-topodas@saul.com
Attorney Risks Disqualification If After Receiving Presumptively Privileged Communication Fails to Notify Privilege Holder and Uses Document Pending Privilege Determination by Court
May 03, 2017 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn McDermott Will & Emery LLP v. Superior Court (4/18/2017 – No. G053623), the Fourth Appellate District, in a 2-1 decision, considered two distinct issues: 1. Whether the attorney-client privilege for a confidential e-mail communication between a client and his attorney had been waived by the client’s inadvertent disclosure of the communication to a third party; and 2. Whether the opposing counsel’s failure to respect the claimed privilege as to the inadvertently produced document or to follow the rules for handling such documents set forth in State Compensation Ins. Fund v WPS, Inc. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 644 (State Fund) supported the trial court’s disqualification of counsel and his law firm.
This case arose from an intra-family dispute over the deceased matriarch’s substantial investment holdings, a related probate matter, and two subsequent legal malpractice actions. The opinion sets forth in great detail the facts surrounding the claimed inadvertent disclosure by the client (i.e., the privilege holder) of the subject attorney-client e-mail communication, its subsequent dissemination to, and use by, the client’s family members, the ultimate receipt and review by an opposing family member’s counsel, the efforts by the client’s counsel to assert the privilege and “claw-back” the document, and in the face of this privilege claim, the opposing counsel’s extensive use of the document during discovery, including depositions, in the legal malpractice actions. The opposing counsel, who had received the subject document from his own client, had independently concluded that the clearly privileged document lost its privileged status, believing that the privilege had been waived either because of disclosure to third parties or that his obligation to return inadvertently disclosed documents only applied to those produced in litigation during discovery. As a result, the opposing counsel refused all demands for the return or destruction of the document and insisted upon continuing to use it. This dispute finally came to a head over two years after the client’s disclosure in the context of the client’s motion for a judicial determination that the document was privileged (which the trial court granted) and then a motion to disqualify the opposing counsel (which the trial court also granted); both decisions were eventually reviewed by the appellate court.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Neighbor Allowed to Remove Tree Roots on Her Property That Supported Adjoining Landowners’ Two Large Trees With Legal Immunity
July 14, 2016 —
Paul R. Cressman, Jr. – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC BlogA recent Washington Court of Appeals opinion addressed the rights of a neighbor to destroy roots and branches on her property that belonged to trees located on an adjoining landowner’s property.[1]
Mustoe had two large Douglas-fir trees located entirely on her property, about two and one-half feet from the property line with her neighbor Ma. Ma caused a ditch to be dug on her property along the border with Mustoe’s lot. The ditch was 18-20 inches deep. In the process, Ma exposed and removed the trees’ roots, leaving them to extend only three-four feet from the trunks of the trees. This resulted in a loss of nearly half of the trees’ roots, all from the south side, exposing them to southerly winds with no support. The damaged trees posed a high risk of falling on Mustoe’s home. The landscape value of the trees was estimated to be $16,418. The cost of their removal was estimated to be $3,913.
Mustoe filed suit against Ma asserting that Ma had negligently, recklessly, and intentionally excavated and damaged her trees, along with other property, and also sought emotional distress damages. The trial court dismissed Mustoe’s suit. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Mr. Cressman may be contacted at
pcressman@ac-lawyers.com
Google’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free Future
November 15, 2021 —
Mark Bergen - BloombergGoogle Bay View, the company’s newest campus, consists of three squat buildings nestled near the San Francisco Bay shoreline a few miles east of its headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. The first things visitors notice are the roofs.
They curve down gently from pinched peaks, like circus tents, sloping almost to the ground. Each roof is blanketed with overlapping solar panels that glisten with a brushed metal sheen on the edges. Google calls this design Dragonscale, and indeed it looks as if a mystical beast is curled up by the water in Silicon Valley.
Google envisions its latest campus as the embodiment of a grander ambition to run its operations entirely free of carbon. The company plans to open Bay View in January to “a limited number” of employees, depending on the pandemic. Beneath the buildings, thousands of concrete pillars plunged into the ground will serve as a sort of geothermal battery, storing heat to warm the building and water supply without natural gas. The roof panels were constructed with a unique textured glass to prevent glare and with canopies that emit a soft, glowing light into the spacious atria inside. “We call this the Cathedral of Work,” says Asim Tahir, who oversees energy decisions in Google’s real estate division. He stands by the southern entrance in a hard hat, mask, and safety vest.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Bergen, Bloomberg
