South African Building Industry in Line for More State Support
November 08, 2021 —
Prinesha Naidoo - BloombergSouth Africa’s government is planning more measures to bolster its ailing building industry after banning the use of imported cement on state construction projects.
“Government is undertaking research across a range of construction-related products where there appears to be significant potential for localization,” Stephen Hanival, chief economist at the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, said in an emailed response to questions. “Further announcements will be made in due course.”
The country’s preferential procurement policy framework enables the department to designate sectors for localization in line with national development and industrial policy goals. While the government has pursued localization since 2014, it has become more strategic since the advent of the pandemic with business, government and labor groups agreeing on an initial list of 42 products and sub-sectors that should be prioritized, Hanival said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prinesha Naidoo, Bloomberg
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant
April 19, 2021 —
Lisa M. Rolle - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained summary judgment in favor of defendant SRI Fire Sprinkler, LLC, a family-owned and operated fire sprinkler company which generally provides fire sprinkler installation, inspection, and maintenance services throughout the Northeast and New England. The judgment was determined pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) on the grounds that Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company’s (Plaintiff) negligent construction claim accrued on the date when work was completed at the premises, not on the date of the incident as alleged in the Plaintiff’s complaint. In the underlying subrogation action, the Plaintiff commenced the action in subrogation of its insured, Bet Am Shalom Synagogue (Bet Am), to recover damages in excess of $173,390.86 which it allegedly paid to Bet Am for water damage cleanup and remodeling after certain sprinkler pipes froze and burst in the recently constructed wing of the Westchester synagogue on January 1, 2019 and January 7, 2019. The Plaintiff alleged that its subrogor, Bet Am, sustained interior water damage on the first floor and basement levels of the premises, including the carpets, drywall, insulation, bathroom, kitchen and appliances, dining room, hallways, closets, basement storage rooms and supplies, and basement classrooms.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub LiebermanMs. Rolle may be contacted at
lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Sinking Buildings on the Rise?
July 01, 2019 —
Jason M. Adams - Gibbs GidenBy now everyone in the construction and insurance industries is familiar with the 58-story Millennium Tower building in San Francisco that has sunk 17 inches and tilted another 14 inches to the northwest. Another recent New York lawsuit alleges that a 58-story luxury Manhattan condo high-rise is also sinking and causing significant damage. With construction booming in the Southeast and other areas with questionable soils, sinking building cases may be on the rise. Given this reality, the issue of subsidence should be of paramount importance to every construction and insurance professional when insuring a project.
Most insurance carriers will include a subsidence and/or other earth movement exclusion on a commercial general liability ("CGL") quote for insurance as a matter of course. Construction professionals (owners/developers, general contractors, and subcontractors) or their brokers may be under the mistaken impression that they have no choice but to accept these subsidence exclusions as part of a standard construction policy. This is not the case. To the contrary, most insurance carriers are willing to remove subsidence exclusions if the underwriters are provided with acceptable geotechnical/soils reports when considering the project.
The insured construction professional often pushes back on the insurance carrier's request for soils reports because the insured sees the request as an unnecessary hassle, expense or unwelcome interference in the job. However, the carrier's soils review is designed to benefit everyone. If potential soils issues are discovered during the underwriting process they can be addressed at the outset of the project rather than after the project is built, which will typically cost substantially more to remedy. Moreover, a thorough analysis of the condition of the soils at the outset of the project allows the risk management team to recognize any potential issues and ensure that the proper coverage is obtained in order to provide protection down the road. Even if the insurance carrier charges more money to sign off on questionable soils after a review of the reports, the slight increase in premium is likely a worthwhile investment in the event of a subsidence loss.
The lesson is that the insured should not blindly accept a subsidence exclusion and should negotiate its removal. The insured should provide its broker and the insurance carrier the information they need in order to make a fully-informed decision as it pertains to the soils. Once the insurance carrier has had the opportunity to review and sign off on the condition of the soil, the carrier should feel comfortable enough to remove any subsidence exclusions or other similar earth movement limitations.
Subsidence is a relatively straightforward issue to deal with as long as the project team’s lawyers, brokers, risk managers and insurance company underwriters are working together toward the common goal of properly evaluating the risk and adequately insuring the project. This simple cooperative process between the entire risk management team could mean the difference between being covered or not covered in the event of a loss related to earth movement.
Jason M. Adams, Esq. is Senior Counsel at Gibbs Giden representing construction professionals (owners/developers, contractors, architects, etc.) in the areas of Construction Law, Insurance Law and Risk Management, Common Interest Community Law (HOA) and Civil Litigation. Adams is also a licensed property and casualty insurance broker and certified Construction Risk & Insurance Specialist (CRIS). Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. Mr. Adams can be reached at jadams@gibbsgiden.com.
The content contained herein is published online for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not act on the information contained herein without seeking the advice of licensed counsel. The transmission of information by email, or any transmission or exchange of information over the Internet, or by any of the included links is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. This publication may not be reproduced or used in whole or in part without written consent of the author. Copyright 2019 ©
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Los Angeles Could Be Devastated by the Next Big Earthquake
October 15, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA group of scientists have made a list of about 1,500 concrete buildings in Los Angeles which could potentially collapse in an earthquake. They have offered to make the list available to Los Angeles officials, although the city has yet to take them up on the offer. In response, a group of Times reporters combed through records to identify which buildings were of the sort most likely to collapse in an earthquake. The group found more than 1,000 concrete buildings built before 1976 when Los Angeles increased the requirements for steel rebar.
Experts estimate that in a major earthquake, five percent of these buildings could collapse, which for Los Angeles would mean about 50 buildings. Many of these buildings could be seismically retrofitted, but the article notes that a retrofit starts with a $100,000 structural study. Carol Schatz of the Central City Association notes that the cost of retrofitting “would be greater than the value of the building.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (10/23/24) – Construction Backlog Rebounds, Real Estate Sustainability Grows, and Split Incentive Gap Remains Building Decarbonizing Barrier
November 18, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, construction output decreased, office utilization unchanged, September apartment starts fell 15% from a year ago as developers pulled permits, and more!
- Developers pulled permits for a seasonally adjusted rate of 398,000 apartments in buildings with five units or more, a 17.4% YOY drop and a 10.8% decrease compared to August 2024. (Leslie Shaver, Multifamily Dive)
- Construction input prices decreased 0.9% in September due to dips in two of three energy subcategories, reflecting the trend of overall material price stabilization over the past 12 months. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
- Thanks in part to the Federal Reserve’s lowering of the interest rate, construction backlog rebounded in September after slumping at the end of the summer. (Joe Bousquin, Construction Dive)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?
October 20, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere is an argument that a performance bond is not liable for delay damages UNLESS the bond specifically allows for the recovery of such damages. Keep this in mind when requiring a performance bond so that the bond covers the associated risks (and damages) you contemplate when requiring the bond. This argument is supported by the Florida Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin General Hosp., Ltd., 593 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla. 1992):
The language in the performance bond, construed together with the purpose of the bond, clearly explains that the performance bond merely guaranteed the completion of the construction contract and nothing more. Upon default, the terms of the performance bond required American [performance bond surety] to step in and either complete construction or pay Larkin [obligee] the reasonable costs of completion. Because the terms of the performance bond control the liability of the surety, American’s liability will not be extended beyond the terms of the performance bond. Therefore, American cannot be held liable for delay damages.
However, the Eleventh Circuit in National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Const. Co., 320 F.3d 1260(11th Cir. 2003), also analyzing an issue relating to the recoverability of delay-type damages against a performance bond, did not narrowly interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Larkin General Hospital.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Greg Pennington and Associate Kevin Sullivan Win Summary Judgment Dismissing Homeowner’s Claim that Presented an Issue of First Impression in New Jersey
December 02, 2019 —
Gregory S. Pennington & Kevin Sullivan - Traub LiebermanOn July 12, 2019, Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP’s Gregory S. Pennington and Kevin Sullivan secured summary judgment dismissing a homeowner’s claim for damaged flooring. The claim at issue arose from the homeowners’ attempt to discard their refrigerator. In the process of removing the refrigerator, the homeowners scratched their kitchen and dining room floors. The homeowners made a claim under their homeowners policy for the cost to repair and replace the damaged flooring. Their homeowners’ insurer denied their claim based on a policy exclusion barring coverage for damage consisting of or caused by marring and scratching. When their insurer denied coverage, the homeowners filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division in Bergen County. The case presented the issue of first impression in New Jersey of whether a homeowner’s self-inflicted, but accidental damaging of its own floors was barred by the homeowner’s policy’s marring or scratching exclusion. Greg and Kevin successfully argued that the exclusion applied to bar coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Pennington, Traub Lieberman and
Kevin Sullivan, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Pennington may be contacted at gpennington@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at ksullivan@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation
February 25, 2011 —
Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen LauderdaleThis article is the first in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010
1. Centex Homes v. Financial Pacific Life Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
After settling numerous homeowners’ construction defect claims — and more than ten years after the homes were substantially completed — a home developer brought suit against one of the concrete fabrication subcontractors for the development seeking indemnity for amounts paid to the homeowners, as well as for damages for breach of the subcontractor’s duties to procure specific insurance and to defend the developer against the homeowners’ claims. The subcontractor brought a motion for summary adjudication on the ground the developer’s claims were barred by the ten year statute of repose contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15.
The District Court agreed the developer’s claim for indemnity was barred by Section 337.15. And it held that because the damages recoverable for breach of the subcontractor’s duty to purchase insurance are identical to the damages recoverable through the developer’s indemnity claim, the breach of duty to procure insurance claim also was time-barred. The District Court, however, allowed the claim for breach of the duty to defend to proceed. The categories of losses associated with such a claim (attorneys’ fees and other defense costs) are distinct from the damages recoverable through claims governed by Section 337.15 (latent deficiency in the design and construction of the homes and injury to property arising out of the latent deficiencies).
2. UDC — Universal Development v. CH2M Hill, 181 Cal. App. 4th 10 (6th Dist. Jan. 2010)
Indemnification clauses in construction agreements often state that one party to the agreement — the “indemnitor” — will defend and indemnify the other party from particular types of claims. Of course, having a contract right to a defense is not the same as actually receiving a defense. Any indemnitor attempting to avoid paying for defense costs can simply deny the tender of defense with the hope that when the underlying claim is resolved the defense obligations will be forgotten. In the past, when parties entitled to a defense — the “indemnitees” — had long memories and pressed to recover defense costs, indemnitors attempted to justify denying the tender by claiming their defense obligations coincided with their indemnity obligations and neither arose until a final determination was made that the underlying claim was one for which indemnity was owed.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Ms. Matson can be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com, Mr. Hamersmith can be contacted at hhamersmith@sheppardmullin.com, and Ms. Lauderdale can be contacted at hlauderdale@sheppardmullin.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
