White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting
September 09, 2019 —
Norman F. Carlin & Eric Moorman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn June 21, 2019, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued draft guidance clarifying the treatment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in environmental impact reviews of federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Those wishing to comment on the draft must submit comments within 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.
The draft guidance is part of the Trump Administration’s continuing efforts to streamline the permitting and environmental review process for infrastructure and energy projects. It replaces NEPA guidance on climate impacts issued in 2016 by the Obama administration, which was rescinded by President Trump’s Executive Order 13783 early in 2017. Although some initial reports suggest that the new draft guidance significantly pulls back from the Obama administration’s approach, on closer comparison it does not depart that much from the major recommendations of the rescinded guidance.
In general, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing to undertake, approve or fund a major federal action to evaluate its environmental impacts, including both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects; to consider alternatives and mitigation; and to discuss cumulative impacts resulting from the incremental effects of the project when added to those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The new draft and the rescinded 2016 guidance contain similar recommendations regarding an agency’s obligations to consider indirect and cumulative GHG impacts, as well as on the use of cost-benefit analysis and the contentious Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) metric.
Reprinted courtesy of
Norman F. Carlin, Pillsbury and
Eric Moorman, Pillsbury
Mr. Carlin may be contacted at norman.carlin@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Moorman may be contacted at eric.moorman@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Court Holds No Coverage for Breach of Contract Claim
March 14, 2018 —
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLPIn its recent decision in
Ctr. For Excellence in Higher Ed., Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25424 (D. Col. Feb. 16, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Colorado had occasion to consider whether a breach of contract claim could qualify for coverage under a general liability policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP
A Duty to Design and Maintain Reasonably Safe Roadways Extends to All Persons. (WA)
February 25, 2014 —
Natasha Khachatourians – Scheer & Zehnder LLP Liability NewsletterCase: Lowman v. Wilbur, et al., 178 Wn.2d 165, 309 P.3d 3.87 (2013).
Issue: If a passenger’s injuries are in fact caused by the placement of a utility pole too close to a roadway, can the injuries be deemed too remote for purposes of legal causation? NO.
Facts: Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle that lost control and collided with a utility pole that was 4.47 feet from the edge of the roadway. The vehicle’s driver was under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiff sued the driver as well as the utility company and Skagit County for negligence. The trial court granted the utility company and Skagit County’s summary judgment motion, finding that the negligent placement of the utility pole was not a legal cause of plaintiff’s injuries.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a negligently placed utility pole could be the legal cause of a resulting injury.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natasha Khachatourians, Scheer & Zehnder LLP Ms. Khachatourians may be contacted at
natashak@scheerlaw.com
Women Make Their Mark on Construction Leadership
April 22, 2019 —
Annalisa Enrile & Oliver Ritchie - Construction ExecutiveIn the era of the Lean In movement and the Women’s March, women are finding their voices and using them. In politics, in the classroom and even on the playing field, women’s participation and leadership are breaking records. However, this is not the case in the board room—especialy in the C-suite. The Russell 3000 Index, a market index that benchmarks the U.S. Stock Market, found that only 9 percent of top executive positions were filled by women. The construction industry reflects this low participation of female executives. Women in construction only number 9 percent across the board of the industry.
Seven percent of all construction executives are women and only 3 percent of the Fortune 500 construction companies have a female construction manager. Most are in sales and office roles (about 45 percent). Russell 3000 also found that women who are in the C-suite usually fill more HR- or administrative-related positions with very few in COO or CEO positions. Women in leadership need to have real decision making power to progress further. On the upside, women in construction tend to have less of a pay gap than other industries—about 5 percent compared to 20 percent.
Though she be but little, She is Fierce
Despite their small numbers, women executives in construction are paving the way for others to access leadership. In 1984, 11 women created Women Construction Owners and Executives, an organization for support and professional development. Their purpose is to promote women into leadership, assist women in executive positions and encourage more women to join the industry. The National Association of Women in Construction and Women in Construction Operations are also resources and networks with thousands of members.
Reprinted courtesy of
Annalisa Enrile & Oliver Ritchie, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)
April 28, 2016 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaToday we have a guest post from Carla Williams, who works in customer service for the
Williams Brothers Corporation of America. Carla humorously brings light to a serious problem– the intent behind ADA and Universal Design is very often not met with poorly-thought out applications in the real world. Enjoy, and feel free to leave a comment for Carla below.
Universal design is the idea that architecture should be inherently accessible to everyone. The growing number of architects adopting universal design is great news for people with accessibility needs. Instead of having separate entrances and walkways to make a building accessible, universal design allows people of all abilities to move together.
Unfortunately, many buildings are stuck back in 1990 right after the Americans with Disabilities Act was made law. These buildings may be technically “accessible,” but they aren’t spaces people with accessibility needs can maneuver very easily. Until all building designers come to understand and implement the beauty and functionality of universal design, the world is left with less than ideal accessibility. “Less than ideal” is a bit of an understatement. Many times full-on “accessibility fails” take place.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”
While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”
Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”
In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.
The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”
The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.
The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”
The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”
The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”
The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Iowa Court Holds Defective Work Performed by Insured's Subcontractor Constitutes an "Occurrence"
July 28, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Iowa Supreme Court held that property damage caused by a subcontractor's defective work was an "occurrence." Nat'l Sur. Corp. v. Westlake Invs., LLC, 2016 Iowa LEXIS 71 (Iowa June 10, 2016).
In 2002, the insureds, the developers and general contractor, began construction on an apartment complex. While the complex was still under construction, it was purchased by Westlake Investments, LLC.
During construction, numerous problems surfaced, including visible water penetration issues in several buildings. In February 2008, Westlake sued the insureds, seeking to recover lost profits, repair costs, and other damages under tort and contract theories. Arch Insurance Group defended under the primary policy. A settlement was eventually reached whereby a consent judgment for $15,600,000 was entered against the insureds and in favor of Westlake. Arch contributed its policy limits of $1,000,000 to the settlement. Other third party defendants contributed $1,737,500, leaving $12,762,500 of the judgment unsatisfied. The insureds assigned rights under their excess policy with National Surety Corporation (NSC) to Westlake. NSC's policy was a following-form policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Tension Over Municipal Gas Bans Creates Uncertainty for Real Estate Developers
February 07, 2022 —
Sidney L. Fowler, Robert G. Howard & Emily Huang - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogOn November 15, 2021, the New York City Council approved a bill banning gas hookups in new buildings, making the biggest city in the U.S. the latest in a string of municipalities to prohibit natural gas infrastructure in new homes and buildings. In the two-and-a-half years since Berkeley, California, passed its then-novel municipal ban on new natural gas infrastructure, numerous cities have found themselves at odds with state governments and industry groups on the issue of full electrification in residential and commercial real estate. The resulting disputes, litigation and regulatory uncertainty have created headaches for the real estate industry. Although not all view the restrictions as negative, and many developers have embraced the push for more climate-neutral buildings, these bans introduce complexity to the real estate market, raising additional legal and commercial challenges.
Background
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the use of natural gas in homes and businesses accounts for 13 percent of annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. For that reason, advocacy groups have pushed cities to prohibit natural gas infrastructure in new construction and encourage full electrification of newly constructed buildings. In addition to New York and Berkeley, cities that have either passed or considered such ordinances include San Francisco, Sacramento, Seattle and Denver, as well as numerous smaller cities. New York City’s newly passed gas ban, in particular, prohibits natural gas hookups in new buildings under seven stories by 2024, and in taller buildings by 2027, but exempts hookups in commercial kitchens.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury,
Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and
Emily Huang, Pillsbury
Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Huang may be contacted at emily.huang@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
