Condo Owners Allege Construction Defects
July 06, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFLast November, mold problems were discovered at the Siena Condominiums in Montclair, New Jersey, which had been described by their developers as “an enclave of luxury in an urban village setting.” The owners have filed a lawsuit against Pinnacle Companies, Kohl Parnters, and Herod Development, seeking “compensatory damages, interest, reasonable attorney’s fee and costs, and for such other, further, and different relief as the Court may deem just and proper.”
According to the article on Baristanet.com, an engineering report commissioned by the condominium association revealed many problems, including improperly installed windows and siding. The developers commissioned two engineering reports themselves and found evidence of water pounding on the roof. Despite these reports and repeated promises, no repairs have been made.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Location, Location, Location—Even in Construction Liens
October 28, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorWe all know the importance of filing a construction lien within 120 days of your last work. Nebraska Construction Lien Act, § 52-137. But, equally, if not more important is filing the construction lien on the correct property.
Often times on a construction project, the exact address of the project may not be known. And, if there are a few buildings going up on the same general site, it is difficult to determine which property or building address you are working on.
Sometimes you can look at the contract. For example, the AIA family of documents lists the address on the first page. But, what if the wrong address is listed? What if the wrong owner is listed?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
The Texas Supreme Court Limits the Use of the Economic Loss Rule
September 03, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to David Fisk of Kane Russell Coleman & Logan PC, in an article published by JD Supra Business Advisor, “[T]he Texas Supreme Court issued a per curium opinion limiting the application of the economic loss doctrine or rule, as it is referred to in Texas, in the context of residential construction defect claims.”
In Chapman Custom Homes, Inc. v Dallas Plumbing Co., the court “ruled that a plumbing subcontractor assumes an implied duty not to flood or otherwise damage a home while performing its contract with a builder” and that “the economic loss rule does not apply in this context.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error
July 30, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co. (No. A136280; filed 6/18/15), a California Court of Appeal held that it was error for an appraisal panel to assign loss values to items simply because they were listed in the insured’s scope of loss, and regardless of whether inspection revealed they were undamaged or never existed.
California Capital insured a twelve unit apartment building owned by Ms. Lee in Oakland, California. When a fire damaged one unit, the insurer prepared an estimate of $69,255 and paid an undisputed amount of $46,755, which was the amount of the estimate less depreciation and the deductible.
But Ms. Lee claimed that six of the units had been damaged, and she retained a public adjuster who submitted a claim exceeding $800,000. This included cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of the affected apartments, and loss of rent. She claimed burn damage to one unit and smoke damage requiring complete replacement of all the interior rooms of five apartments, along with removal of a portion of the stucco exterior and iron balcony railings and repainting of the entire building.
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
Party Loses Additional Insured Argument by Improper Pleading
September 20, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Archdiocese failed to plead breach of contract against the County for failure to name the Archdiocese as an additional insured under the liability policy. Pachella v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 2017 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 595 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Aug. 14, 2017).
Richard and Pachella filed a complaint against the Archdiocese, alleging that Mrs. Pachella was injured when she tripped and fell on the sidewalk outside of St. Patrick's Parish. At the time, the County was leasing St. Patrick's premises for use as an election polling place. The Archdiocese filed a third party complaint alleging negligence and breach of contract claims under a Lease Agreement between St. Patrick's and the County.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Flood-Threat Assessment Finds Danger Goes Far Beyond U.S. Homes
October 18, 2021 —
Leslie Kaufman, Rachael Dottle & Mira Rojanasakul - BloombergIf the floods don’t get you, lack of electricity or a swamped hospital might.
Nearly a quarter of U.S. critical infrastructure—utilities, airports, police stations and more—is at risk of being inundated by flooding, according to a new report by First Street Foundation, a Brooklyn nonprofit dedicated to making climate risk more visible to the public.
Around 25% of national critical infrastructure is at risk.
Roughly 14% of Americans’ properties face direct risk from major storms, but the study shows danger extends far from those property lines.
Reprinted courtesy of
Leslie Kaufman, Bloomberg,
Rachael Dottle, Bloomberg and
Mira Rojanasakul, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Edgewater Plans to Sue Over Pollution During Veterans Field Rehab
August 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn New Jersey, “Borough officials have announced plans to sue ‘all responsible parties’ over new contaminants inadvertently brought onto Veterans Field during soil remediation that was halted last year,” reported The Record.
According to The Record, Waterside Construction “trucked in contaminated crushed concrete” and has “been in mediation for months” with the borough over the issue.
“Waterside violated the sanctity of the public trust by improperly disposing of PCB waste materials at Veterans Field,” Timothy Corriston, special counsel to the borough, told The Record. “They believe that others are partly responsible. That is ultimately what will be litigated.”
Spokesman Alan Marcus wrote in an email to The Record, “Waterside continues to be willing to participate in mediation and hopes to reach an amicable settlement among all of the parties.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
