Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Arbitration Motion Practice
August 07, 2023 —
Michael Zehner - The Dispute ResolverIn the June 22, 2023 edition of the Toolbox Talk Series,
Adrian Bastianelli, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., and
Brian Cashmere, Williams Mullen, moderated by Jennifer Millender of the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”), discussed motion practice in arbitration. Specifically, they offered advice on how to choose the right issue for a motion, how to get approval for a motion, how to write the motion, and how to get the arbitrator to grant it. They also discussed the pros and cons of motion writing in arbitration settings.
1. How to choose the “right issue” for a motion in arbitration
The panel discussed what type of issues can, or should, be brought up in a motion in arbitration. Cashmere stated that a clear and concise issue is best for this type of review. For example, statute of limitations, notice, or contract interpretation issues may make great summary judgment or partial summary judgment motions. Essentially, an issue that the arbitrator may resolve via primarily a question of law is more likely to succeed. Bastianelli warned against submitting just any “available” motion, as the practice may turn the arbitrator against you. Both panelists mentioned the need to consider strategy before filing a motion—ask, “how will filing this motion help or hurt reachingArbi final resolution.” Cashmere noted that sometimes the threat of bringing the issue to a hearing can put pressure on the adverse party in a way that is favorable to your client’s goals; possibly even more so than actually submitting the issue.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Zehner, BBG Construction LawMr. Zehner may be contacted at
mzehner@bbglaw.com
BWB&O’s Los Angeles Partner Eileen Gaisford and Associate Kelsey Kohnen Win a Motion for Terminating Sanctions!
April 25, 2023 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPCongratulations to Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP Partner Eileen Gaisford and Associate Kelsey Kohnen for successfully arguing and winning a Motion for Terminating Sanctions for BWB&O’s client, a hotel in Los Angeles County. The court granted BWB&O’s Motion for Terminating Sanctions and Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging she sustained multiple injuries after a slip and fall in a hotel. Plaintiff’s complaint alleged that BWB&O’s client was negligent, careless, and reckless in the ownership, care, control, and maintenance of the premises. BWB&O aggressively defended its client and filed several motions, arguing Plaintiff’s conduct abused the discovery process. The Court sided with BWB&O and granted its Motion for Terminating Sanctions, and the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Over a Hundred Thousand Superstorm Sandy Cases Re-Opened
March 12, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced yesterday that they will be reopening 144,000 flood insurance claims, reported the New Jersey Law Journal.
The announcement comes weeks after reports that “some insurance companies denied thousands of claims after fraudulently altering engineering reports, as well as complaints that insurance companies systematically underpay on claims because they fear a backlash from FEMA.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reference to "Man Made" Movement of Earth Corrects Ambiguity
December 20, 2012 —
TRED EYERLY, INSURANCE LAW HAWAIIIn
Pioneer Tower Owners Assn. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 12 NY3d 302 (2009), the New York Court of Appeals found an "earth movement" exclusion was ambiguous when applied to an excavation. The court now considered whether a similar exclusion, expressly made applicable to "man made" movement of earth, eliminated the ambiguity when loss was created by excavation.
Bentoria Holdings, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 2012 N.Y. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Oct. 25, 2012).
Plaintiff's building suffered cracks due to an excavation being conducted on the lot next door. A claim was submitted to Travelers, plaintiff's insurer. Travelers rejected the claim, relying on the earth movement exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii.Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Owners and Contractors are Liable for Injuries Caused by their Independent Contractors under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine”
October 15, 2024 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupMany contractors and owners believe that if they hire an independent contractor to perform work and that independent contractor causes injury to others during the performance of that work, then it is the independent contractor alone who will be liable for those injuries. In most circumstances, this is correct. The owner or the contractor will not be held liable for injuries caused by his or her independent contractor. However, this is not always the case.
Under the “Peculiar Risk Doctrine” and California cases interpreting the doctrine, a contractor or owner who hires an independent contractor to do work which is considered to be “inherently dangerous work” can be still be held directly liable for damages when that independent contractor causes injury to others by negligently performing the work.
Such liability can generally be imposed on the one hiring the independent contractor under either of two branches of the peculiar risk doctrine. First, where a person hires an independent contractor to do inherently dangerous work, but fails to provide in the contract or in some other manner that special precautions must be taken to avert the peculiar risk of injury related to that work, then the one hiring the independent contractor can be held liable for injuries to others caused by the independent contractor’s negligence. (Restatement Second of Torts Section 413). For example, in Mackey v. Campbell Construction Co. 101 Cal. App. 3d 774, 162 Cal. Rptr. 64 (1980), Western Electric Company, the owner of the project, was found liable for the personal injuries of a subcontractor’s employee because Western’s representatives were on the job at all times, had doubts about the safety of scaffolding being used on the project, yet failed to require use of precautions that could have been taken to avoid injury.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Were Condos a Bad Idea?
June 13, 2022 —
Tyler P. Berding - Berding & Weil LLPIntroduction
Condominiums are a nice idea, but their execution has been less than perfect. Long before the fatal Berkeley, California balcony failure in 2015 or the 2021 Champlain Towers South collapse that killed 98 people in Surfside, Florida, we suspected that all was not right with the basic condo concept. Years ago, there were already signs this "cooperative" housing model was anything but. Whether due to owner apathy, internal disputes, or failure to fund future repairs, sustaining these projects for the long-term has been difficult, leaving their future in doubt. Can this be fixed, or is the concept inherently flawed?
Every enterprise has an organizational "model" to run the business. For-profit corporations obtain revenue from the sale of products or services. The revenue of non-profit condominium corporations are the assessments paid by the owners of the individual units. While these assessments are “mandatory” in the sense they must be paid, they are also “voluntary” since the amount is left to the board of directors to determine. Condos are cheaper to buy, but the sales price may not reflect the real cost of ownership. They are "cooperative" because costs and space are shared, but internal disputes and funding shortfalls operate to shorten the life of these buildings in ways few owners understand.
Internal Disputes
Why is condominium life frequently not “cooperative?” Disputes. Disputes between condominium owners and their associations; among board members; and between individual owners and their neighbors. There are arguments over the right to put a flag on the balcony. There are arguments over swimming pool hours. The right to paint their front door some color other than everyone else's. The right to be free of noise, smoke, or view-blocking plants. And sometimes, the claimed right not to pay assessments needed to maintain the project—all notwithstanding the governing documents to the contrary. The right to use one's property as the owner sees fit is a concept imported from the single-family home experience but not replicated in condominiums where common ownership requires rules to avoid chaos.
But a condominium association's most important concern should not be the color of someone's front door or when they can swim but sustaining the building and keeping owners safe. Maybe we care someone has painted their front door bright green, but should that concern have priority over finding rot that may cause a balcony to collapse with someone on it? Resolving conflicts and enforcing the governing documents have a reasonable success rate. Still, the effort required to do that often distracts the board from more critical issues—damage that can sink the ship. Directors can waste a lot of time re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when, if they look closely, the iceberg is coming.
Maintenance Lacks Priority
Why can't we enforce the rules and do what’s necessary to sustain the building and keep occupants safe? Unfortunately, juggling both behavioral and sustainability issues has proven difficult for many volunteer boards of directors. Rule disputes are always in their face, crowding their agenda, while the damage that could lead to structural failure often remains unknown. Also, enforcing—or resisting—rules can involve a clash of egos that keep those matters front and center. Or, and I suspect this is a primary culprit, the cost of adequate inspections, maintenance, and repair is so high that boards cannot overcome owner resistance to that expense.
While boards and management must sustain the project and protect people, raising the funds to do that is another matter. Directors must leap hurdles to increase regular assessments. Imposing large, unexpected, special assessments for major repairs can be political suicide. Unfortunately, few owners realize how deadly serious proper maintenance is until there is a Berkeley or a Surfside, and everyone is stunned by the loss of life and property. While those are extreme cases of faulty construction, inadequate maintenance, natural causes, or all the above, they will not be the last. We know that because experts have seen precursors to those same conditions in other projects.
Our concern for sustainability arises from examining newer projects during construction defect litigation when forensic experts open walls to inspect waterproofing and structural components. It also comes from helping our clients with the re-construction of older buildings and dealing with many years or decades of neglect for which little or no reserves have been allocated.
The economic impact of repairing long-term damage is huge. Rot lying hidden within walls slowly damages the structural framing. Moisture seeping into balcony supports weakens them sometimes to the point of collapse. The cost to repair this damage is frequently out of reach of most condominium associations. In newer projects, when experts find problems early, claims are possible. The Berkeley balcony failure occurred in an eight-year-old building[1], and there was recourse available from the builder. But with older projects, it is often difficult to hold anyone responsible other than the owners themselves.
Is The Condo Model Flawed?
Suppose this is true—and our experience representing condominium projects for over forty years tells us it is—then we are not dealing only with the inexperience of some volunteer directors but rather with a flawed organization model. Board members want to succeed but are constrained by an income stream that depends almost entirely on the will of the individual owners—essentially voluntary funding.
Under most state laws, funding for condominium operations and maintenance is not mandatory[2], and relies instead on the willingness of the directors to assess owners for whatever is needed, and on the willingness of owners to accept the board’s decisions. When a board of directors can set assessments at whatever level is politically comfortable, without adequate consideration, or even knowledge, of long-term maintenance needs, systemic underfunding can result[3]. What the members want are the lowest assessments possible, and directors often accede to those demands. When these factors conspire to underfund maintenance, they will drastically shorten the service life of a building. They also make it potentially unsafe.
Commercial buildings incentivize their owners for good maintenance with increased rents and market value. That incentive is not relevant to a condominium owner because the accumulating deficit is rarely understood at the time of sale and not reflected in the unit’s sales price. With a single-family home, deferred maintenance is more easily identified and is reflected in the purchase price. But condo home inspections are usually confined to the interior of a unit, and do not assess the overall condition of the entire building or project or review any deficit in the funding needed to attend to deficiencies. Thus, market value is not affected by reality.
In most states that require that reserves be maintained for future maintenance and repairs, the statutes require nothing other than cursory surface inspections. Damage beneath the skin of a building is not investigated, and no reserves are recommended for what is not known. California recently enacted legislation that will require condominium associations inspect specific elevated structures for safety, including intrusive testing where indicated. But no other state requires this level of inspection, and few even require a reserve study to determine how much money to save for the obvious problems, never mind those no one knows about[4].
This situation leads to unfair consequences for those owners who find themselves unlucky enough to own a unit when the damage and deficits are finally realized. Damage discovered, say, in year 35 didn’t just happen in year 35. That deterioration likely began earlier in the building's life and lay hidden for decades. It is costly to repair when it finally becomes obvious or dangerous. No prior owner, those who owned and sold their units years ago, will pay any part of the cost of the eventual rehabilitation of that building due to past lack of adequate inspections and years of artificially low assessments. Instead, the present owners will be handed the entire tab for the shortfall from several decades of deferred maintenance or hidden damage—the last people standing when the music stops.
Can this trend be reversed? As condominium buildings age and deterioration continues, the funding deficit increases dramatically. But to reverse that trend and reduce the deficit, someone must know it exists and be willing to address it. That requires more robust inspections early in the building's life and potentially higher assessments to stay even with any decay.
Conclusion
It would not be wrong to blame this on the failure of the basic condominium model. Volunteers rarely have sufficient training or expertise to oversee complex infrastructure maintenance, especially without mandatory funding to pay for it. The model also does not insist that board members have a talent for resolving conflicts. While condominium boards can leverage fines or legal action to enforce the rules, that lacks finesse and can create greater antagonism—a distraction from the more critical job of raising funds to inspect and maintain the building.
Unit owner-managed, voluntarily funded, multi-million-dollar condominium projects were probably a bad idea from the beginning. But sadly, it is way too late to reverse course on the millions of such projects built in the past sixty years. Many are already reaching the end of their service lives, with no plan to deal with that. Robust inspection standards on new and existing projects and enforceable minimum funding for maintenance and repairs should be considered by state legislatures. But whatever the approach, the present system is not staying even with the deterioration of many buildings, and that is just not safe anymore.
- The collapse of the balcony in Berkeley occurred on an apartment building. But the construction of that building is similar or identical to the construction of most multi-story wood-frame condominiums.
- Boards of directors are empowered by statute or contract to assess members for operation and maintenance costs. However, there are few statutes that set minimum funding or otherwise require boards to exercise that authority.
- Even in states that require reserve studies, the physical inspections are inadequate to uncover some of the costliest damage. California’s reserve study statute—Civil Code Section 5550—only requires inspection of those components that are visible and accessible, leaving damage within walls and other structural components undiscovered and funding for the eventual repairs, unaddressed.
- In May 2022, in response to the Champlain Towers South collapse, Florida enacted mandatory structural inspections for buildings 30 years and older, repeating every 10 years thereafter. The law also includes mandatory reserve funding for structural components.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tyler P. Berding, Berding & Weil LLPMr. Berding may be contacted at
tberding@berdingweil.com
Assessing Defective Design Liability on Federal Design-Build Projects
March 22, 2021 —
Dirk Haire, Adam Hamilton & Dana Molinari - ConsensusDocsA common misconception by many government officials is that a design-builder is always responsible for every design error or omission on a design-build project. This article examines the actual liability standard applied by the courts and boards of contract appeals when a design defect arises on a federal design-build project.
Background: Design-Build Contracts and the Spearin Doctrine
Design-build contracts combine the design and construction elements of a construction project into one contract. Design-build contracts often include two types of specifications: design and performance. Design specifications may set forth various parameters, such as precise measurements, tolerances, and materials. In doing so, the specifications create a fixed “roadmap” governing a contractor’s performance of the project. Performance specifications, on the other hand, set forth “operational characteristics” to achieve a particular objective or standard, but generally leave the details to the contractor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dirk Haire, Fox Rothschild LLP,
Adam Hamilton, Fox Rothschild LLP and
Dana Molinari, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. Haire may be contacted at dhaire@foxrothschild.com
Mr. Hamilton may be contacted at ahamilton@foxrothschild.com
Ms. Molinari may be contacted at dmolinari@foxrothschild.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fixing the Problem – Not the Blame
November 30, 2016 —
Curtis W. Martin – Peckar & Abramson, P.C. BulletinWho is responsible for defective design under Texas law? The contractor, under Lonergan? The
owner, under Spearin? A recent Fifth Circuit decision suggests that in some cases this might be the
wrong question when design responsibility is disputed. The appellate court recently remanded a
case back to the district court to determine whether the contractor or owner breached an implied
duty to cooperate in discovering defects in design and subsequently pricing the change required
to correct the problem.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Curtis W. Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@pecklaw.com
