$17B Agreement Streamlines Disney World Development Plans
July 22, 2024 —
Derek Lacey - Engineering News-RecordWalt Disney Parks and Resorts received the green light on $17 billion in development plans in and around Walt Disney World in Orange County, Fla,, garnering approval June 12 from the board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (CFTOD) for its sprawling capital plan.
Reprinted courtesy of
Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Rule Prohibits Use of Funds For Certain DoD Construction and Infrastructure Programs and Projects
May 30, 2018 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogRecently, our colleagues Glenn Sweatt and Alex Ginsberg published their Client Alert titled
DFARS Clause Blocks Funding for Unsafe Projects in Afghanistan, Recently published regulation implements the FY17 NDAA to prohibit use of funds for DoD construction and infrastructure programs and projects in Afghanistan that cannot be safely accessed by U.S. Government personnel. Takeaways include:
New rule prevents Government contracting officers from funding projects that are not able to be safely accessed by Government civilian or military personnel, as these may pose an increased risk of fraud, corruption or waste, or lack efficient oversight.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Agreement Authorizing Party’s Own Engineer to Determine Substantial Compliance Found Binding on Adverse Party
August 30, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWhen it comes to resolving construction disputes it’s a bit like the “31 Flavors” of Baskin Robins. There’s a flavor for nearly everyone. From mediation, to arbitration, to litigation, to dispute resolution boards (DRBs), to the architect as the “initial decision maker” under AIA contracts, parties and their counsel have developed numerous ways to resolve disputes on construction projects, including by expert review.
But if you’re going to agree to a dispute resolution procedure, make sure it’s one you can live with, because if you don’t, it’s often going to be too late to go back to the proverbial drawing board as the parties in the next case discovered.
The Coral Farms Case
In December 2010, a mudslide impacted three properties in San Juan Capistrano, California. One of the properties was owned by Coral Farms, L.P., another by Paul and Susan Mikos, and the third by Thomas and Sonya Mahony.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases
November 26, 2014 —
Casey J. Quinn - Newmeyer & Dillion LLPIn Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder.
The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim.
A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id.
Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006).
In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id.
It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ.
Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy.
About the Author
Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contract Terms Can Impact the Accrual Date For Florida’s Statute of Repose
October 19, 2017 —
William L. Doerler - White and Williams LLPWhen the validity of a construction defect claim depends on whether the claim is barred by the applicable state’s statute of repose, it is important to review the statute to identify when claims subject to the statute of repose accrue. In Busch v. Lennar Homes, LLC, 219 So.3d 93 (Fla. Ct. App. (5th Dist.) 2017), the Court of Appeals of Florida clarified the accrual date for the statute of repose in cases where the accrual date depends on a construction contract’s completion date. Pursuant to Busch, the date of full performance under the contract, not the building’s purchase closing date, is the date on which claims accrue.
In Busch, Timothy Busch (Busch), pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement, contracted to have Lennar Homes build him a house. Nearly ten years after closing on the home, Busch served Lennar Homes with a notice of construction defects, as required by Florida’s right-to-repair act. Shortly thereafter, but more than 10 years after the home’s closing date, Busch filed suit against Lennar Homes, alleging that there were multiple construction defects associated with the home. Lennar Homes, relying on Florida’s statute of repose, Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c), filed a motion to dismiss Busch’s complaint.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
How A Contractor Saved The Day On A Troubled Florida Condo Project
November 18, 2019 —
John Zander - Engineering News-RecordEnough isn’t said about general contractors on rocky, out-of-control projects who take the lead in solving problems they didn’t create. That’s what I found troubleshooting projects for a Chicago bank. A good example is a $200-million Florida apartment complex being built in 2007, when labor was as tight as it is now and in some places even tighter.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Zander, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Nafta Could Settle Canada-U.S. Lumber War, Resolute CEO Says
February 02, 2017 —
Jen Skerritt - BloombergA renegotiation of Nafta could be used to settle a lumber dispute that’s been simmering between Canada and the U.S. for decades and threatens to make housing unaffordable for thousands of Americans, according to the world’s largest newsprint maker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jen Skerritt, BloombergMs. Skerritt may be followed on Twitter @jenskerritt
Liability Coverage For Construction Claims May Turn On Narrow Factual Distinctions
March 25, 2024 —
Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsIn a recent trial court decision, a Montana federal court reminds us how fragile insurance coverage can be for construction-related insurance claims. Specifically, this case illustrates how seemingly small factual nuances can make or break coverage. The case turned on the application of policy provisions familiar to all who deal with these kinds of cases. (See Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Farrens, No. CV 22-193-M-DWM, 2024 WL 885109 (D. Mont. Mar. 1, 2024))
First, the court rebuffed the insurer’s argument that damage resulting from defective workmanship (in this case, the flawed design and installation of an elaborate floating-floor pool system) is not “caused by an occurrence.” The court correctly applied the test followed by most states: if either act causing injury is unintentional or the resulting injury is unexpected or unintended, the “occurrence” requirement is met. Fortunately, the court distinguished sloppy language from earlier Montana federal court decisions suggesting otherwise.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & FearsMr. Thomas may be contacted at
sst@paynefears.com
