Hawaiian Electric Finalizes $2 Billion Maui Fire Settlement
November 18, 2024 —
Mark Chediak - BloombergHawaiian Electric Industries formalized a $2 billion agreement to settle damage claims from a wildfire that razed the historic town of Lahaina and killed more than 100 people.
The utility-owner had reached a tentative agreement in August in which it, along with other defendants including the state of Hawaii, Maui County and landowners, would pay $4 billion to resolve hundreds of lawsuits stemming from last year’s wildfire, according to a filing Tuesday.
The settlements don’t resolve claims with insurers that are part of separate lawsuits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, Bloomberg
Construction Defects not Creating Problems for Bay Bridge
July 31, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere might have been a number of problems with San Francisco’s new Bay Bridge, but despite all that, the Contra-Costa Times says that the experts say that there is no reason for panic. And although the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, Mark DeSaulnier, has been a critic of the bridge, he says that he is “convinced the old bridge is unsafe.”
Although DeSaulnier wants an independent review, construction of the bridge has been investigated by what the Times refers to as “dozens of internationally renowned bridge engineers and other experts.” According to the experts, the problems with the bridge fall in to three categories, ranging from the fixable, through the fixed, to those that were never actual problems.
Of the last category, the Oakland Tribune reported in 2005 that construction workers claimed they were told to “conceal shoddy welds to speed up construction,” but the Federal Highway Administration outside experts found no evidence of bad welds. In another case, bad welds were discovered at the factory where a span was being constructed. The process was changed and the bad welds repaired.
Caltrans has delayed the opening of the Bay Bridge to December 10. Earlier plans were to open the bridge in September.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Negligent Misrepresentation in Sale of Building Altered without Permits
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of New Hampshire has ruled in the case Wyle v. Lees. The Leeses owned a two-unit apartment building in North Conway, New Hampshire. They hired a contractor to add a third, larger apartment, including a two-car garage. The Leeses and their contractor submitted a building permit application. They were informed that site plan review was required. After receiving approval on the site plan, construction started. At no point did they obtain a building permit and the construction was never inspected. The Leeses subsequently added more space to the unit, reducing parking spaces below the minimum required. Again, they did not obtain a building permit.
In 2007, three years after all these changes were complete, the Leeses sold their building to Mr. Wyle. To the question “are you aware of any modifications or repairs made without the necessary permits?” they answered “no.” About six weeks after closing, Wyle “received a letter from the town code enforcement officer regarding the legality of the removal of a garage door from the new unit.” A subsequent inspection revealed “numerous building and life safety code violations.”
Mr. Wyle brought a claim against the Leeses for negligent misrepresentation. The defendants filed a motion “seeking to preclude economic loss damages.” At a two-day bench trial, Mr. Wyle won. The Leeses appealed.
The appeals court found that “the defendants negligently misrepresented that the premises were licensed for immediate occupancy and that the defendants had obtained all necessary permits,” and thus upheld the lower court’s finding of negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court also rejected the Leeses’ argument that damages must be apportioned on all parties, including “the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff’s building inspector, and the defendant’s contractor,” finding a lack of “adequate evidence.”
The Leeses further argued that they were unaware that modifications and repairs were accomplished without the required permits. The appeals court noted that “the trial court found that both the conditional approval and final approval for the site plan stated that a building permit and a certificate of occupancy were required prior to any use.” The court concluded that the Leeses “knew or should have known of the falsity of their representation.”
The appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Suit Limitation Provisions in New York
January 28, 2025 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneNew York law generally enforces a contractual suit limitation that specifies a “reasonable” period of time (usually shorter than the applicable statute of limitations) within which an action must be commenced. The contractual suit limitation needs to be fair and reasonable, given the circumstances of each particular case. The New York Court of Appeals recently
examined this precedent in the context of an insurance policy enforcing an insurance contract’s two-year suit limitation period in Farage v. Associated Insurance Management Corp., 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 05875 (Nov. 26, 2024).
In Farage, a Staten Island multi-unit apartment building was damaged in a fire. The plaintiff owner filed its full repair claim for damages with its insurer six years after the fire and four years after the expiration of the contractual limitation period. The insurer denied the claim. The plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith fair dealing. The insurer moved to dismiss the action based on the two-year limitation provision in the insurance contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Boots on the Ground- A Great Way to Learn and Help Construction Clients
May 02, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThis past week, I attended the Construction Law and Public Contracts seminar in Charlottesville, VA and also a breakfast meeting of the Richmond chapter of the Associated General Contractors of Virginia. Reflecting on this past week, I realized that my membership and participation in both of these great organizations (I am a member of the Board of Governors for the state bar section and the Executive Committee for the Richmond District of AGC-VA) not only provides great marketing and friendship opportunities, participation helps my construction clients in ways that a singular online marketing and interactive path would not (even with the growth of social media).
Among other benefits (including case digests and the insightful newsletter), being a member of the Construction Law and Public Contracts section helps my clients in numerous ways, not the least of which is the ability to network and gain the perspective of many of the great construction attorneys here in Virginia. The ability to bounce legal thoughts off of others for their perspectives gives me the benefit of their experiences and, importantly to my clients, allows me to be more efficient in my research and arguments because of their insight.
Additionally, as a solo construction attorney, knowing other attorneys in other parts of the Commonwealth of Virginia gives me a network of trusted lawyers to whom I can safely and confidently refer a case where a conflict exists or other factors (like geography) make such a referral a benefit to a construction firm in need of legal assistance on a particular matter.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Missouri Legislature Passes Bill to Drastically Change Missouri’s “Consent Judgment” Statute
August 10, 2021 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn June 29, 2021, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed SB-HB 345 into law, which will drastically change Section 537.065 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Section 537.065 provides an insured who has been denied insurance coverage a statutory mechanism to settle certain tort claims through an agreement akin to a consent judgment. Typically referred to as a “065 Agreement,” the statute allows a plaintiff and insured-tortfeasor to settle a claim for damages and specify which assets are available to satisfy the claim, typically the tortfeasor’s available insurance policy. In the past, such agreements were often accomplished without the insurer’s participation or even its knowledge. Under such agreements, the insured-tortfeasor assigns all rights to the insurance policy to the plaintiff and agrees not to contest the issues of liability or damages. In exchange the plaintiff agrees not to execute any judgment against the insured. The parties conduct what amounts to an uncontested and often “sham” trial resulting in a judgment far in excess of any actual damages or applicable policy limits had the case been contested. In a subsequent proceeding to collect on the judgment, the tortfeasor’s insurer is bound by the determinations of liability and damages made in the underlying action.
This statutory framework presented plenty of opportunities for abuse. In 2017, the statute was amended in order to address some of those issues, including a requirement that the insured provide notice of a settlement demand under Section 065 and providing insurers a limited right to intervene in the tort action before liability and damages have been determined. Ostensibly, the intent of the 2017 amendments was to reduce the number of large and uncontested judgments and allow the insurance carrier an opportunity to continue litigating the injured party’s claim where the insured has no incentive or is contractually prohibited from doing so. Yet, creative plaintiff’s attorneys found several “loopholes” around these changes, most prominently, by moving their disputes from state court to binding arbitration and dispensing with notice to the insurer altogether, or at least until after the arbitration has concluded.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Seattle’s Newest Residential Developer
March 13, 2023 —
Michael J. Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & SleightOn February 14, 2023, Seattle voters passed Initiative 135, creating the “Seattle Social Housing Developer” (“Public Developer” or “PD”) and the initiative was signed into law by Mayor Bruce Harrel on March 1, 2023.
[1] With this initiative, voters created Seattle’s newest housing developer. The PD aims to develop, own, and maintain housing in the City of Seattle.
[2] In addition, the PD also intends to retrofit acquired properties to increase energy efficiency and bring them into compliance with accessibility standards.
[3] Contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers may see this as an opportunity to compete for and build everything from new multi-unit housing to handrail installation projects. This post will explore some of the basics of contracting with a public corporation like the Public Developer and what contractors may want to consider in their business planning.
What is the PD?
The Public Developer is a political subdivision of the State of Washington, like a port or fire district.
[4] The Public Developer is not an agency or department of the City of Seattle. In this way, it is like Seattle Public Schools (SPS) because both SPS and the PD operate within the City of Seattle, but have (or will have) their own staff, procurement rules, and standard contracts distinct from the City’s. Like SPS, the PD can also enter construction and supply contracts, sue, and be sued.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Builders Association Seeks to Cut Down Grassroots Green Building Program (Guest Post)
October 04, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s year end Guest Post Friday here at Musings, we welcome Michael Anschel. Michael is the owner of Otogawa-Anschel Design-Build, a member of BATC, lead the development of and serves as a board member to MN GreenStar, the CEO of Verified Green, Inc., and writes the green blog for Remodeling Magazine Online.
If you have been following the sad state of affairs in Minnesota recently (no not the elections) you might be scratching a bald spot on your head in amazement. To my knowledge it is the only state in which the local builders association [ www.batconline.org ] has actually sued the local Green building program (MN GreenStar [ www.mngreenstar.org ]; going as far as filing a restraining order to keep them from certifying any new homes in the state.
This is, in my opinion, a tragic move in the wrong direction for everyone; builders and homeowners alike.
The builders group widely know for The Parade of Homes claims to have no interest in using the program or the brand MN GreenStar, so why seek to shut the program down? Even the lawyers have been scratching their heads trying to make sense of this bizarre and highly aggressive move. And things just get more bizarre from there.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
