New York Philharmonic Will Open Geffen Hall Two Years Ahead of Schedule
April 11, 2022 —
James Tarmy - BloombergAfter decades of setbacks, the New York Philharmonic will finally perform in a gut-renovated concert hall in October.
“The key is—two years early—on budget and on schedule,” says a triumphant Deborah Borda, the president and chief executive officer of the New York Philharmonic, standing under a scaffold in what will be the completely revamped concert hall.
A happy ending was by no means guaranteed.
The venue, set at New York’s Lincoln Center, had problems almost as soon as its doors opened in 1962. Concertgoers and performers complained that the sound was muddy and deadening.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Tarmy, Bloomberg
Contractor Manslaughter? Safety Shortcuts Are Not Worth It
August 11, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogIt’s been a while since I discussed the importance of safety. But, a recent article on ENR.com compelled this brief article. Don’t shortcut safety — you could be facing serious criminal repercussions.
A New York crane company owner and one of his employees are each facing a second-degree manslaughter charge for the death of two construction workers.  The charges stem from the collapse of a crane in New York City. The district attorney determined that the crane owner cut a few corners to reduce its operation costs, significantly sacrificing safety.
Another example was the 2010 trial of another New York crane operator who was charged with manslaughter. In that case, the criminal charges failed to stick, but an administrative judge found that the contractor used a damaged sling to support the steel collar binding the tower-crane mast to the 18th floor of a high-rise building being constructed. The company also used four slings instead of the eight, as specified by the crane manufacturer; improperly attached the slings and failed to pad or soften them.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clearly Determining in Contract Who Determines Arbitrability of Dispute
April 26, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAs you know from prior postings: “Arbitration provisions are creatures of contract and must be construed ‘as a matter of contract interpretation.’ ” Fallang Family Limited Partnership v. Privcap Companies, LLC, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D639e (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (citation omitted). Thus, if you prefer to arbitrate potential disputes, instead of litigating potential disputes, you want to include an arbitration provision in your contract. While there are positives and negatives to arbitration, no different than litigation, these positives and negatives should be considered during the contract negotiation process when dealing with the dispute resolution process in the contract.
Generally, under the law, the arbitrability of a dispute is determined by the court. However, this can be deferred to the arbitrator with clear and unmistakable language in the contract.
By way of example, the American Arbitration Association includes a rule that allows an arbitrator to rule on the arbitrability of the dispute, i.e., the claims asserted are subject to the governing arbitration provision in the contract. Recent law has suggested that if the objective is to authorize an American Arbitration Association arbitrator to make this determination, the contract clearly and unmistakably needs to state this intent and generally referring to the American Arbitration Association rules is not good enough. For this reason, I have included in arbitration provisions language that specifically states, “In the event of any dispute as to the arbitrability of any claim or dispute, the parties agree that an appointed arbitrator within the American Arbitration Association shall make this determination.” I have also included in arbitration provisions the converse so that if there is a dispute as to the arbitrability of a claim or dispute, the court, and not the arbitrator, will make this determination.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Georgia Court of Appeals Holds Lay Witness Can Provide Opinion Testimony on the Value of a Property If the Witness Had an Opportunity to Form a Reasoned Opinion
September 25, 2018 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Woodrum v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 815 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), the Court of Appeals of Georgia considered whether the lower court properly disqualified a contractor as an expert witness and excluded the contractor from offering lay opinion testimony regarding the value of a property. The Court of Appeals held that, while the lower court properly disqualified the contractor as an expert witness, it improperly excluded the general contractor’s lay opinion testimony regarding the value of the property. This case establishes that, in Georgia, a lay witness can provide opinion testimony on the value of a property if the proponent of the testimony demonstrates that the witness had an opportunity to form a reasoned opinion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and Williams LLPMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
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
Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry
July 06, 2020 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia recently issued an opinion that should get the attention of any contractor or subcontractor performing work on a federal funded construction project. In U.S. ex rel IBEW Local 98 v. The Fairfield Company, the federal court held that a contractor on a SEPTA project could be held liable under the False Claims Act for failing to pay its workers under the Davis Bacon Act. The court found that liability was appropriate under the FCA even through the contractor did not knowingly violate the Davis Bacon Act. The court awarded the plaintiff over $1,000,000 in damages and an additional over $1,000,000 in attorneys fees.
An Extremely Brief Primer on the FCA
A full discussion of the FCA is beyond the realm of this blog post and you could write a book on FCA cases. But in a nutshell, the FCA prohibits a contractor from knowingly submitting a claim for payment to the federal government (or an entity receiving funding from the federal government, like SEPTA) that is false. Importantly, knowingly does not equal actual knowledge of the falsity of the claim. Rather, “reckless disregard of the truth or falsity” of the submission is sufficient. As explained below, this standard played an important role in the court’s decision and should give contractors performing work on federally funded projects pause.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Do You Have A Florida’s Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act Claim
April 27, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn previous articles, I discussed Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act referred to as “FDUTPA”…but, it has been awhile. (For more information on FDUTPA, check
here and
here.) Now is as good of a time as any to discuss it again because FDUTPA provides a private cause of action and, perhaps, there may be a consideration as to whether such claim can be (or is) properly asserted in the context of your circumstances.
FDUTPA is a statutory scheme designed, “To protect the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. s. 501.201(2). In doing so, FDUTPA authorizes three avenues of legal recourse against an offending party: “(1) declaratory relief; (2) injunctive relief; and (3) [monetary] damages.” Webber v. Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D125a (Fla. 2d DCA 2020);Fla. Stat. s. 501.211.
“An unfair practice is ‘one that “offends established public policy” and one that is ‘immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.’” Webber, supra, (citation omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds
December 01, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe statute of limitations on a claim against a performance-type bond is 5 years from the breach of the bond, i.e., the bond-principal’s default (based on the same statute of limitations that governs written contracts / obligations). See Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(2)(b). This 5-year statute of limitations is NOT extended and does NOT commence when the surety denies the claim. It commences upon the default of the bond-principal, which would be the act constituting the breach of the bond. This does not mean that the statute of limitations starts when a latent defect is discovered. This is not the case. In dealing with a completed project, the five-year statute of limitations would run when the obligee (beneficiary of the bond) accepted the work. See Federal Insurance Co. v. Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc., 707 So.2d 1119, 1121-22 (Fla. 1998).
This 5-year statute of limitations on performance-type surety bonds has recently been explained by the Second District in Lexicon Ins. Co. v. City of Cape Coral, Florida, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2521a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), a case where a developer planned on developing a single-family subdivision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
