Home Prices in 20 U.S. Cities Increased 5% in Year to June
August 26, 2015 —
Michelle Jamrisko – BloombergHome prices in 20 U.S. cities climbed 5 percent in June from the same month a year earlier, a sign of more progress in the housing market.
The increase in the S&P/Case-Shiller index of property values matched the year-over-year gains in the prior three months, the group said Tuesday in New York. The median estimate of economists surveyed by Bloomberg called for a 5.1 percent year-over-year advance. Nationally, prices rose 4.5 percent.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Jamrisko, Bloomberg
Indemnity Payment to Insured Satisfies SIR
March 11, 2014 —
Tred Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIn response to certified questions from the Eleventh Circuit, the Florida Supreme Court found that a contractual indemnity payment to the insured satisfied the policy's SIR requirement. Intervest Constr. of Jax v. Gen. Fid. Ins. Co., 2014 Fl. LEXIS 568 (Fla. Feb. 6, 2014).
ICI Homes, Inc. a general contractor, hired Custom Cutting, Inc. to provide trim work, including installation of attic stairs in a residence ICI was building. Under the contract, Custom Cutting agreed to indemnify ICI for any damages resulting from Custom Cutting's negligence. The owner of the residence fell while using the attic stairs installed by Custom Cutting, injurying herself. The owner sued ICI, who sought indemnification from Custom Cutting.
ICI's policy with General Fidelity had a $1 million SIR. The policy also had a transfer of rights clause granting the insurer some subrogation rights.
The case was mediated. The parties agreed to a settlement of $1.6 million. Custom Cutting's insurer proposed paying $1 million to ICI to settle the indemnification claim. ICI, in turn, would pay that $1 million to the residence owner. A dispute arose over wither ICI or General Fidelity was responsible for paying the remaining $600,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
An Occurrence Under Builder’s Risk Insurance Policy Is Based on the Language in the Policy
April 03, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesBuilder’s risk insurance coverage is a vital property insurance coverage during the course of construction. Builder’s risk insurance is not a one-size-fits-all product so please make sure you are working with your insurance broker to procure this product that factors in and covers risk associated with the project.
Builder’s risk insurance is typically an occurrence-based policy. No different than other occurrence-based policies (such as commercial general liability), a dispute may arise as to the occurrence. This could be due to the triggering of the actual policy during the coverage period or it could be due deductible obligations, as in the case discussed below. When dealing with a builder’s risk insurance policy–again, no different than any policy–the language in the policy matters. Definitions used in the policy to define specific terms matter and, in numerous cases, the ordinary dictionary meanings of terms matter. But it all starts with the policy language.
In KT State & Lemon, LLP v. Westchester Fire Insurance Co., 2023 WL 2456499 (M.D.Fla. 2023), a builder’s risk policy provided coverage from April 2018 through the end of November 2019. There was a $50,000 per occurrence deductible for loss caused by or from water damage. An extension to the builder’s risk policy was negotiated through the end of January 2020 that increased this water damage deductible to $250,000 per occurrence. During construction and the testing of the fire suppression (sprinkler) system, leaks started to occur resulting in water damage. Two leaks occurred in September 2019, one leak in October 2019, one leak in November 2019, and two leaks in December 2019 (during the extension and higher water damage deductible period).
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
Construction Defect Claim Did Not Harm Homeowner, Court Rules
September 30, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled in Creswell v. Estate of Howe, a case in which a woman bought a home and then sued the seller’s estate, both sets of real estate agents, and the homeowner’s association over construction defects. A district court ruled against her, granting summary judgment to the other parties.
After buying a townhome “as is,” Catherine Creswell claims to have shared a thought with her agent that the homeowners association was, in the words of her agent, “trying to hide something.” Later, Creswell found that a few days before her closing, the board had discussed problems with “roofs, siding and soundproofing of the townhomes.” The court noted that “it was clear from the documents that appellant [Creswell] received that the association had known about various construction defects for many years, some of which affected [her] unit.”
Creswell initially sued the estate, the man who negotiated the sale for his mother’s estate, the real estate companies and the agents involved, the homeowners association, and four board members. Later she sued for punitive damages, dropped a claim for interference with contractual relations, and dismissed her claims against the individual board members. The court dismissed all of Creswell’s claims awarding costs to those she sued.
The appeals court has affirmed the decision of lower court, noting that Creswell “did not provide us with any argument why the district court erred in dismissing her unjust-enrichment, breach of contract, or rescission claims against the various respondents.” Nor did she provide evidence to support her claims of “breach of duty, fraud, and violation of consumer protection statutes.”
The court noted that Creswell could not sue the homeowners association over the construction defects because she “failed to prove that she was damaged by the association’s nondisclosure.” The court noted that “there are no damages in this case,” as Creswell “was never assessed for any repairs, she had not paid anything out-of-pocket for repairs, and she has presented no evidence that the value of her individual unit has declined because of the alleged undisclosed construction defects.”
The court granted the other parties motion to dismiss and denied Creswell’s motion to supplement the record. Costs were awarded to the respondents.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Comparing Contracts: A Review of the AIA 201 and ConsensusDocs - Part I
March 22, 2018 —
Michael Sams and Amanda Cox – Construction Executive, A publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All Rights Reserved.Here’s a helpful comparison of and analysis of some important contract sections in the
AIA 201 (2007 and 2017 versions) and
ConsensusDocs (2014 and 2017 versions). While not intended to be all inclusive, this summary comparison of the contract documents will run as a three-part series. Part I covers Financial Assurances, Design Risk, Project Management and Contract Administration. Part II will cover Schedule/Time, Consequential Damages/LDs, Claims and Disputes/ADR. Part III will cover Insurance and Indemnification and Payment.
FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
- What assurances are there that the owner can pay for the project?
- The Contractor should have the right to request and obtain proof that the Owner has funding sufficient to pay for the Work. The provision should also provide that the Contractor may terminate the Contract if the Owner refuses to allow a review of funding documents, or should the Contractor reasonably determine that the Owner does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Work.
Relevant Sections:
- A201 2007 Section 2.2.1; 2017 Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 A201
- 2014 & 2017 ConsensusDocs 200: Section 4.2
AIA:
- Section 2.2.1 A201 2007 & 2017: Both editions require the Owner, upon Contractor’s written request, to provide, “reasonable evidence that the Owner has made financial arrangements to fulfill the Owner’s obligations under the Contract.” Thereafter, the Contractor may only request such evidence if (1) the Owner fails to make payments; (2) a change in the Work materially changes the Contract Sum; or (3) the Contractor identifies in writing a reasonable concern regarding the Owner’s ability to make payment when due. If the Owner does not comply, the Contractor may stop work.
- Additionally, A201 2017 Section 2.2.2 awards costs to the Contractor for demobilization and remobilization.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Sams , Kenney & Sams and
Amanda Cox, Kenney & Sams
Mr. Sams may be contacted at mpsams@KandSlegal.com
Ms. Cox may be contacted at ajcox@KandSlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Moving Finish Line: Statutes of Limitation and Repose Are Not Always What They Seem
June 01, 2020 —
Kenneth E. Rubinstein & Nathan Fennessy - Construction ExecutiveHaving an end date for risk is important to construction professionals who need to know when they can close their books and destroy files relating to old projects. While professionals typically look to the statute of limitations and repose, these deadlines can sometimes be harder to determine than one might think.
State Laws Prohibiting Alteration of Statutes of Limitation
Many contractors seek to control the extent of their risk by negotiating the length of their liability period. In some instances, contractors may seek to shorten the statute of limitations to protect against stale claims. While in other instances, owners periodically negotiate for longer periods to ensure that they will not be time barred from pursuing valid claims. While the majority of states enforce such contractual provision, a number of states hold such clauses unenforceable. In these instances, the state’s original statute of limitations will apply regardless of what the contract says.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kenneth E. Rubinstein & Nathan Fennessy, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Rubenstein may be contacted at krubinstein@preti.com
Mr. Fennessy may be contacted at nfennessy@Preti.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Several Lewis Brisbois Partners Recognized by Sacramento Magazine in List of Top Lawyers
October 03, 2022 —
Lewis BrisboisSacramento, Calif. (September 2, 2022) - Sacramento Magazine has recognized several partners from Lewis Brisbois' Sacramento office on its List of Top Lawyers of 2022. The list is developed through a peer nomination process, with nominees then evaluated on the basis of survey results, the legitimacy of their licenses, and their standing with the State Bar of California. Qualifying attorneys who then receive the highest number of votes from their peers are included in the list, which is organized by area of practice.
Congratulations to:
- Managing Partner John S. Poulos, recognized for Construction Law and Construction Litigation.
- Partner Paul R. Baleria, recognized for Medical Malpractice.
- Partner Scott E. Bartel, recognized for Securities & Corporate Finance and Securities Litigation.
- Partner Greg L. Johnson, recognized for Banking & Financial Services.
- Partner Eric J. Stiff, recognized for Mergers & Acquisitions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”
June 21, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court.
The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well.
Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote:
“The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
