Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall
December 30, 2019 —
Jonathan R. Harwood - Traub Lieberman PerspectivesOn September 30, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner Jonathan Harwood obtained summary judgment in an action involving a guest injured in a fall at a wedding. Traub Lieberman’s client owned the property where the fall occurred. Plaintiff fell while exiting a row of seats after the bridal party had recessed down the aisle. Plaintiff claimed that she tripped over the raised side of a paper runner that had been placed in the aisle at the property. Plaintiff brought an action against Traub Lieberman’s client (the owner of the building) and the florist that had provided the runner. The owner had provided the bridal party with access to the property but did not assist in the set up for the wedding or have any employees present during the ceremony. The florist had supplied the runner for the wedding. The florist commenced a third-party action against the bride, whose wedding party had actually placed the runner in the aisle. Plaintiff asserted that the runner had become bunched and crumpled during the ceremony, creating a dangerous condition. She further asserted that the owner was responsible for her injuries since the dangerous condition existed on its property and it should have an employee present to insure no dangerous conditions existed.
During the course of discovery, Mr. Harwood established that no one representing the owner was present during the wedding, had any involvement in the placement of the runner or had received any complaints about the runner. In support of the motion for summary judgment Mr. Harwood introduced pictures showing, in conjunction with deposition testimony, that there were no problems with the runner minutes before plaintiff’s fall. Mr. Harwood also argued that the alleged defect did not involve the property itself, absolving the owner of any obligation to plaintiff. In granting the motion for summary judgment, the court held that evidence and testimony showed that the owner neither created the condition nor had actual or constructive notice that any dangerous condition existed. The court also held that there the owner did not have any duty to have a representative present during the wedding since the property itself was not dangerous or defective. Finally, the court held that the condition of the runner was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub LiebermanMr. Harwood may be contacted at
jharwood@tlsslaw.com
Does a Contractor (or Subcontractor) Have to Complete its Work to File a Mechanics Lien
January 10, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong - Zimolong LLCYes. There seems to be common misconception that a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier, has six months
from its last day of work on the project to file a mechanics lien. I frequently see mechanics liens whereby the claimant states “Claimants last day of work on the project was X.” However, Section 1502 (49 P.S. Section 1502) of the Pennsylvania Mechanics Lien is clear that a lien must be filed within six month of “the completion of his work.” Under the Lien Law, “completion of the work” is a defined term and means “means performance of the last of the labor or delivery of the last of the materials required by the terms of the claimant’s contract or agreement, whichever last occurs.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register.
Background
As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency.
In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Alabama Federal Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Construction Defect Declaratory Judgment Action Due to Expanded Duty to Defend Standard
May 31, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo Meta - White and WilliamsWhile the starting point for assessing an insurer’s duty to defend requires comparing the allegations contained within a complaint to the language contained within the insured’s policy, the majority of states require an insurer to do more. In Alabama, a failure of the underlying complaint to allege damages falling within the policy’s terms is not necessarily fatal to coverage – if there are facts provable by admissible evidence to place the loss within coverage.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama recently examined Alabama’s broadened duty to defend standard in Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Company v. Gates Builders, No. 20-00596, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83645 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2021). In Frankenmuth, the magistrate judge was tasked with determining whether the court should abstain from hearing an insurer’s declaratory judgment coverage action pending the resolution of the underlying state court action.
The underlying state court action arose out of an allegedly defective construction project. Frankenmuth’s insured, Gates Builders, was hired to perform exterior and structural rehabilitation work at the Resort Conference Center Condominium (the Condominium) in Gulf Shores, Alabama. The project began in July 2014 and concluded in June 2015. In 2019, Gates Builders was informed that the Condominium’s decks were sagging. Gates Builders shored up the decks and provided the Condominium with a quote for the cost of repairs. In July 2020, the Condominium’s Association filed suit, alleging that the work performed in 2014 and 2015 was faulty and had caused damage to the Condominium.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Margo Meta, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Home Construction Booming in Texas
October 24, 2022 —
Jason Daniel Feld & Ron Raydon - Kahana FeldWith the rapid relocation trends of families moving to Texas, it was reported that new residential construction permits in Texas grew to a total value in excess of $2 billion and over 7,500 new construction permits in September 2022 alone. D.R. Horton lead the way with 1,139 new permits, while Lennar Homes clocked 696 new permits. Other leading homebuilders including KB Homes (239 permits) and Pulte Homes (253 permits) remained active heading into the 4th Quarter of 2022. The following is a breakdown of new permits and average home values in the 4 largest cities in Texas (Houston, Dallas, Austin and San Antonio) for September 2022:
Houston
Last month, there were approximately 340 home builders with new permits on record in the Houston area, and the following ranked as the top five total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-D.R. Horton |
483 |
$ 129,812.00 |
| 2-Camillo Properties |
190 |
$ 147,790.00 |
| 3-Lennar Homes |
188 |
$ 195,503.00 |
| 4-Meritage Homes |
124 |
$ 248,597.00 |
| 5-Wan Pacific Real Estate Development |
117 |
$ 165,044.00 |
Dallas
In Dallas, there were more than 290 contractors with new residential construction activity on record with HBW last month, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-D.R. Horton |
555 |
$ 179,430.00 |
| 2-Lennar Homes |
232 |
$ 202,318.00 |
| 3-Trophy Signature Homes |
111 |
$ 274,016.00 |
| 4-Bloomfield Homes |
97 |
$ 405,235.00 |
| 5-Meritage Homes |
92 |
$ 267,425.00 |
Austin
Last month, there were nearly 125 home builders with new construction activity on record in the Austin area, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits for the one-month period:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-Lennar Homes |
150 |
$ 154,390.00 |
| 2-KB Homes |
147 |
$ 253,606.00 |
| 3-D.R. Horton |
99 |
$ 200,416.00 |
| 4-Taylor Morrison Homes |
79 |
$ 365,183.00 |
| 5-David Weekley Homes |
64 |
$ 436,978.00 |
San Antonio
In San Antonio, there were nearly 120 contractors with new residential construction activity on record last month, and the following ranked as the top five for total new permits:
| Builder | Total Permits | Average Value |
|---|
| 1-Lennar Homes |
126 |
$ 174,315.00 |
| 2-KB Homes |
55 |
$ 254,109.00 |
| 3-Pulte Homes |
52 |
$ 241,012.00 |
| 4-M/I Homes |
51 |
$ 237,283.00 |
| 5-LGI Homes |
30 |
$ 202,760.00 |
The residential construction boom is Texas does not appear to be slowing down anytime soon. With new corporations relocating corporate offices to the Lone Star State each year, we expect this trend to continue for the foreseeable future. And with increased home production, we will closely monitor the increase in construction related litigation over the next five to ten years.
The increase in market activity attracts new or inexperienced builders and tradesman, making the importance of a proactive approach to construction management all the more important. Given the labor shortages and supply chain issues. It is imperative that Texas homebuilders take extra precautions to ensure quality construction practices and oversight to minimize potential litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana Feld and Ron Raydon, Kahana Feld
Mr. Feld may be contacted at jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Mr. Raydon may be contacted at rraydon@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
North Dakota Supreme Court Clarifies Breadth of Contractual Liability Coverage
October 30, 2018 —
Michael S. Levine & Latosha M. Ellis - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogNorth Dakota’s highest court delivered a blow to Mid-Continent Casualty Company in Borsheim Builders Supply, Inc. v. Manger Insurance Co., ruling that a contract between a policyholder and general contractor fit the insured contract exception of contractual liability.
Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policies generally exclude an insured’s contractual assumption of another party’s liability. The exclusion typically contains an exception for what is known as an “insured contract.” However, many policyholders and insurance claims personnel often miss the significance of the insured contract exception. This was the case in Borsheim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews KurthMr. Levine may be contacted at
mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Another Municipality Takes Action to Address the Lack of Condominiums Being Built in its Jurisdiction
March 12, 2015 —
Heather M. Anderson – Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCWhether you are in the market to downsize or are looking to be a first time home buyer, you have likely noticed that your housing options in Colorado have become extremely limited over the course of the last several years. If you are a contractor and have worked on multi-family projects in the recent past, you know why the housing options are limited in the State of Colorado. In the past two years, there have been studies commissioned and articles published in local periodicals investigating the extreme slowdown seen in the construction of owner-occupied multi-family housing, namely condominiums and townhomes. Those of us involved in and with the construction industry are intimately familiar with the lengthy, complicated, and incredibly expensive construction defect litigation that has plagued multi-family construction in the State of Colorado and brought it to a virtual halt.
And now, local municipalities and elected officials are starting to take notice. Most recently, the City of Lone Tree passed Ordinance No. 15-01, to become effective on April 1, 2015. According to the City of Lone Tree, Ordinance No. 15-01 is “aimed at encouraging the development of owner-occupied, multi-family residential projects through the adoption of regulations designed to balance the risk and exposure to builders and developers of such projects, while still protecting homeowners from legitimate construction defect claims.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather M. Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Anderson may be contacted at
Anderson@hhmrlaw.com
Superior Court Of Pennsylvania Holds That CASPA Does Not Allow For Individual Claims Against A Property Owner’s Principals Or Shareholders
January 07, 2015 —
William J. Taylor and Michael Jervis – White and Williams LLPIn Scungio Borst Assocs. v. 410 Shurs Lane Developers, LLC, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that an individual principal/shareholder of a property owner could not be held personally liable as an “agent of the owner” for unpaid invoices, penalties, and attorneys fees under the Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act (CASPA), 73 P.S. §§ 501-516, even though the property owner itself had failed to make payments allegedly due under a construction contract.
CASPA is a Pennsylvania statute which is designed to protect contractors and subcontractors from nonpayment and which, to that end, establishes rules and deadlines for payment under construction contracts between property owners, contractors, and subcontractors. An owner or contractor who does not adhere to the Act’s payment requirements is subject to the imposition of interest, penalties, and attorneys’ fees. In this recent case, the property owner, a limited liability company, had retained the plaintiff contractor to perform construction services on a condominium project. Upon completion of the work, the contractor was not paid approximately $1.5 million that it was owed under the contract. The contractor filed suit under CASPA to obtain the payment it was owed plus interest, penalties and fees, and named both the property owner and its individual principal as defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment to the individual principal on all claims asserted against him, and the contractor appealed, arguing that CASPA allows for claims against both a property owner and its principal when the principal is an “agent of the owner acting with the owner’s authority.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP and
William J. Taylor, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Taylor may be contacted at taylorw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
