Amazon HQ2 Puts Concrete on an Embodied Carbon Diet
January 17, 2022 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordBefore the ground-breaking for Amazon’s 2.1-million-sq-ft Metropolitan Park office development across the Potomac River from the nation’s capital, Clark Construction Group’s John Swagart and Jeff King walked door to door, introducing themselves to shopkeepers near the MetPark site. The good-will ambassadors were pounding the pavement to inform MetPark’s neighbors of the plan to dig a 50-ft-deep hole—710 ft x 310 ft—and create two 22-story buildings.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Elects New Partners for 2020
February 24, 2020 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that
Adam P. Joffe and
Heather Fleming have been elected to the partnership effective January 1, 2020.
“Heather and Adam are terrific additions to our partnership and team. They are both effective, experienced and driven lawyers who work steadfastly on behalf of clients to meet their needs,” said Michael Knippen, firm chair.
Adam joined the firm in 2019 and is based in the firm’s Chicago office, which now includes 10 partners. He counsels and represents insurers in complex first-party and third-party coverage litigation. Adam also advises insurers on their coverage obligations under primary and excess commercial lines policies, including commercial general liability, employment practices liability, professional liability, and commercial property policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
NJ Transit’s Superstorm Sandy Coverage Victory Highlights Complexities of Underwriting Property Insurance Towers
February 24, 2020 —
Traub LiebermanIn New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 2019 WL 6109144 (N.J. App. Div. Nov. 18, 2019), New Jersey Transit (“NJT”) defeated the claim of several of its insurers that a $100 million flood sublimit applied to its Superstorm Sandy damages and recovered the full $400 million limits of its property insurance tower. The decision is a big win for the beleaguered transit agency, and for insurance professionals working with complex insurance towers, the decision highlights critical underwriting issues that can dramatically affect the amount of risk transferred by the policyholder or assumed by the insurer.
In NJ Transit, NJT secured a multi-layered property insurance program providing $400 million in all-risk coverage. The first and second layers provided $50 million each, the third and fourth layers provided $175 million and $125 million, respectively, with several insurers issuing quota shares in each layer. The program contained a $100 million flood sublimit, and “flood” was defined to include a “surge” of water. The program did not contain a sublimit for damage caused by a “named windstorm,” which was defined to include “storm surge” associated with a named storm. After NJT made its Superstorm-Sandy claim, some of the third- and fourth-layer insurers advised NJT that the $100 million flood sublimit applied to bar coverage under their policies. NJT sued these excess insurers and won at the trial and appellate levels.
In holding that the $100 million flood sublimit did not apply, the court applied the rule of construction that the specific definition of “named windstorm,” which included the terms “storm surge” and “wind driven water,” controlled over the policies’ more general definition of “flood.” In ascertaining the parties’ intent, the court noted that the omission of the term “storm surge” in the definition of “flood” evidenced an intention that the flood sublimit would not apply to storm surges. Based on this finding, the court rejected several arguments made by the insurers that other policy provisions evidenced the parties’ intent to apply the flood sublimit to all flood-related losses, regardless of whether the loss was caused by a storm surge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher
February 27, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs those who read Construction Law Musings on a regular basis know,
mechanic’s liens are a big part of my construction law practice. These
tricky and strictly enforced statutory collection tools are very powerful when correctly recorded and utterly useless if they aren’t recorded in a timely fashion and with the correct information contained within them. Couple that fact with recent
changes to the mechanic’s lien form in 2019, and I feel the need to give a quick refresher.
If you’ve kept up with Musings, you know about the two big numbers for Virginia mechanic’s lien timing, 90 and 150. These should be kept in mind for every general contractor, subcontractor, or supplier on any construction project in Virginia.
Virginia Code Section 43-4 sets out the reasons to keep these numbers in mind. The code section sets out why you need to know these numbers.
The 90 refers to the deadline for recording a lien. This number affects the right to a lien in Virginia. In order to preserve lien rights, a construction contractor must record the lien within ninety days of the last day of the last month in which the last work was performed or no later than ninety days from the date of completion of the project or other termination of work. The short version is that most general contractors on commercial projects have 90 days from the last work in which to record their lien and most subcontractors have 90 days from the last day of the last month of work. However, the best practice is to simply calculate the 90 days from the last work performed or material supplied to avoid issues and arguments between attorneys regarding timing.
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
BHA has a Nice Swing Benefits the Wounded Warrior Project
May 20, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) would like to congratulate the winners of the BHA Has a Nice Swing golf game for charity at the 2015 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. With the help of the participants, BHA was able to raise $1925 to benefit the Wounded Warrior Project. BHA would also like to congratulate the raffle winners. Prizes included a DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ Drone and Dodger baseball tickets.
The Wounded Warrior Project’s purpose is to raise awareness and enlist the public’s aid for the needs of injured service members; to help injured service members aid and assist each other; and to provide unique, direct programs and services to meet the needs of injured service members.
Learn more about the Wounded Warrior Project...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Virginia Tech Has Its Own Construction Boom
May 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe last few years has been a tough time for the construction industry, unless you’re in the proximity to the campus of Virginia Tech. Since 1999, the school has seen more than $1 billion in construction projects. Charles Steger, the president of the university says that “we have no intention of slowing down.”
Steger views some of the construction as vital to the school’s mission, noting that at Davidson Hall, which contains chemistry laboratories, “the wiring and other facilities were almost a health hazard.” The building is undergoing a $31 million renovation.
In order to keep the campus walkable, parking lots are being replaced by parking garages. Four dormitory buildings will be demolished and replaced by new facilities. Funds for the development have come from a mix of student fees, donations, research revenues, bond issues, and taxpayer revenues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Client Alert: Absence of a Court Reporter at a Civil Motion Hearing May Preclude Appellate Review
November 26, 2014 —
Angela S. Haskins & Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPA California Court of Appeal expressed its concern over the due process implications of reviewing a trial court's decision that incorporated reasons that were not documented due to the absence of a court reporter. In Maxwell v. Dolezal (No. B254893, filed 11/4/14), the court cautioned that although the lack of a transcript did not preclude its review of an order sustaining a demurrer, the case was an exception because the operative complaint and demurrer were sufficient to permit effective appellate review.
The plaintiff in Maxwell, acting in pro per, had filed an action for invasion of privacy and breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had used his photograph and website without his consent and that he did not receive the money, food and housing in exchange for the intellectual property rights per their agreement. The defendant demurred on the grounds that the complaint was uncertain and it could not be ascertained from the pleading whether the contract was written, oral, or implied. At the hearing on the demurrer, no court reporter was present. Nonetheless, the trial court's minute order explicitly sustained the demurrer "[f]or the reasons stated in open court," without further elaborating. The trial court also denied the plaintiff further leave to amend on the ground that he was unable to articulate in open court a reasonable basis for any additional allegations that would remedy the deficiencies. The court of appeal noted that it was "profoundly concerned about the due process implications of a proceeding in which the court, aware that no record will be made, incorporates within its ruling reasons that are not documented for the litigants or the reviewing court."
Reprinted courtesy of
Angela S. Haskins, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Haskins may be contacted at ahaskins@hbblaw.com; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Law Client Alert: California Appeals Court Refuses to Apply Professional Services Exclusion to Products-Completed Operations Loss
March 19, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn North Counties Engineering v. State Farm (No. A133713, filed 3/13/14), State Farm insured an engineering company under CGL insurance that had a professional services exclusion and included products-completed operations (PCO) coverage. The owner of the engineering company, NCE, contracted with a winery to construct a dam and associated works. Also on the project was the owner's son, who had his own construction company, NCD. There were multiple contracts, both oral and written, variously naming one company or the other. The evidence later showed that the father performed hands-on work for the project.
After completion, the winery was sued over sediment and erosion caused by the dam. State Farm denied coverage on the ground that the professional services exclusion applied, as well as a mistaken belief that the policy had no PCO coverage. State Farm then changed its position and agreed to defend, but only going forward. The insured sued State Farm over past defense fees, alleging breach of contract and bad faith. The case went to trial and after testimony detailing State Farm's claim handling, the trial judge granted a nonsuit, finding that the professional services exclusion barred all coverage:
"[I]f you look at the pleadings, the legal pleadings and the contracts, the NCE role is, as the engineering company, the support company, and that company was overseeing the [sic] NCD to make sure that whatever they did was done right.... NCE is the expert on the job, the professional providing professional services, design and construction, and also overseeing the work of NCD, the son’s business, which is doing more of the physical activity.... That takes professional expertise and I think all of what Mr. Akerstrom did was professional.... It was this professional work, and not 'something incidental to their professional involvement' that gave rise to the underlying actions. In this situation, it’s not a malpractice or E and O policy. It’s a business policy, which has good benefits, but is subject to the professional services exclusion."
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore and
Chris Kendrick of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
