While You Were Getting Worked Up Over Oil Prices, This Just Happened to Solar
October 29, 2014 —
Tom Randall – BloombergEvery time fossil fuels get cheaper, people lose interest in solar deployment. That may be about to change.
After years of struggling against cheap natural gas prices and variable subsidies, solar electricity is on track to be as cheap or cheaper than average electricity-bill prices in 47 U.S. states -- in 2016, according to a Deutsche Bank report published this week. That’s assuming the U.S. maintains its 30 percent tax credit on system costs, which is set to expire that same year.
Even if the tax credit drops to 10 percent, solar will soon reach price parity with conventional electricity in well over half the nation: 36 states. Gone are the days when solar panels were an exotic plaything of Earth-loving rich people. Solar is becoming mainstream, and prices will continue to drop as the technology improves and financing becomes more affordable, according to the report.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Randall, BloombergMr. Randall may be contacted at
trandall6@bloomberg.net
Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: LISA D. LOVE
March 19, 2024 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverCompany: JAMS
Office Location: New York, NY
Email: llove@jamsadr.com
Website: https://www.jamsadr.com/love/
Law School: Georgetown University Law Center (J.D. 1984)
Types of ADR services offered: Arbitration, mediation, neutral evaluation and special master services
Affiliated ADR organizations: JAMS, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, and CPR
Geographic area served: Domestic and International
Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral.
A: I started my legal career practicing law as a complex commercial transactions attorney in the corporate department of a major New York law firm for eleven years. After leaving the firm, I served as chief legal counsel to several municipalities and as co-founding partner of a boutique finance, infrastructure and real estate law firm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
General Liability Alert: ADA Requirements Pertaining to Wall Space Adjacent to Interior Doors Clarified
February 26, 2015 —
Lawrence S. Zucker II and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond (No. 12-56727, filed February 19, 2015) the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a department store related to the necessary moving clearance for an interior restroom door pursuant to the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Plaintiff, Chris Kohler, is paraplegic and requires the use of a wheelchair to move in public. On two separate days in May 2011, Kohler used the restroom inside the Bed Bath & Beyond store in Riverside, California. Of relevance to the appeal, Kohler contends there was less than ten inches of strike-side wall space on the pull side of Bed Bath & Beyond’s restroom door which allegedly made it difficult for Mr. Kohler to pull open the restroom door by pushing off the strike-side wall with one hand while pulling the door handle with the other. He also contends there was less than three inches of strike-side wall or floor space on the push side of the door, making it difficult for Kohler to open the door from the push side. The door at issue did not have a latch which would stop the door from freely swinging on a hinge.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What ENR.com Construction News Gained the Most Views
January 09, 2023 —
C.J. Schexnayder - Engineering News-RecordAs the construction industry continued its ongoing recovery from the global pandemic in 2022, it also faced a number of formidable challenges—including staffing gaps, materials shortages, supply chain delays and the ongoing specter of inflation. Throughout the year, ENR editors reported on how these issues—and many more—were impacting the sector and how it responded.
Reprinted courtesy of
C.J. Schexnayder, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Schexnayder may be contacted at schexnayderc@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Central Wins Authority to Take Land for High-Speed Rail System
October 03, 2022 —
Barclay Nicholson & Erica Gibbons - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogMove over luxury bus lines and quick flights. Central Texans should be on the lookout for bulldozers and train stops. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and related entities (collectively “Texas Central”) have eminent domain authority to acquire property for a proposed high-speed rail system between Dallas and Houston.
[1] Specifically, the Court held that the corporation qualifies as an “interurban electric railway company” under the Texas Transportation Code. This ruling grants Texas Central the broad condemnation authority to procure land for the project.
Texas Central has Statutory Authority to Take Land
The plaintiff in the matter, a farm owner with property south of Dallas along the proposed path of the bullet train, challenged the companies power to condemn land. The landowner’s declaratory judgment action challenged Texas Central’s eminent-domain authority. Under Texas law, condemnation power must be conferred by the legislature, either expressly or by necessary implication.
[2]
Here, Texas Central was created for the purpose of constructing, acquiring, maintaining, or operating lines of electric railway between Texas municipalities. The Court found that Texas Central is engaged in activities to further that purpose. Therefore, the Court concluded, that although legislators did not contemplate high-speed railways at the time of drafting the Transportation Code, Texas Central nonetheless qualified as “interurban electric railway companies” under the statute.
Reprinted courtesy of
Barclay Nicholson, Sheppard Mullin and
Erica Gibbons, Sheppard Mullin
Mr. Nicholson may be contacted at bnicholson@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Gibbons may be contacted at egibbons@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Dismisses Cross Claims Against Utility Based on Construction Anti-Indemnity Statute
August 14, 2018 —
David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPWhen a plane crashed and several passengers and crew died or were injured, their representatives sued several defendants, including a nearby plant owner, Milliken & Company (“Plant Owner”), based on claims that transmission lines on Plant Owner’s property were too close to the runways, were too high, and encroached on the airport easements. Plant Owner cross claimed against utility owner, Georgia Power Company (“Utility”). Plant Owner’s claim was based on an easement it granted to Utility, which required Utility to indemnify it for any claims arising out of Utility’s construction or maintenance of the transmission lines.
In defense, Utility argued that the easement’s indemnity provision violated Georgia’s construction anti-indemnity statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Two Worthy Insurance Topics: (1) Bad Faith, And (2) Settling Without Insurer’s Consent
February 20, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, American Builders Insurance Company v. Southern-Owners Insurance Company, 56 F.4th 938 (11th Cir. 2023), is an insurer versus insurer case that touches on two important insurance topics: (1) common law bad faith against an insurance company, and (2) an insurer’s affirmative defense that an insured settled a claim without its consent. The Eleventh Circuit provides invaluable legal discussion on these topics that any insured (and an insured’s counsel) need to know and appreciate. While this article won’t go into the granular facts as referenced in the opinion, it will go into the law because it is the law the facts of a case MUST cater to and address.
In this case, a person performing subcontracting work fell from a roof without fall protection and became paralyzed from the waist down. The general contractor had a primary liability policy and an excess policy. The general contractor’s primary liability insurer investigated the accident and assessed the claim. The subcontractor’s liability insurer, which was the primary insurance policy (the general contractor was an additional insured for work the subcontractor performed for the general contractor), did little to investigate and assess the claim and then refused to pay any amount to settle the underlying claim or honor its defense and indemnity obligation to the general contractor.
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
