Mandatory Arbitration Isn’t All Bad, if. . .
August 13, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn the past week or so mandatory arbitration has been all the rage. From those that argue that arbitration is becoming more burdensome than litigation, to my friend and fellow construction attorney Scott Wolfe who gives great advice on how to make arbitration worth it again. You can place me in the camp of those that think that mandatory arbitration clauses of the type typically found in contracts can add a layer of expense that can be unnecessary.
However, if an arbitration clause is carefully drafted, and properly used, these clauses an be helpful in assuring that the streamlining effect for which arbitration was created actually occurs. Because the contract is king in Virginia, these provisions can essentially create the rule of civil procedure used to resolve any dispute relating to the project.
Anything from the number and method of appointing the arbitrators, to the ability to use attorneys, to the time between notice and arbitration hearing and whether mediation is a requirement, to the documents and other pre-arbitration exchanges can and should be specifically outlined. The construction contract can also state who decides between court or arbitration. This can be one party or both. The possibilities are almost endless.
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
New York’s Lawsky Proposes Changes to Reduce Home Foreclosures
May 20, 2015 —
Jesse Westbrook – BloombergNew York’s banking regulator proposed changes to the foreclosure process to try to help borrowers in the state keep their homes.
One reason New York has a high rate of foreclosures is that mandatory settlement meetings between borrowers and mortgage servicers typically don’t take place for months after a bank initiates a foreclosure, Benjamin Lawsky, superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services said in prepared remarks Tuesday.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Westbrook, Bloomberg
Builder Exposes 7 Myths regarding Millennials and Housing
January 12, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBuilder Magazine discussed seven myths regarding Generation Y and housing, and stated whether it was fact or fiction. First, they answered whether “Millennials Carry Historically High Student Debt Levels,” (True), and second they concluded it was true that “Millenials Can’t Afford Down Payment at Today’s Standards.” However, Builder was split on whether “Millennials Will Pay a Premium for Green and Tech Features.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
5 Questions about New York's Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act
February 14, 2022 —
Richard W. Brown & Michael V. Pepe - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On December 31, 2021, New York enacted the Comprehensive Insurance Disclosure Act (“CIDA”), requiring defendants to provide plaintiffs with “complete” information for any insurance policy through which a judgment could be satisfied, within sixty (60) days after serving an answer. The stated goal is to reduce delay tactics by compelling disclosures of all policies implicated by a claim as well as other claims, contracts, or agreements that may deplete available coverage or residual limits of policies that have already been eroded by other payments. The impact of CIDA’s disclosure requirements may be scaled back by proposed amendments currently pending before the New York state legislature.
1. What does CIDA Require?
CIDA requires the automatic disclosure of insurance information to plaintiffs. New York’s Civil Practice Law & Rules (“CPLR”) 3101(f) permits civil discovery of the contents of existing insurance agreements by which an insurer may be liable for all or part of a judgment. However, CIDA amends the CPLR to mandate that defendants must automatically disclose the following information in all pending cases starting March 1, 2022, or within sixty (60) days of filing an answer to a complaint going forward:
- Complete copy of all insurance policies that are available to satisfy all or part of a potential judgment.
- This includes Primary, Excess, and Umbrella policies.
- The relevant applications for insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.
Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.
The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”
Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”
The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”
Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”
The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.
Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.
Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”
The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractors: Revisit your Force Majeure Provisions to Account for Hurricanes
September 20, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWe now know and can appreciate the threat of hurricanes. Not that we did not appreciate the reality of hurricanes–of course we did–but Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Irma created the type of actual devastation we fear because they hit close to home. The fear came to life, creating panic, anxiety, and uncertainty. It is hard to plan for a force majeure event such as a hurricane because of the capriciousness of Mother Nature. But, we need to do so from this point forward. No exception! And, I mean no exception!!
A force majeure event is an uncontrollable event that cannot be anticipated with any degree of definitiveness. The force majeure event will excusably delay or hinder performance obligations under a contract. One type of force majeure event is a hurricane—an uncontrollable and unforeseen act of Mother Nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Build, Baby, Build. But Not Like This, Britain.
March 04, 2024 —
Matthew Brooker - BloombergThe UK needs to do a lot more building. A lack of access to physical and digital connections is holding back the economy, the government says. Besides tackling the housing crisis, the country has to construct more roads, railways, wind farms and reservoirs to open up opportunity and drive productivity. The only problem is that Britain is notoriously inept at delivering infrastructure projects on time and within budget.
The advantage of doing things badly is that at least you get to learn from your mistakes — in theory. Updates this month have offered some illuminating insights into two of the biggest civil-engineering undertakings in the country: High-Speed Rail 2, better known as HS2, and Hinkley Point C, which will be Britain’s first new nuclear power station since 1995. Here are five lessons that can be drawn from the issues encountered by two projects with a combined bill that’s likely to exceed £100 billion ($127 billion):
Don't take budgets too seriously — especially at the start. Fixing an initial budget that was too low may have done much to feed later perceptions that HS2’s costs were spiraling out of control. The original estimate for the expanded train network was set too early and based on “very immature data,” Jon Thompson, appointed executive chair of High Speed 2 Ltd. in February last year, told the House of Commons transport committee. Numbers get more accurate and reliable as work progresses and the quality of information improves. What were viewed as cost blowouts partly reflected this process. The effect was unfortunate, undermining political support for HS2 and providing cover for cutbacks that have reduced the network to a single line between London and Birmingham that fails to fulfill most of its original purpose. To avoid this problem: Stick to a range rather than a single figure, and make sure people understand the uncertainties inherent in early-stage estimates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew Brooker, Bloomberg
Insurer’s Discovery Requests Ruled to be Overbroad in Construction Defect Suit
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court has ruled in the case of D.R. Horton Los Angeles Holding Co. Inc. v. American Safety Indemnity, Co. D.R. Horton was involved in a real estate development project. Its subcontractor, Ebensteiner Co., was insured by ASIC and named D.R. Horton as an additional insured and third-party beneficiary. D.R. Horton, in response to legal complaints and cross-complaints, filed for coverage from ASIC under the Ebensteiner policy. This was refused by ASIC. ASIC claimed that “there is no potential coverage for Ebensteiner as a Named Insurer and/or D.R. Horton as an Additional Insured.” They stated that “the requirements for coverage are not satisfied.”
The case same to trial with the deadline for discovery set at March 1, 2011. ASIC stated they were seeking the developer’s “job file” for the Canyon Gate project. D.R. Horton claimed that ASIC’s discovery request was overbroad and that it would be “unduly burdensome for it to produce all documents responsive to the overbroad requests.”
D.R. Horton did agree to produce several categories of documents, which included:
“(1) final building inspection sign-offs for the homes that are the subject of the underlying litigation;(2) an updated homeowner matrix for the underlying actions; (3) the concrete subcontractor files; (4) the daily field logs for D.R. Horton’s on-site employee during Ebensteiner’s work; (5) documents relating to concrete work, including documents for concrete suppliers; (6) documents relating to compacting testing; (7) documents relating to grading; and (8) D.R. Horton’s request for proposal for grading”
The court found that the requests from ASIC were overbroad, noting that the language of the ASIC Request for Production of Documents (RFP) 3-5 would include “subcontractor files for plumbing, electric, flooring, etc. - none of these being at issue in the case.” The court denied the ASIC’s motion to compel further documents.
The court also found fault with ASIC’s RFPs 6 and 7. Here, D.R. Horton claimed the language was written so broadly it would require the production of sales information and, again, subcontractors not relevant to the case.
Further, the court found that RFPs 8, 10, 11, and 13 were also overbroad. RFP 8 covered all subcontractors. D.R. Horton replied that they had earlier complied with the documents covered in RFPs 10 and 11. The court concurred. RFP 13 was denied as it went beyond the scope of admissible evidence, even including attorney-client communication.
The court denied all of ASIC’s attempts to compel further discovery.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
