Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites
December 30, 2019 —
Newmeyer DillionNewmeyer Dillion, a prominent business and real estate law firm, is pleased to announce that, on November 18, 2019, the City Council of the City of Piedmont unanimously voted to approve the installation of 17 small cell wireless telecommunications sites by Newmeyer Dillion client Crown Castle NG West LLC, the leading provider of shared communications infrastructure in the United States. This victory ends a long-running legal dispute over Crown Castle's small cell wireless network, which was vehemently opposed by Piedmont residents and previously rejected by the City Council, prompting Newmeyer Dillion to bring a lawsuit against the city in 2017.
The dispute began in 2016 when Crown Castle filed an application with the City Council of the City of Piedmont to build nine small cell wireless sites designed to provide critical wireless telecommunications coverage in Piedmont. In October 2017, the Council denied the network, rejecting some of the proposed sites or approving others with onerous conditions.
Newmeyer Dillion's Government, Land Use and Environmental practice group filed a lawsuit on behalf of Crown Castle in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in November 2017, challenging the Council's decision. Drawing from the language established in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the lawsuit alleged that Piedmont's ordinances established an unreasonably high bar of approval, unlawfully prohibiting telecommunications services in the city.
The city quickly requested a court-supervised settlement, which was approved by the City Council in December 2018 and allowed Crown Castle to reapply to build 17 small cell wireless telecommunications facilities. The unanimous City Council approval came after extensive mediation work between the two parties.
"We are excited that our years-long efforts have culminated in this major win for Crown Castle, allowing them to build out critical telecommunications infrastructure in the City of Piedmont," said Michael Shonafelt, partner at Newmeyer Dillion. "With the growing national need for robust telecommunications networks that can handle voice communication and modern data demands, approvals such as this are significant, not just for the community the network serves, but for the viability of the national telecommunications network as a whole. Our team is proud to be using our multidisciplinary, business-oriented approach to successfully advise clients navigating these issues."
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of corporate, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, Newmeyer Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Unable to Declare its Coverage Excess In Construction Defect Case
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a summary judgment in the case of American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Several other insurance companies were party to this case. In the earlier case, the US District Court of Appeals for Arizona had granted a summary judgment to Ohio Casualty Group and National Fire & Marine Insurance Company. At the heart of it, is a dispute over construction defect coverage.
The general contractor for Astragal Luxury Villas, GFTDC, contracted with American Family to provide it with a commercial liability policy. Coverage was issued to various subcontractors by Ohio Casualty and National Fire. These policies included blanket additional insured endorsements that provided coverage to GFTDC. The subcontractor policies had provisions making their coverage excess over other policies available to GFTDC.
The need for insurance was triggered when the Astragal Condominium Unit Owners Association filed a construction defect claim in the Arizona Superior Court. CFTDC filed a third-party claim against several subcontractors. The case was settled with American Family paying the settlement, after which it filed seeking reimbursement from the subcontractor’s insurers. The court instead granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio Casualty and National Fire.
American Family appealed to the Ninth Circuit for a review of the summary judgment, arguing that the “other insurance” clauses were “mutually repugnant and unenforceable.” The Ninth Circuit cited a case from the Arizona Court of Appeals that held that “where two policies cover the same occurrence and both contain ‘other insurance’ clauses, the excess insurance provisions are mutually repugnant and must be disregarded. Each insurer is then liable for a pro rate share of the settlement or judgment.”
The court noted that unlike other “other insurance” cases, the American Family policy “states that it provides primary CGL coverage for CFTDC and is rendered excess only if there is ‘any other primary insurance’ available to GFTDC as an additional insured.” They note that “the American Family policy purports to convert from primary to excess coverage only if CFTDC has access to other primary insurance as an additional insured.”
In comparison, the court noted that “the ‘other insurance’ language in Ohio Casualty’s additional insured endorsement cannot reasonably be read to contradict, or otherwise be inconsistent with, the ‘other primary insurance’ provision in the American Family policy.” They find other reasons why National Fire’s coverage did not supersede American Family’s. In this case, the policy is “written explicitly to apply in excess.”
Finally, the Astragal settlement did not exhaust American Family’s coverage, so they were obligated to pay out the full amount. The court upheld the summary dismissal of American Family’s claims.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Subcontractors Have a Duty to Clarify Ambiguities in Bid Documents
August 19, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorSeveral months ago, I wrote about an escalator subcontractor that sued a general contractor, demanding payment for work completed based on approved shop drawings. The trial court agreed with the subcontractor, but the general contractor appealed. Ten months later, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the subcontractor had a duty to bring to the general contractor’s attention major discrepancies or errors they detect in the bid documents.
“The subcontractor failed to disclose ambiguities in the plans and must suffer the peril.”
Construction Difficulties
The subcontractor installed 32 inch escalators throughout the project, but the plans called for 40 inch escalators. The general contractor and subcontractor could not reach agreement on how the dispute should be resolved. The subcontractor sued the general to get paid for replacing the escalators and the general sued to subcontractor for concessions it had to pay to the owner.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Certifying Claim Under Contract Disputes Act
June 08, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesUnder the Contract Disputes Act (41 USC 7101 en seq.), when a contractor submits a claim to the government in excess of $100,000, the claim MUST contain a certification of good faith, as follows:
For claims of more than $100,000 made by a contractor, the contractor shall certify that–
(A) the claim is made in good faith;
(B) the supporting data are accurate and complete to the best of the contractor’s knowledge and belief;
(C) the amount requested accurately reflects the contract adjustment for which the contractor believes the Federal Government is liable; and
(D) the certifier is authorized to certify the claim on behalf of the contractor.
41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(1). See also 48 C.F.R. s. 33.207(c) as to the wording of the certification.
The contracting officer is not required to render a final decision on the claim within 60 days if, during this time period, he/she notifies the contractor of the reasons why the certification is defective. 41 U.S.C. 7103(b)(3). Importantly, the contracting officer’s failure to render a decision within 60 days is deemed an appealable denial.
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
Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects
May 15, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneIn All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court.
Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
New York State Legislature Reintroduces Bills to Extend Mortgage Recording Tax to Mezzanine Debt and Preferred Equity
March 15, 2021 —
Steven E. Coury & Marissa Levy - White and WilliamsCompanion bills in the New York State Legislature, Assembly Bill No. A3139 and Senate Bill No. S3074, if enacted, would subject mezzanine loans and preferred equity investments to the same recording and taxation requirements placed on mortgages.
The bills were reintroduced last month after similar bills (S7231/A9041) were introduced in the 2019-2020 legislative session. The prior bills died in committee when last year’s legislative session adjourned.
As discussed in our prior alert, the proposed bills would require: (1) a financing statement evidencing any mezzanine debt and/or preferred equity investments related to real property to be filed in the county in which the real property is located and (2) a recording tax, at the same rate as the applicable mortgage recording tax rate (2.80% for commercial mortgages over $500,000 in New York City), to be imposed on the amount of the debt and/or investment at the time the financing statement is filed. The bills contain a limited carve-out for owner-occupied residential cooperatives.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven E. Coury, White and Williams and
Marissa Levy, White and Williams
Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Levy may be contacted at levmp@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Opoplan Introduces Generative AI Tools for Home-Building
February 06, 2023 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessOpoplan introduces its suite of generative AI architectural tools for builders and real estate brokers. The initiative intends to bridge the technological gap in custom home planning and building.
The tools introduced by the company also aim to reduce the overdependence on manual efforts and limited design options when it comes to lot analysis, design briefing, design planning, and many other pre-build tasks.
Through its AI-powered tools, Opoplan assists builders and home designers in saving time, money, and energy and more successfully close contracts, managing plans, and delivering single-family homes.
A series of tools for the home-building industry
Opoplan is headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, with a new US office in Raleigh, North Carolina, and was established in 2019. They provide pre-build house planning and design tools for custom builders, real estate brokers, and house designers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Gru Was Wrong About the Money: Court Concludes that Lender Owes Contractor “Contractually, Factually and Practically”
November 07, 2022 —
Matthew DeVries - Best Practices Construction LawThis weekend was all about
The Rise of Gru. I love Gru so much that when my children ask for money, my best Gru-like voice belts back: “Now, I know there have been some rumors going around that the bank is no longer funding us….In terms of money, we have no money.” And that’s precisely what many lenders say on distressed projects when the owner fails to make final payment and the contractor looks to the bank for funding: “We have no money for you contractor!”
In
BCD Associates., LLC v. Crown Bank, CA No. N15c-11-062 (Super. Ct. Del, May 2, 2022), the trial court found that when a bank pays a contractor directly, it can create a legally binding relationship subject to the terms of the construction loan agreements with the owner.
The project involved a $13m construction loan between the lender and the owner to renovate a hotel. The owner and contractor entered into an AIA Contract for the construction management services. During construction the contractor would submit payment applications to the lender, who would review and approve the invoices for payment. The lender then would pay 90% of the approved payment application and hold back the remaining 10% as retainage. The contractor was supposed to be paid the final retainage upon completion, which it did not receive in accordance with the terms of the AIA Contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew DeVries, Burr & Forman LLPMr. DeVries may be contacted at
mdevries@burr.com
