COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

ICE Said to Seek Mortgage Role Through Talks With Data Service

August 06, 2014 — Matthew Leising, Jesse Hamilton and Jody Shenn – Bloomberg
Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE), best known for energy trading and its control of the New York Stock Exchange, is engaged in negotiations that would give it a foothold in the $9.4 trillion U.S. mortgage market. ICE is in early stage talks to form a partnership with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., which documents the ownership and resale of about half of U.S. home loans, according to a person familiar with the matter, who asked to not be identified because the discussions are private. The Atlanta-based exchange owner has been gauging demand for derivatives that enable investors to bet on defaults by U.S. homeowners, Bloomberg News reported in May. ICE, which earns most of its revenue by owning one of the world’s largest derivatives markets, has recently expanded into new businesses such as equity trading with its 2013 purchase of NYSE Euronext and the administration of interest-rate benchmarks. Mr. Leising may be contacted at mleising@bloomberg.net; Mr. Hamilton may be contacted at jhamilton33@bloomberg.net; Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew Leising, Jesse Hamilton and Jody Shenn, Bloomberg

---

Differing Site Conditions Produce Differing Challenges

February 18, 2019 — Sarah E. Carson - Smith Currie
The saying “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry” can too often apply in the construction industry. A contractor may receive a description of site conditions that is ultimately found flawed or misleading. The costs associated with addressing these surprise conditions often fall on the contractor to pay. The following article details proactive steps to avoid costly obstacles that may cause a project’s success to go awry. What are Differing Site Conditions? There are generally two recognized types of differing site conditions. The first, often referred to as a “Type I Changed Condition,” exists when a specification in the conditions indicated in the contract documents varies from what is represented. The second category, generally referred to as a “Type II Changed Condition,” is a variance so unusual in its nature that it materially differs from conditions ordinarily encountered in performing the type of work called for in the geographic area where the project is located. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah E. Carson, Smith Currie
Ms. Carson may be contacted at secarson@smithcurrie.com

---

Construction Lien Waiver Provisions Contractors Should Be Using

January 06, 2020 — Jason Lambert - Construction Executive
It is common in construction for a subcontractor or material supplier of any tier to be required to provide a lien waiver when receiving payment. But not all lien waivers are created equal. While at a minimum, a lien waiver, by definition, needs to include a release of liens, it can also include many other terms that can tie up loose ends or resolve potential problems before they begin. Additional Releases A typical lien release is going to release any liens and right to claim liens on the subject property. But a lien waiver can also include releases of any claims against surety bonds, other statutory rights or claims, and at its broadest, claims against the paying party. One example of a provision that could help accomplish this is a release of “any right arising from a payment bond that complies with a state or federal statute, any common law payment bond right, any claim for payment, and any rights under any similar ordinance, rule, or statute related to claim or payment rights.” Broad release language can also be used to effectively preclude any claims arising prior to the date of the release. Payment Representations and Warranties A typical lien release has no representations or warranties about payment to subcontractors or material suppliers of a lower tier. But contractors can include language requiring the company receiving payment to represent and warrant that all subcontractors of a lower tier have been paid or will be paid within a certain timeframe using the funds provided and that these are material representations and inducements into providing payment. On a related note, if the contract requires subcontractors to provide lien releases from lower tier subcontractors in addition to their own release when seeking payment, contractors can require the sub-subcontractor releases to include representations that they have been paid by the subcontractor to try and tie up payment loose ends all around. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Lambert, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Lambert may be contacted at jason.lambert@nelsonmullins.com

---

Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Owner’s Claims Based on Contractual One-Year Claims Limitations Period

October 04, 2021 — Cassidy Ingram - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
In a recent unpublished decision – Tadych v. Noble Ridge Construction, Inc.– the Washington State Court of Appeals, Division One, held that a one-year contractual claim limitations clause was valid and enforceable. The Tadych decision is important because it reiterates the strict approach courts will take to a claim limitations clause less than the statutory six years for breach of contract claims prescribed by RCW 4.16.040(1). In other words, when the parties agree to shorten the limitations period, the agreement will be enforced barring any procedural or substantive unconscionability. In Tadych, plaintiff owners (the Tadychs) contracted with defendant contractor (Noble Ridge Construction, Inc., or NRC) for the construction of a custom home in 2012. The contract provided a one-year claim limitations clause in which claims could be raised, and that all claims not raised in the one-year period would be waived. In December 2013, as the project neared completion, the Tadychs met with NRC to identify any outstanding project issues. The Tadychs noted several, including rainwater pools at the landing at the bottom of the stairs and several nicks and cracks on the stucco exterior walls. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Cassidy Ingram, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Ingram may be contacted at cassidy.ingram@acslawyers.com

---

No Coverage for Building's First Collapse, But Disputed Facts on Second Collapse

January 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii

While building's first collapse was not covered, there were disputed facts regarding the second collapse, leading to a reversal of the order granting summary judgment to the insurer on both collapses. Intergroup Int'l Ltd. v. Cincinnati Ins. Cos, 2017 Ohio app. LEXIS 5099 (Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2017). Intergroup bought a building after it was inspected. While leaks on the roof were repaired and a roof truss that was sagging was replaced, the inspector found the roof to be in good shape.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii

Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

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 LLP
In 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurer’s “Failure to Cooperate” Defense

November 14, 2018 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The “failure to cooperate” defense is a defense an insurer may raise when its insured fails to cooperate with it in the defense of the claim against the insured. If an insurer takes this position, it will typically be denying both defense and indemnification obligations, meaning the insured could be forfeiting coverage that otherwise exists through his/her/its failure to cooperate with the insurer. This defense by the insurer is not absolute as recently explained by the Fourth District in Barthelemy v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Illinois, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D2379a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) discussing the elements of this failure to cooperate defense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Safety Versus a False Sense of Security: Challenges to the Use of Construction Cranes

March 18, 2019 — Christopher Machut - Construction Executive
The history of safety is, in part, the history of resistance to safety. From transportation and travel to sports and entertainment, the safeguards taken for granted were once too allegedly controversial or costly for companies to grant to consumers. Imagine driving a car without a seatbelt or being a passenger in a minivan without side-impact airbags or anti-lock brakes, or playing football without a helmet or riding a roller coaster without a shoulder harness. Imagine, too, pulling out of parking space without a rear-view camera, unable to see passing cars or pedestrians. Cameras are now as common among compact cars as on the most uncommonly expensive sports cars and sedans. And yet, the technology that earns drivers a discount on car insurance is the same or mostly similar technology that insurers refuse to cover elsewhere. The technologies that makes parallel parking easier or easing a car into traffic a cinch is considered an extravagance on construction equipment, despite the dangers crane operators face but cannot see, despite what workers on the ground can see but not forecast, despite what cameras can record and capture. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Machut, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---