Congratulations Bryan Stofferahn, August Hotchkin, and Eileen Gaisford on Their Promotion to Partner!
April 19, 2021 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’MearaBryan Stofferahn has been with BWB&O’s Oakland office since 2016 and has been practicing law since 2002. Mr. Stofferahn focuses his practice on insurance defense matters and was lead counsel on the Millennium Tower construction defect case in San Francisco, which was the largest construction defect action in the country.
Outside of work, Bryan is passionate about traveling the world with his wife Claire and has finished in last place in two separate chili cook-offs (pre-COVID, of course).
August Hotchkin has been with BWB&O since 2013 and helped open the Reno office located in Northern Nevada in 2016. He is duly licensed in both Nevada and California, handling various legal matters, especially complex litigation, throughout Northern Nevada and Northern California.
Mr. Hotchkin has taken several cases to trial, including a successful defense verdict on a wrongful death matter. He has also argued countless dispositive motions as well as having cases heard at the Appellate level.
During his free time, Mr. Hotchkin enjoys golfing, snowboarding, and spending time with his family and friends, especially up at Lake Tahoe.
Eileen Gaisford has been with BWB&O’s Woodland Hill’s office for almost a decade and is licensed to practice law in California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Update – Property Owner’s Defense Goes up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case
September 21, 2020 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistProperty owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2020 Md. LEXIS 347 (July 27, 2020) (Steamfitters Local), a matter originally discussed in a June 2019 blog post, the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed that, where the property owner knows or should have known that people are habitually discarding hundreds of cigarette butts into a mulch bed along the boundary of the neighboring property, the property owner owes a duty to its neighbors to prevent the risk of fire.
As discussed in Steamfitters Local, a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found hundreds of cigarette butts in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class. The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and the defendants appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Why a Challenge to Philadelphia’s Project Labor Agreement Would Be Successful
February 22, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental ConditionsThere is a common misconception that all Philadelphia Public Works projects must be performed pursuant to a project labor agreement with various members of the Building and Construction Trades Council. This common misconception is even shared by the current Mayoral administration, who I saw in a recent court filing testified under oath that “project labor agreements are required for all construction projects in Philadelphia with a value of at least five million dollars.” (As is discussed below this is flat out false.)
No one has yet to step forward to challenge Philadelphia’s project labor agreement scheme. However, if someone did, I think the challenge would be successful for three reasons. First, contrary to the Mayor’s representative’s statement, there is no requirement that all projects in excess of $5 million be subject to a project labor agreement. Second, Philadelphia’s project labor agreement excludes signatories to collective bargaining agreements with the United Steel Workers (USW) from participating, which violates public bid laws. Third, the exclusion of the USW, also gives rise to a challenge that federal labor law preempts the project labor agreement.
A. Background on the Philadelphia PLA.
Under a project labor agreement (PLA), a contractor wishing to perform work on a project agrees to be bound by the terms and conditions of employment established by the public owner and certain construction unions. Each PLA varies, but typically PLA’s will require a contractor’s employees to become members of a union – if they are already not members – in order to work on a project or will require a contractor to hire labor from a union hiring hall. PLA’s are controversial because they exclude non-union contractors from performing work on a project subject to a PLA, unless of course that contractor agrees to become “union” for purposes of that project. For reasons beyond this blog post, a merit shop contractor would be crazy to do that.
The “Philadelphia PLA” that Mayor Kenney believes is required for all public projects over $5 million was instituted by Mayor Nutter through a
2011 Executive Order(Executive Order No. 15-11, Public Works Project Labor Agreements).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Are Construction Contract Limitation of Liability Clauses on the Way Out in Virginia?
March 11, 2024 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRemember BAE Systems and Fluor? This post is the third here at Construction Law Musings relating to this case which is a seemingly never-ending source for content. In the prior post discussing this case, the Court found that Va. Code 1-4.1:1 which bars waiver of a right to payment before work is performed did not apply because Fluor had provided work before execution of the contract or any change orders.
In the most recent opinion in this long-running litigation, and after a motion to reconsider by Fluor that was granted, the Court re-examined this finding along with the contractual language found in the Limitation of Damages (LOD) clause and came to the opposite conclusion regarding certain change orders that remained unpaid by BAE.
The Court first looked to the language of the contract itself and specifically the language in the LOD provision that states “Except as otherwise provided in this Subcontract.” The Court then looked at the change order provision and its typical equitable adjustment language and the mandatory nature of the equitable adjustment language. The Court found that the LOD provisions did not apply to change orders both because price increases due to change orders are not “damages” and because of the exception language in the LOD provision itself.
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
Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner
March 22, 2018 —
Bruce Cleeland and Frances Ma – Publications & InsightsIn
Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the
Privette doctrine.
Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death.
Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com
Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Granted Summary Judgment on Denial of Construction Defect Claim
January 27, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment, confirming there was no duty to defend or indemnify a construction defect claim against the insured. Fontaine Bros. v. Acadia Ins. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148056 (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2019).
The City of Worcester contracted with Fontaine Brothers, Inc. to install a new ice refrigeration system at the City's indoor ice rink. After construction, the condensers in two chiller units eroded and stopped operating.
The City sued Fontaine for the costs of leasing temporary chillers and installing new ones. The City alleged that Fontaine installed condensers with carbon steel tubes instead of contractually required stainless stell tubes.Further, Fontaine and its subcontractors did not adequately maintain the condensers, in breach of the contract.
Fontaine's insurer, Acadia Insurance Company, denied coverage. Fontaine sued Acadia. The court noted that the City's complaint plainly alleged faulty workmanship by Fontaine. However, the City's complaint did not allege that Fontaine intended the condensers to corrode and left open the possibility that Fontaine was unaware of any potential problem or did not foresee the corrosion likely to result from the use of carbon steel components or the maintenance work being done by its subcontractor. Therefore, the Cit's complaint did not foreclose the possibility that the corrosion resulting from Fontaine's alleged faulty workmanship and maintenance might be shown to be an unforeseen or unintended consequence of reckless or negligent conduct. Accordingly, it was possible that there was an occurrence under the policy language.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Leaning Tower of San Francisco
January 24, 2018 —
Dave Suggs - CDJ STAFFThe Millennium Tower located at 301 Mission Street in San Francisco, California opened in 2009 and is fifty-eight stories high. It is comprised of expensive apartments with price tags in the millions. “Yet for all its curb appeal, the building has, quite literally one fundamental problem: it’s sinking into mud and tilting towards its neighbors” reports John Wetheim of CBS News in the
60 Minutes segment about the condition of the tower “San Francisco’s Leaning Tower of Lawsuits.”
In the Tower’s basement along columns that protrude from the foundation of the building there are stress gauges lining the walls illustrating cracks with slow growth which is cause for concern. The tower is tilting a total of 14 inches toward the northwest and has sunk 17 inches so far. Petar Marinkovic, an engineer for the European Space Agency estimates that the tower is sinking 1.5 to 2 inches per year.
Jerry Cauthen, a local engineer, weighs in on what he believes is the cause of the sinking and leaning; it was built from concrete instead of steel. “Concrete is often cheaper. And it’s just as good, but it is a lot heavier. And so you got to design your foundation and your sub-surface to support that higher weight.” A local geotechnical engineer, Larry Karp agrees stating that the foundation of a building of this size and weight should be on solid rock (bedrock). The Millennium Tower is sitting on layers debris from the 1906 earthquake, a gold rush landfill, as well as clay, mud, and sand.
There over 20 parties involved in the Millennium Tower lawsuits so far. Solutions to “fix” the tower’s issues range from removing 20 stories from the top of the building to perpetually freezing the ground beneath the building. There are also ongoing mediation talks to determine the feasibility of drilling down to bedrock under a building where a thousand residents are still upstairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Architects and Engineers Added to Harmon Towers Lawsuit
February 12, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFSince the beginning of the Harmon Towers construction defect lawsuit, it has been CityCenter making claims against Perini, the property owner against the builder. CityCenter now has a new legal team, and with it apparently a new strategy. The Las Vegas Review Journal reports that papers were filed in court on February 8, adding the architect and the engineer as defendants in the case.
According to the filings, the engineering firm Halcrow Yolles should have noticed during inspections that parts of the building’s steel skeleton were improperly installed and should have been repaired. Instead these structures were encased in concrete. CityCenter also contends that there were deficiencies in Halcrow’s blueprints. AAI Architects has been named because its contract made it responsible for Halcrow’s work.
Perini has contended that some problems at the building were due to bad plans and therefore not their responsibility. They have claimed that they can fix the building for $20 million, of which $4 million would be due to their actions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
