Illinois Earns C- on its 2022 Infrastructure Report Card while Making Strides on Roads and Transit
May 02, 2022 —
American Society of Civil EngineersChicago, Ill. – The Illinois Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) today revealed its 2022 Infrastructure Report Card, giving the state an overall grade of C-. Illinois' civil engineers studied eleven infrastructure categories. Of those eleven, six categories are in mediocre condition, and five categories are in poor condition.
The committee representing more than 2,700 civil engineers across Illinois collected and analyzed data and based its grades on eight criteria, including condition, funding, public safety and resilience. As a major hub for our nation's infrastructure, Illinois has taken considerable steps to improving its transportation and infrastructure networks and several major categories showed improvements – notably transit and roads.
To view the report card and all eleven categories evaluated, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/Illinois/.
ABOUT THE ILLINOIS SECTION OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Civil engineering experts in their respective fields from the Illinois Section of ASCE, with assistance from the Central Illinois Section, Quad Cities Section, and the St. Louis Section, prepared The Report Card for Illinois' Infrastructure. The Report Card is created to educate and advise our elected officials and citizens on the condition of our State's infrastructure using sound engineering evaluation criteria and to provide recommendations on how to raise the grade. Since 1915, the Illinois Section has represented Civil Engineers in America's engineering hub and the organization recently celebrated its Centennial Anniversary. ASCE provides a platform for our members to mentor, learn and teach, which enables us to serve as stewards of infrastructure in our state, nation and throughout the world.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denver Officials Clamor for State Construction Defect Law
August 20, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Denver Business Journal reported that a construction defects law to encourage more condo development in Colorado was discussed during the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce’s annual State of the City event.
Colorado Senator Jessie Ulibarri in attendance stated that the construction defect bill that he had sponsored earlier this year was defeated partly due to timing, and he plans on introducing a new bill early 2015.
Denver Mayor Michael Hancock spoke in favor of such a bill, alleging that nearly all developers avoid building multifamily units for fear of potential litigation. “We are being hamstrung by this law in the state of Colorado.”
However, the Denver Business Journal reported that those who favor status quo, including homeowners association industry groups and attorneys, claim that “changing the law will open the door to poor work on the part of developers and builders, leaving condo buyers holding the bag for repairs when something goes wrong in their home.”
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
Homebuilding Design Goes 3D
June 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Houston Business Journal reported that some home builders are using new computer visualization technology to create 3D representations of home designs. Autodesk Revit not only helps the buyer visualize the home, but it also catches architectural design mistakes and can help homebuilders quantify all of the building materials necessary for a particular model.
Mollie Silver, a senior designer with On Point Custom Homes, uses Autodesk Revit. “It changes the game for our clients, because this gives them a really good idea of what their home will look like in real life,” Silver told the Houston Business Journal. “If you give them floor plans, it just doesn’t give them the same idea.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
D.R. Horton Earnings Rise as Sales and Order Volume Increase
May 07, 2015 —
John Gittelsohn – BloombergD.R. Horton Inc., the largest U.S. homebuilder by revenue, said fiscal second-quarter earnings rose as sales increased in a sign of growing demand for new homes.
Net income climbed to $147.9 million, or 40 cents a share, for the three months ended March 31 from $131 million, or 38 cents, a year earlier, the Fort Worth, Texas-based company said Wednesday in a statement. The average of 15 analyst estimates was 38 cents a share, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
“The spring selling season at D.R. Horton is off to a strong start,” Chairman Donald R. Horton said in the statement. “Our increasingly diverse product offerings are enabling us to expand our industry-leading market share.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Gittelsohn, BloombergMr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at
johngitt@bloomberg.net
Project Team Upgrades Va. General Assembly
September 29, 2021 —
Bruce Buckley - Engineering News-RecordFrom pre-pandemic labor and material shortages to COVID precautions and social unrest concerns, the design and construction team on the Commonwealth of Virginia’s new General Assembly Building (GAB) project in Richmond has navigated the breadth of recent industry challenges. Set on Capitol Square and neighboring the Virginia State Capitol, the site of the new 414,000-sq-ft GAB is as high profile of a location as you can find in the state.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Buckley, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Home Building Up in Kansas City
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIt’s been a good year for home builders in Kansas City, Missouri. In fact, it’s the best year since 2007. The total number of home permits issued through October exceeds the number issued in 2012 by 164, having reached 3,463. Sara Corless, executive vice president of the Builders Association, focused more on the growth, though she noted that some builders were hoping the year’s total would exceed 4,000, which she described as “a psychological victory at a minimum.”
The Kansas City metropolitan area lead the state in the number of building permits issued.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Burden Supporting Termination for Default
January 11, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesTerminating a contractor for default is a “‘drastic sanction’ and ‘should be imposed (or sustained) only for good grounds and on solid evidence.’” Cherokee General Corp. v. U.S., 150 Fed.Cl. 270, 278 (Fed.Cl. 2020) (citation omitted). This is true with any termination for default because terminating a contract for default is the harshest recourse that can be taken under a contract. It is a caused-based termination. For this reason, the party terminating a contract for default needs to be in a position to carry its burden supporting the evidentiary basis in exercising the default-based (or caused-based) termination. Stated differently, the party terminating a contract for default needs to justify the reasonableness in terminating the contract for default.
A party looking to terminate a contract for default should smartly work with counsel to best position its justification in exercising the termination for default. Likewise, a contractor terminated for default should immediately work with counsel to best position the unreasonableness or the lack of justification for the default-based termination.
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
