The International Codes Development Process is Changing to Continue Building Code Modernization
March 06, 2023 —
The International Code CouncilWashington D.C., March 02, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The International Code Council is revising its rigorous code development process. The changes will take effect in 2024-2026 for the development of the 2027 International Codes (I-Codes) and will move the development process to an integrated and continuous three-year cycle.
In the new timeline, year one will include two Committee Action Hearings for Group A Codes; year two will include two Committee Action Hearings for Group B Codes; and year three will be the joint Public Comment Hearings and Online Governmental Consensus Vote for both Group A and B Codes.
The addition of the second Committee Actions Hearings in year one and two will foster a more in-depth vetting of code change proposals, allowing an opportunity for the committee members to review and evaluate the original proposals and consider the submitted responses. This also provides more opportunity for proponents to build consensus for their code change proposal and ensure the best version of their intended improvement to the existing codes.
Additionally, with combined Public Comment Hearings in the third year, voting members are able to vote on all suggested changes to the next edition of the I-Codes at one time. The updated process also provides more opportunity for proposed new referenced standards to be developed and finalized on a consistent timeline regardless of the group (Group A or B) with which they are associated.
About the International Code Council
The International Code Council is the leading global source of model codes and standards and building safety solutions. Code Council codes, standards and solutions are used to ensure safe, affordable and sustainable communities and buildings worldwide.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fixing That Mistake
October 25, 2021 —
Patrick Barthet - Construction ExecutiveSomeone once said, more people could learn from their mistakes if they weren’t so busy denying that they made them in the first place.
In the construction industry, mistakes are not uncommon. Addressing them, however, can be complicated. What should a contractor do when the project owner says some aspect of the project is not satisfactorily completed or isn’t performing as it should? Should the contractor wait, hoping it may get resolved without having to do anything? Or should the contractor take on the repair or replacement as soon as practically possible?
Doing nothing may be easy but can expose the contractor to significant subsequent liability. Dealing with the issue, on the other hand, could result in the destruction of what might later be required evidence in any litigation which develops. Considered “spoliation,” such manipulation or elimination of evidence is a consequence to be avoided. Even though done with the best of intentions to fix a problem, the process can wind up exposing one to liability and damages.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Barthet, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Barthet may be contacted at
pbarthet@barthet.com
#12 CDJ Topic: Am. Home Assur. Co. v. SMG Stone Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75910 (N. D. Cal. June 11, 2015)
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn his article, “Remediation Work Caused by Installation of Defective Tiles Not Covered,” attorney
Tred R. Eyerly analyzed the Am. Home Assur. Co. case that involved a dispute between a developer and a subcontractor over fractured tiles: “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court first found that the fracturing of the stone floor tiles caused by the subcontractor's defective installation was the result of an 'occurrence.' There was no evidence that the subcontractor knew that its tile installation work was defective before the tiles fractured. Instead, the fracturing was an unexpected consequence of the defective installation.”
Everly continues, “But there was no ‘property damage.’ For the subcontractor to prevail, the defective installation work had to be considered separate and distinct from the physical manifestation of the defective work. Under California law, coverage resulted from construction defects that involved physical injuries to other parts of the construction project.” Everly concludes, “Because there was no genuine issues of material fact as to the potential for coverage, there was no duty to defend.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rulemaking to Modernize, Expand DOI’s “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment Rules Expected Fall 2023
December 23, 2023 —
Amanda G. Halter, Jillian Marullo & Ashleigh Myers - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) anticipates proposing a new rule that would revise its “Type A” Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in Fall 2023. The proposed rule would modernize DOI’s rarely used simplified Type A procedures for assessing damages for natural resource injuries tailored at sites involving minor releases of hazardous substances, with a smaller scale and scope of natural resource injury occurring in either coastal and marine areas or Great Lakes environments (the “Type A Rule”). (See 88 Fed. Reg. 3373; see 43 C.F.R. Pt. 11 Subpt. D.) The Type A Rule was last updated in 1997.
DOI previewed the proposal in January 2023 in its Office of Restoration and Damage Assessment’s (ORDA)
Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). In the ANPR, the ORDA surmised that the Type A Rule was rarely used in part because of its restricted scope, but also because “the model equation for each Type A environment is the functional part of the rule itself—with no provisions to reflect evolving toxicology, ecology, technology, or other scientific understanding without a formal amendment to the Type A Rule each time a parameter is modified.” Calling the existing rule “inefficient and inflexible,” the ORDA stated that its proposal to reformulate the rule “as a procedural structure” would “modernize the Type A process and develop a more flexible and enduring rule than what is provided by the two existing static models” (88 Fed. Reg. 3373).
Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury,
Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and
Ashleigh Myers, Pillsbury
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massive Fire Destroys Building, Firefighters Rescue Construction Worker
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA “5-alarm fire burned down a residential building under construction in the Montrose area” of Houston, Texas, reported Click 2 Houston. Almost 200 emergency personnel were on the scene.
Captain Ruy Lozano told Click 2 Houston that “firefighters worked to contain the blaze, before the imminent collapse because the fire suppression systems were not yet in place for the under-construction building.”
ABC News reported that fire fighters rescued Curtis Reissig, a construction worker from the fire. “It’s burning my eyes, my throat. I can’t breathe and I can’t hardly see anything,” Reissig told ABC News. “I could see a window. I went to that window. Trying to open that window in a panic. I couldn’t get the thing open. Smoke was getting heavier, just trying to get some air.”
ABC News reported that Reissig jumped down from a fifth story balcony to a ledge below, where “firefighters pulled him to safety.”
Read the full story at Click 2 Houston...
Read the full story at ABC News... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montana Supreme Court Tackles Decade-Old Coverage Dispute Concerning Asbestos Mineworker Claims
December 20, 2021 —
Patricia B. Santelle & Paul A. Briganti - White and WilliamsOn November 23, 2021, the Montana Supreme Court issued an almost unanimous decision in National Indemnity Company v. State of Montana, a ten-year-old coverage dispute arising from claims against the State of Montana alleging it had failed to warn of asbestos dust conditions at vermiculite mining and milling operations in and around Libby, Montana (the Libby Mine) run by W.R. Grace & Company and its predecessors. Affirming in part and reversing in part rulings by the trial court that culminated in a $98 million judgment against the State’s CGL insurer from 1973 to 1975, the court addressed issues including the duty to defend/estoppel, the number of occurrences, “trigger of coverage,” and, in a case of first impression, allocation under Montana law.
Whether the Insurer Breached the Duty to Defend Depended Upon the Timeframe
The court looked at whether (1) the insured provided sufficient information to bring the claims within the possibility of coverage under the subject policy and (2) the insurer gave “the necessary substance to” fulfilling its duty to defend at four points in the relevant timeframe:
- The insurer did not breach its duty at the time the State initially tendered the Libby Mine claims because the State defended the claims through its self-insurance program, hired its own counsel, managed the litigation, made its own defense decisions, and took the position with the insurer that the matter was “under control” and “nothing was left to be done[.]”
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hurricane Damage Not Covered for Home Owner Not Named in Policy
March 20, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss because, although there was coverage for the property under the mortgagee's policy, the home owner was not a named or additional insured under the policy. Cart v. Great Am. Assur. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6207 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023).
Plaintiffs' property was damage by Hurricanes Laura and Delta. Because Plaintiff failed to maintain homeowner's hazard insurance subject to the mortgage, Rushmore Management Services procured a force-placed lender policy on the property through Great American. Plaintiffs filed suit asserting breach contract claims. Great American moved to dismiss.
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
