A Survey of New Texas Environmental and Regulatory Laws Enacted in the 88th Session (Updated)
August 28, 2023 —
Anthony B. Cavender & Alexandra Trahan - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThis is a brief survey of many of the environmental and regulatory laws passed by the Texas Legislature and signed by the Governor in the 88th Regular Session of the Legislature, which ended in May 2023, although a special session has been called to address lingering matters. Altogether, more than 1,000 laws were enacted in this session, including a surprising number of water-related environmental bills.
Water
HB1565 relates to the functions of the Texas Water Development Board and continuation and functions of the State Water Implementation Fund for Texas Advisory Committee.
Effective 9.1.23.
HB1699 relates to the authority of the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District to impose certain fees.
Effective 6.9.23.
HB1845 amends Section 37 of the Water Code to add Section 37.0045 relating to the licensing requirements for certain operators of wastewater systems and public water systems.
Effective 9.1.23.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury and
Alexandra Trahan, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects
December 10, 2024 —
Robert A. James, Elina Teplinsky, Alicia M. McKnight, Sidney L. Fowler & Clarence H. Tolliver - Gravel2Gavel BlogOn October 3, 2024, the Department of Energy Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to fund up to $400 million for clean energy projects in rural and remote areas via its Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas program. The NOFO will provide awards ranging from $2 million – $50 million, with plans to fund 20 to 50 projects. Awards will require a non-federal cost share, range across four topic areas, and target projects in rural and remote communities with populations of 10,000 people or fewer.
Eligibility
Applications are open to a wide range of entities, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations, state and local governmental entities, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, institutions of higher education, rural electric cooperatives, incorporated and unincorporated consortia, farming associations and cooperatives, and labor unions. Generally applicants must be U.S. entities, but foreign entities may be allowed to participate in limited circumstances. Applicants must identify at least one area in the U.S. or U.S. territories with a population of up to 10,000 people which will benefit from the proposal.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury,
Elina Teplinsky, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury,
Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and
Clarence H. Tolliver, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Teplinsky may be contacted at elina.teplinsky@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Tolliver may be contacted at clarence.tolliver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense
April 15, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThis spring has been busy with questions about employee handbooks. Perhaps it is because the NLRB just issued a directive on the legality of various clauses usually contained in handbooks. Or perhaps it’s because employers, including construction companies, are realizing the importance that handbooks play in defending against claims of harassment.
Employee Handbooks Are Important
Employee handbooks are an employer’s first line of defense in claims of harassment. A key provision to any employee handbook is an anti-harassment provision that includes:
- A definition of harassment;
- The process to complain about harassment;
- A commitment to investigate all claims of harassment; and
- An assurance that no one will be retaliated against for reporting harassment.
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
Five-Year Statute of Limitations on Performance-Type Surety Bonds
December 01, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe statute of limitations on a claim against a performance-type bond is 5 years from the breach of the bond, i.e., the bond-principal’s default (based on the same statute of limitations that governs written contracts / obligations). See Fla. Stat. s. 95.11(2)(b). This 5-year statute of limitations is NOT extended and does NOT commence when the surety denies the claim. It commences upon the default of the bond-principal, which would be the act constituting the breach of the bond. This does not mean that the statute of limitations starts when a latent defect is discovered. This is not the case. In dealing with a completed project, the five-year statute of limitations would run when the obligee (beneficiary of the bond) accepted the work. See Federal Insurance Co. v. Southwest Florida Retirement Center, Inc., 707 So.2d 1119, 1121-22 (Fla. 1998).
This 5-year statute of limitations on performance-type surety bonds has recently been explained by the Second District in Lexicon Ins. Co. v. City of Cape Coral, Florida, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D2521a (Fla. 2d DCA 2017), a case where a developer planned on developing a single-family subdivision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Untangling Unique Legal Issues in Modern Modular Construction
September 09, 2024 —
Chad Theriot & Brad Sands - Construction ExecutiveModular construction has grown significantly over the last few years and shows no signs of slowing down. This construction method is a departure from traditional approaches where all construction activity occurs onsite. Modular construction involves building standardized project components—usually in an offsite, controlled environment—which are then transported and assembled at the project site. Offsite construction generally allows for better quality control and economic efficiency, as it can utilize an assembly-line process. Modular fabrication can also centralize skilled labor in regions with lower labor costs.
Establishing each party's expectations upfront is always important, but even more so in modular construction since much of the construction activity is performed away from the ultimate project site. This requires extensive coordination among designers, fabricators, installers and owners to ensure construction, testing and quality progresses accordingly. Every field change and design clash could have an exponential impact on the modular fabrication efficiencies given the assembly-line approach and remote nature of modular work.
Reprinted courtesy of
Chad Theriot & Brad Sands, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
An Additional Insured’s Reasonable Expectations may be Different from the Named Insured’s and Must be Considered to Determine whether the Additional Insured is Entitled to Defense from the Insurer of a Commercial Excess & Umbrella Liability Policy
June 12, 2014 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. and Kacey R. Riccomini, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerThe Second District Court of Appeal’s recent decision, Transport Insurance Company v. Superior Court (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1216, immediately affects builders and contractors (collectively “builders”) who are often named as additional insureds (AIs) to contractors’ general liability policies. The decision is an important tool for builders’ counsel because the builder’s reasonable expectations can alter the interpretation of ambiguous terms in policies issued to subcontractors. Essentially, the builder’s intent is relevant to the interpretation of policy terms because the subcontractor’s intent in requesting additional coverage depends on the agreement it made with the builder. The salient aspects of the facts, the Appellate Court’s reasoning, and practical considerations are discussed below.
Transport Insurance Company (Transport) issued a commercial excess and umbrella liability policy (Policy) to Vulcan Materials Company (Vulcan), naming R.R. Street & Co., Inc. (Street) as an AI for its distribution of a solvent. The Policy provided that Transport would indemnify and defend the insured for loss caused by property damage if (1) it was not covered by “underlying insurance” but was within the terms of coverage of the Policy, or (2) if the limits of liability of the “underlying insurance” were exhausted during the Policy period due to property damage. The Policy included a Schedule of Underlying Insurance (Schedule) that listed policies issued to Vulcan. Thereafter, Vulcan and Street were named as defendants in several environmental contamination actions (Underlying Actions).
Transport brought a declaratory relief action against Vulcan regarding Transport’s duty to defend. (Legacy Vulcan Corp. v. Superior Court (Legacy Vulcan) (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 677). The trial court found the term “underlying insurance” ambiguous as it was not expressly defined to include only the policies on the Schedule and could be interpreted to include all primary policies in effect. Vulcan challenged the trial court’s decision by petition for writ of mandate, contending “underlying insurance” only included policies listed on the Schedule. The Court of Appeal found “underlying insurance” ambiguous because it was an expressly qualified term under other Policy provisions but not in the umbrella coverage provision and, thus, it was a generic term that was not limited to policies listed in the Schedule or inclusive of all primary insurance.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
Kacey R. Riccomini
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com; Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com, and Ms. Riccomini may be contacted at kriccomini@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Under Colorado House Bill 17-1279, HOA Boards Now Must Get Members’ Informed Consent Before Bringing A Construction Defect Action
April 11, 2018 —
Luke Mecklenburg – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog Last year, I wrote
a post calling attention to stalled efforts in the Colorado legislature to pass meaningful construction defect reform. Shortly thereafter, the legislature got it done in the form of House Bill 17-1279. This bill creates an important pre-litigation notice-and-approval process whenever an HOA initiates a construction defect action in its own name or on behalf of two or more of its members.
Before May 2017, the pre-litigation requirements that an HOA had to fulfill before bringing a construction defect claim under the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”) were generally minor. For example, while many declarations required majority approval from the community prior to initiation of claims, in practice, what the industry was seeing is that some HOAs were making it so that only a majority of the HOA Board had to approve bringing the claim, rather than the majority of interested unit owners. It was also common that, even where the majority of owners were involved, they were often voting in favor of filing a lawsuit or arbitration without fully understanding the risks and costs. This practice presented a risk to developers—it is easier to get approval from a small group than from a larger group, and it is easier to get approval when the voting owners do not fully appreciate the risks and costs inherent in filing a claim.
Colorado House Bill 17-1279, which was signed into law by Governor Hickenlooper in May 2017 and is codified at C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5, lessens these risks by amending the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”) to add certain pre-litigation requirements. Section 38-33.3-303.5 applies any time an HOA institutes a construction defect action its own name on behalf of itself or two or more unit owners on matters affecting the common interest community. C.R.S. §§ 38-33.3-302(1)(d), -303.5(1)(a).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Ortega Outbids Pros to Build $10 Billion Property Empire
March 19, 2014 —
Jesse Drucker – BloombergAmancio Ortega Gaona, already the world’s fourth-richest person based on the success of his Zara fashion retail stores, has quietly amassed a real estate empire worth as much as $10 billion and is emerging as a formidable competitor for prime properties from London to Beverly Hills.
Relying on all-cash offers, he has outbid the world’s biggest institutional funds and professional property investors, such as Tishman Speyer Properties LP.
“He’s at the very highest levels of high net worth investment and competing with some of the biggest sovereign wealth funds for the primest properties in the market,” said Joseph Kelly, director of market analysis for Real Capital Analytics in London, a real estate research firm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Drucker, BloombergMr. Drucker may be contacted at
jdrucker4@bloomberg.net
