Brookfield to Start Manhattan Tower After Signing Skadden
April 15, 2015 —
David M. Levitt – BloombergBrookfield Property Partners LP said it will start building its 1 Manhattan West office tower, after signing a lease with the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP for about a quarter of the skyscraper.
The agreement, announced Tuesday in a statement by New York-based Brookfield, jump-starts office construction at the 7 million-square-foot (650,000-square-meter) Manhattan West project, part of an effort to draw the Midtown business district west toward toward the Hudson River. It’s another step in the plan to remake the once-industrial Hudson Yards area into a neighborhood for housing and commerce, with office tenants including Coach Inc. and Time Warner Inc. and stores such as the city’s first Neiman Marcus.
The Skadden law firm agreed to a 20-year lease for 550,000 square feet on floors 28 to 43 of the 67-story tower.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
ENR 2024 Water Report: Managers Look to Potable Water Reuse
July 15, 2024 —
Pam McFarland - Engineering News-RecordWith nearly all seven states within the 250,000-sq-mile Colorado River basin scrambling to conserve their apportionments from the river system’s increasingly depleted resources, interest in securing alternative local drinking water supplies is soaring.
Reprinted courtesy of
Pam McFarland, Engineering News-Record
Ms. McFarland may be contacted at mcfarlandp@enr.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New OSHA Fall Rules to Start Early in Minnesota
June 14, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFMinnesota has elected to implement the new OSHA rules concerning fall prevention in residential construction on June 20, well before OSHA’s September 15 deadline. Brian Johnson, reporting in Finance and Commerce, quotes Pam Perri, the executive vice president of the Builders Association of Minnesota, “this is the worst time to implement a new rule.” Ms. Perri notes “In Minnesota, education time for the residential construction industry is between November and March 1, not in the middle of the construction season.”
Mike Swanson of Rottlund Homes estimated that the new regulations would add between $200 to $500 to the cost of a house and that he felt the current safety regulations were adequate. OSHA officials are quoted that there continues “to be a high number of fall-related deaths in construction.”
Read the fully story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation
February 25, 2011 —
Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen LauderdaleThis article is the first in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010
1. Centex Homes v. Financial Pacific Life Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
After settling numerous homeowners’ construction defect claims — and more than ten years after the homes were substantially completed — a home developer brought suit against one of the concrete fabrication subcontractors for the development seeking indemnity for amounts paid to the homeowners, as well as for damages for breach of the subcontractor’s duties to procure specific insurance and to defend the developer against the homeowners’ claims. The subcontractor brought a motion for summary adjudication on the ground the developer’s claims were barred by the ten year statute of repose contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15.
The District Court agreed the developer’s claim for indemnity was barred by Section 337.15. And it held that because the damages recoverable for breach of the subcontractor’s duty to purchase insurance are identical to the damages recoverable through the developer’s indemnity claim, the breach of duty to procure insurance claim also was time-barred. The District Court, however, allowed the claim for breach of the duty to defend to proceed. The categories of losses associated with such a claim (attorneys’ fees and other defense costs) are distinct from the damages recoverable through claims governed by Section 337.15 (latent deficiency in the design and construction of the homes and injury to property arising out of the latent deficiencies).
2. UDC — Universal Development v. CH2M Hill, 181 Cal. App. 4th 10 (6th Dist. Jan. 2010)
Indemnification clauses in construction agreements often state that one party to the agreement — the “indemnitor” — will defend and indemnify the other party from particular types of claims. Of course, having a contract right to a defense is not the same as actually receiving a defense. Any indemnitor attempting to avoid paying for defense costs can simply deny the tender of defense with the hope that when the underlying claim is resolved the defense obligations will be forgotten. In the past, when parties entitled to a defense — the “indemnitees” — had long memories and pressed to recover defense costs, indemnitors attempted to justify denying the tender by claiming their defense obligations coincided with their indemnity obligations and neither arose until a final determination was made that the underlying claim was one for which indemnity was owed.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Ms. Matson can be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com, Mr. Hamersmith can be contacted at hhamersmith@sheppardmullin.com, and Ms. Lauderdale can be contacted at hlauderdale@sheppardmullin.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
San Francisco Half-Built Apartment Complex Destroyed by Fire
March 12, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to San Jose Mercury News, a 250 million dollar apartment complex being built in San Francisco, California received “catastrophic damage” from a fire on March 11th. The complex was being developed by BRE Properties, Inc., and “was slated to open sometime later this year.”
Initial reports blamed high winds for the start of the blaze, however, San Jose Mercury news reported that “downtown San Francisco experienced wind speeds of no more than 10 mph Tuesday, and that heavy winds were not expected Tuesday night” according to the National Weather Service.
“Representatives for [BRE Properties, Inc.] were not available for comment,” as reported by San Jose Mercury News.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims
January 02, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews KurthIn a prior post, we discussed a New York trial-court decision that found an insurance policy issued in 1966, to insure the construction of the World Trade Center, continues to cover modern-day asbestos claims, with each claim constituting an individual occurrence. Last week, in American Home Assurance Co. v. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., 7628-7628A (1st Dep’t Nov. 15, 2018), an intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, agreeing that coverage is triggered for claims tied to alleged asbestos exposure at the WTC site in the 1960s and ’70s.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Depreciation of Labor in Calculating Actual Cash Value Against Public Policy
February 16, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's depreciation of labor in the calculation of actual cash value was found to be against Arkansas public policy. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Goodner, 2015 Ark. LEXIS 460 (Ark. Dec. 10, 2015).
Shelter Mutual's policy provided that it would pay the insured "the actual cash value of all the damaged parts of the covered property." "Actual cash value" was defined as "total restoration cost less depreciation." The policy explained, "When calculating depreciation, we will include the depreciation of the materials, the labor, and the tax attributable to each party which must be replaced to allow for replacement of the damaged part, whether or not that part is damaged."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Brown Paint Doesn’t Cover Up Construction Defects
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision that describes the case as illustrating “the perils that real estate brokers and their agents assume when acting as a dual listing agent to both the buyers and sellers of the same house,” the California Court of Appeals has issued a decision in William L. Lyon & Associates v. The Superior Court of Placer County. Lyon & Associates sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims of the Henleys who bought a home in a transaction where a Lyon agent represented both sides.
The prior owners of the home, the Costas, had used a Lyon agent in purchasing their home. When they later sought to sell it, that agent “became aware of some of the house’s defects and problems.” In response, the Costas sought the help of another agent, Connie Gidal, also of Lyons & Associates. Photos taken in the presence of Ms. Gidal show defects of the paint and stucco. The Costas also took the step of painting the house dark brown. During the sale process, “rain caused many of the painted-over defects to reappear.” The Costas “purchased more dark brown paint and covered up the newly visible damage prior to inspection by the Henleys.”
With the damage concealed, the Henleys bought the home in May 2006. The agreement with Lyons & Associates noted that “a dual agent is obligated to disclose known facts materially affecting the value or desirability of the property to both parties.” Escrow closed on May 9, 2006. The contract with the broker included a two-year limit on the time to bring legal action.
The Henleys moved in during June 2006, and “began to discover construction defects that had been concealed by the Costas.” In addition to the painted-over stucco problems, the Henleys found that the Costas had “installed quartzite stone overlays on the backyard steps in a manner that caused water intrusion on the house’s stucco walls.”
In May 2009, the Henleys sued the Costas, Ron McKim Construction, Lyons & Associates, and Ms. Gidal. Their complaint alleged that Lyons & Associates had committed breach of contact, negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent nondisclosure in connection with the construction defects. The Costas named Lyons in a cross complaint. Lyons moved for summary judgments on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations had expired before the complaint and cross-complaint were filed. Both the Henleys and the Costas opposed this claim. The court denied the motion and Lyons appealed.
The appeals court upheld the denial, noting that the both California Supreme Court decision and later action by the legislature compels real estate brokers and salespersons “to conduct a reasonably competent and diligent visual inspection of the property offered for sale.” The court noted that under California law, brokers have responsibilities to both sellers and buyers. The section of law cited by Lyons applies to seller’s agents. The court rejected the contention by Lyons that they were “cooperating brokers.” The Henleys were “not constrained by the two-year statute of limitations.”
Lyons contended that even if California’s statute did not apply, there was a contractual limit of two years. The court also rejected this, agreeing with the Henleys that “the two-year limitation period must be extended by the discovery rule.”
The court noted that “Lyon & Associates may not reap the benefit of a shortened contractual limitation period when its own alleged malfeasance contributed to the delay in the discovery of the buyer’s injury.” The court found that the Henleys could proceed with their breach of contract claim, because, “when a breach of contract is committed in secret, such as the intentional nondisclosure of a real estate broker regarding a previously visible construction defect, the contractual limitations period is properly held subject to the discovery rule.” The court felt that the interpretation favored by the California Association of Realtors would “halve the applicable statute of limitations period.”
In addition to rejecting Lyon request for summary judgment on the claims made by the Henleys, the court also rejected the request of summary judgment on the claims made by the Costas, concluding that neither claim is time-barred. Costs were awarded to both the Henleys and Costas.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
