COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?

June 13, 2018 — Richard Borden, Sedgwick Jeanite & Joshua Mooney - White and Williams LLP
The ramp-up of cybersecurity regulation, albeit in a patchwork fashion through state-level legislation, has begun. On May 18, 2018, South Carolina enacted the Insurance Data Security Act (Act), becoming the first state to pass legislation based upon the Insurance Data Security Model Law that was approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) last October. The Act makes very little change to the model law’s text, which in turn, is based on 23 NYCRR § 500, et seq., the cybersecurity regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Financial Services in March 2017. The Act establishes stringent standards for both data security programs, and an entity’s response to a “cybersecurity event” through an organized and methodical investigation and notification to the state’s Department of Insurance. Like New York’s cybersecurity regulations, the Act requires insurers to submit to the Department of Insurance annual certification of compliance and has a ratcheted implementation of portions of the legislation on insurers and brokers operating or otherwise licensed to do business in the state. It does not create a private cause of action. Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys Richard Borden, Sedgwick Jeanite and Joshua Mooney Mr. Borden may be contacted at bordenr@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Jeanite may be contacted at jeanites@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Mooney may be contacted at mooneyj@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Supreme Court of New Jersey Reviews Statutes of Limitation and the Discovery Rule in Construction Defect Cases

July 18, 2018 — David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.
Robert Neff Jr. of Wilson Elser analyzed the recent case, Palisades at Fort Lee Condo. Ass’n v. 100 Old Palisade, LLC, 2017 N.J. Lexis 845, 169 A.3d 473 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, September 14, 2017), and states that this ruling “gives defendants the ability to defend against the assertion that the statute of limitations was tolled until the most recent owner (and plaintiff) discovered the cause of action.” Neff concludes that a statute of limitations test needs to be conducted at the beginning of each case: “In Palisades, the motions to dismiss based on the statute of limitations were filed at the conclusion of all discovery. While an initial analysis might yield the conclusion that certain discovery will be needed to ascertain the appropriate accrual date (or dates, in the case of multiple defendants), counsel will then know what discovery to seek during the discovery period.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

#9 CDJ Topic: Vallagio at Inverness Residential Condominium Association, Inc. v. Metropolitan Homes, Inc., et al.

December 30, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
David M. McClain of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC reported on the Colorado Court of Appeals ruling in the above mentioned case regarding the Vallagio condominiums developed by Metro Inverness, LLC. McClain concluded, “As a builder, the moral of the story here is that you need not rely on the Colorado Legislature to protect your ability to arbitrate construction defect claims asserted against you by homeowners associations. All you need to do is to include within your declaration a valid and enforceable declarant consent provision requiring your consent to amend out of the declaration the arbitration requirement for construction defect claims.” Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions – Changes and Claims

November 03, 2016 — James R. Lynch – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
This is the seventh post in our “Top 10 Construction Contract Provisions” series. Prior posts discussed Price and Payment, Liquidated Damages, Consequential Damages – Part I and Part II, Indemnity, Scope of Work, and Flow-Down Provisions. Today’s topic, Changes and Claims, is a contender for the top spot on our list, for both day-to-day impact on the job and importance in disputes. In fact, these provisions[i] are so variable and are involved in so many reported construction law decisions, that this post will not attempt to survey all their various forms, uses, or potential legal ramifications, but instead focuses on bottom line “best practices”—questions to consider as a general contractor, subcontractor, or owner when drafting, negotiating, or managing the Changes and Claims provisions of a contract. There is no “ideal” here, and the changes and claims procedures should be suited to the project, owner, contractor(s), likely issues, and other project-specific considerations. Key considerations include the following: 1. How prescriptive is the Change Order process? At one end of the spectrum, a Change Order provision may include requirements for written direction and request by the owner and formal response by the contractor, with pricing and specific supporting data or documentation, in addition to strict timelines for response, execution, and performance, precise methods to determine the resulting contract adjustment, limits on the type or extent of adjustment, or terms defining the effect of a signed Change Order, e.g. to what extent related claims or impacts might be extinguished. At the other end of the spectrum, the Change Order provision might simply recognize that the owner may direct changes, and the parties intend to document the directions and resulting compensation in a Change Order, with no further elaboration. There is no universal ideal on this spectrum. A highly defined and prescriptive process may be appropriate for a complex, high value, multi-stakeholder project on which significant changes are likely. The same process would be an inefficient waste of resources on a small and simple project where significant changes are unlikely and the parties would be unlikely to comply with more formal procedures. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Mr. Lynch may be contacted at jlynch@ac-lawyers.com

---

California Indemnity and Defense Construction Law Changes for 2013

April 03, 2013 — William L. Porter, Esq. - Porter Law Group

Death of “Type 1” Indemnity in California Construction

For many years the prevalence of the “Type 1” indemnity clause has been the subject of fierce debate within the construction industry.  Subcontractors have complained that they are saddled with indemnity obligations that require them to indemnify contractors from construction-related claims for which these subcontractors are truly not responsible.  In defense, contractors have argued that they must be entitled to the freedom to set contractual terms to best protect themselves and they point out that subcontractors are certainly free to negotiate better terms or turn down work.

After many years of debate and small legislative inroads in prohibiting Type 1 indemnity in residential projects and where it concerns the “sole negligence”, “willful misconduct” or the “design defects” of others, the California legislature has finally spoken broadly and definitively on the issue of Type 1 indemnity clauses in construction contracts.  Under new Civil Code section 2782, beginning with contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2013, broad “Type 1” indemnity clauses shall be void and unenforceable in the context of both private and public construction projects in California.  Civil Code section 2782 now makes it clear that subcontractors can no longer be required to indemnify against another’s active negligence in connection with construction contracts, whether public or private.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Esq.
William L. Porter, Esq. can be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com

---

Water Damage Sub-Limit Includes Tear-Out Costs

June 06, 2022 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Florida Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that the homeowner policy's sub-limit for water damage included tear-out costs. Sec. First Ins. Co. v. Vazquez, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1205 (Fla. Ct. App. Feb. 18, 2022). A discharge of water from the cast iron pipes caused damage to the home. The water escaped as a result of the failed cast iron pipes due to wear and tear, deterioration, and corrosion. The insurer acknowledged coverage for the water damage and paid $10,000 under the Limited Water Damage Endorsement (LWD Endorsement). The provision recited that "'[t]he limit of liability for all damage to covered property provided by this endorsement is $10,000 per loss." The insureds' suit argued they were entitled to additional benefits for the cost to tear out and replace a part of the concrete slab - an action necessary to reach the corroded pipes. The parties stipulated that the cost of the tear-out would be $40,000. The parties agreed that the LWD Endorsement provided coverage of both water damage and tear-out costs. They also agreed that the cost to repair and/or replace the corroded pipes was not covered. They disagreed, however, over the proper interpretation of the limitation of liability provision in the LWD Endorsement. The insured argued that the $10,000 limit applied to both water damage and tear-out costs. The insureds argued that the $10,00 limit applied only to water damage to covered property. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Nationwide Immigrant Strike May Trigger Excusable Delay and Other Contract Provisions

February 23, 2017 — Adam P. Handfinger & Meredith N. Reynolds – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Yesterday, February 16, 2017, media outlets reported a nationwide strike by immigrants and businesses referred to as “A Day Without Immigrants”. The protest, organized largely through social media, was a response by some to the Trump Administration’s immigration and foreign trade policies. Participating businesses shut down and immigrants refused to work or spend money in an eff ort to demonstrate the role of foreign-born workers in the U.S. economy. While the number of businesses and individuals that participated is not yet known, several contractors reported labor shortages and construction project delays or temporary shut downs as a result of the protest. Reprinted courtesy of Adam P. Handfinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Meredith N. Reynolds, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com Ms. Reynolds may be contacted at mreynolds@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Albert Reichmann, Builder of NY, London Finance Hubs, Dies at 93

January 17, 2023 — Laurence Arnold - Bloomberg
Albert Reichmann, the longtime president of his family’s Olympia & York Developments Ltd., builder of the World Financial Center in New York and the first phase of Canary Wharf in London, has died. He was 93.  He died on Dec. 17, according to the National Post and a notice on the website of Steeles Memorial Chapel, a Toronto-area funeral home. As the eldest of the three Orthodox Jewish brothers behind Olympia & York, Reichmann held the title of president. In practice, his brother Paul — who died in 2013 — was the company’s “idea man and deal-doer,” in the words of Anthony Bianco, a former Businessweek writer whose book on the family called Olympia & York “the greatest property development company in Western history.” Before its 1992 bankruptcy, it was the largest private owner of commercial property in New York City. Forbes magazine calculated the brothers’ cumulative net worth at $9.2 billion at its height in 1988, making them among the world’s richest people. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Laurence Arnold, Bloomberg

---