Axa Unveils Plans to Transform ‘Stump’ Into London Skyscraper
June 17, 2015 —
Patrick Gower – BloombergPlans for a skyscraper at 22 Bishopsgate in the City of London go on show for the first time today before developers Axa Real Estate and Lipton Rogers seek planning approval.
Axa bought the site in February, three years after work halted on the tower during the financial crisis. The plot became known as “the stump” because only the foundations, basements and the lift core up to level nine were built.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Gower, Bloomberg
Southern California Lost $8 Billion in Construction Wages
August 17, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFLos Angeles and Orange Counties are first on a list no area wants to be on. According to the Sacramento Bee, reporting on data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, LA and Orange Counties saw an $8 billion drop in construction wages in 2010, as compared to 2006. In 2006, the region saw payrolls of $26.8 billion, but in 2010, that was reduced to $18.5 billion.
This was not the largest percentage change. Of the metropolitan areas with the largest declines in construction earnings, Las Vegas saw a $3.6 billion drop, however that represented half of their 2006 totals of $7.2 billion. Conversely, a $3.3 billion drop in the New York area represented only 10% of what had been $33.8 billion in payroll in 2006.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent
August 05, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case serves as a reminder to TIMELY and PROPERLY assert affirmative defenses and to understand statutory conditions precedent to construction lien claims. Failing to do one or the other could be severely detrimental to the position you want to take in a dispute, whether it is a lien foreclosure dispute, or any other dispute.
In Scherf v. Tom Krips Construction, Inc., 2024 WL 3297592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), the president of a construction company and his wife were building a residence. They orally accepted the proposal from the concrete shell contractor and asked for invoices to be submitted to the president’s construction company. No written contract was memorialized. The president and his wife did not pay the concrete shell contractor and the contractor recorded a lien and sued to foreclose on the lien. Years later (the case had been stayed because the president and his wife filed for bankruptcy and the shell contractor had to get leave of the automatic bankruptcy stay to pursue the lien foreclosure), the shell contractor moved for summary judgment. The president and his wife moved for leave to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses. They claimed the oral contract was with the construction company and the shell contractor was required to serve a Notice to Owner under
Florida Statute s. 713.06. Alternatively, they argued that if the oral contract was with the president and his wife, the shell contractor was required to serve a Final Contractor’s Payment Affidavit at least 5 days before filing its lien foreclosure claim, and did not, as required by s. 713.06.
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
Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall
December 30, 2019 —
Jonathan R. Harwood - Traub Lieberman PerspectivesOn September 30, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner Jonathan Harwood obtained summary judgment in an action involving a guest injured in a fall at a wedding. Traub Lieberman’s client owned the property where the fall occurred. Plaintiff fell while exiting a row of seats after the bridal party had recessed down the aisle. Plaintiff claimed that she tripped over the raised side of a paper runner that had been placed in the aisle at the property. Plaintiff brought an action against Traub Lieberman’s client (the owner of the building) and the florist that had provided the runner. The owner had provided the bridal party with access to the property but did not assist in the set up for the wedding or have any employees present during the ceremony. The florist had supplied the runner for the wedding. The florist commenced a third-party action against the bride, whose wedding party had actually placed the runner in the aisle. Plaintiff asserted that the runner had become bunched and crumpled during the ceremony, creating a dangerous condition. She further asserted that the owner was responsible for her injuries since the dangerous condition existed on its property and it should have an employee present to insure no dangerous conditions existed.
During the course of discovery, Mr. Harwood established that no one representing the owner was present during the wedding, had any involvement in the placement of the runner or had received any complaints about the runner. In support of the motion for summary judgment Mr. Harwood introduced pictures showing, in conjunction with deposition testimony, that there were no problems with the runner minutes before plaintiff’s fall. Mr. Harwood also argued that the alleged defect did not involve the property itself, absolving the owner of any obligation to plaintiff. In granting the motion for summary judgment, the court held that evidence and testimony showed that the owner neither created the condition nor had actual or constructive notice that any dangerous condition existed. The court also held that there the owner did not have any duty to have a representative present during the wedding since the property itself was not dangerous or defective. Finally, the court held that the condition of the runner was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub LiebermanMr. Harwood may be contacted at
jharwood@tlsslaw.com
City Wonders Who’s to Blame for Defective Wall
February 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFA wall along a beach trail in Treasure Island, Florida is cracking, and opinions are divided over it. One city commissioner, Alan Bildz, said “it looks like somebody was doing their first concrete job.” An engineer from the design firm described it as a “cosmetic issue.” Bildz was overruled on his suggestion that the wall be torn down and rebuilt.
In later sections of the wall, expansion joints seem to have remedied the problem. But while the architect has offered to pay for filling the cracks with epoxy and polyurethane caulk, there’s still the question of adding expansion joints to the project. City Commissioner Phil Collins noted that the city has allocated more than $50,000 to add expansion joints, yet he feels the city should not be responsible for the expense, noting that the design could be considered defective, and under the terms of the contract, “the contractor shall bear the cost.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Turner Construction Selected for Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Project
May 21, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Anaheim, California city council selected Turner Construction Company “to manage a $180 million expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center, a venue that hosted 238 tradeshows, conventions, meetings and consumer events in 2013,” according to Construction Digital.
“Turner’s Southern California office calls Anaheim home, and we are pleased to be working on such a great project in our own backyard,” Kevin Dow, Vice President and General Manager of Turner’s Southern California office told Construction Digital.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chicago Cubs Agree to Make Wrigley Field ADA Improvements to Settle Feds' Lawsuit
December 03, 2024 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordMajor League Baseball’s Chicago Cubs have entered into a settlement with the U.S. Dept. of Justice over renovations to Wrigley Field, federal and Cubs officials announced Oct. 31. As part of the settlement, the team agreed to update Wrigley Field with more accessibility options for people with disabilities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, ENRMr. Leggate may be contacted at
leggatej@enr.com
