Primer Debuts on Life-Cycle Assessments of Embodied Carbon in Buildings
August 20, 2018 —
Engineering News-RecordA recently released primer for the use of a life-cycle assessment approach to analyze the environmental impacts of buildings is considered a small but necessary step toward the ambitious goal of getting to net-zero embodied carbon and operational greenhouse gas emissions in the construction, operation and decommissioning of buildings. The LCA guide comes after the release of the first-of-its-kind benchmarking database of embodied carbon in existing buildings. And another first—a tool to calculate embodied carbon in construction—is on the horizon.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Six-Month Prison Term for Role in HOA Scam
January 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFBen Kim, the former police lieutenant whose wife is one of the figures in the scheme to take over Las Vegas homeowner associations in order to profit from construction defect settlements, might face a six-month sentence in a bank fraud scheme. Mr. Kim has plead guilty in the charges that he submitted false financial documents. Others who were involved in the homeowner scandal, including Mr. Kim's wife, were also involved in this case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued
October 20, 2016 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation BlogOver the past few years, there has been a battle raging on in district courts and arbitration hearing rooms throughout Colorado regarding when a subcontractor’s work is to be deemed “substantially complete,” for purposes of triggering Colorado’s six-year statute of repose. C.R.S. § 13-80-104 states, in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
* * *
(2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.
C.R.S. § 13-80-104 (emphasis added).
As the battle raged on at the trial court level, subcontractors and design professionals argued that their work should be deemed “substantially complete” when they finished their discrete scope of work within a project. Developers and general contractors, seeking to maintain third-party claims against the subcontractors and design professionals, typically argued either that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work should be deemed “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy on the project, or upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor or design professional worked. Trial court judges and arbitrators have been split on this issue, with perhaps a slight majority favoring one or the other approaches advocated by developers and general contractors, that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work is “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy in a project (the minority view) or upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor of design professional worked (the majority view).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Gain in Home Building Points to Sustained U.S. Growth
October 22, 2014 —
Michelle Jamrisko and Danielle Trubow – BloombergBuilders started work on more homes in September and American consumers this month were the most optimistic in seven years, signaling the U.S. economy will ride out a global slowdown.
Housing starts climbed 6.3 percent to a 1.02 million annualized rate from a 957,000 pace in August as multifamily and single-family projects advanced, the Commerce Department reported today in Washington. The Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary sentiment index for October increased to 86.4, the strongest since July 2007, another report showed.
Gains in residential construction will help underpin the economic expansion as the recent drop in mortgage rates lifts home sales and gives builders reason to take on more projects. Other figures showing factory production rebounded last month and claims for jobless benefits dropped last week to the lowest level in 14 years added to evidence the turbulence in global markets has yet to depress the world’s largest economy.
Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net; Ms. Trubow may be contacted at dtrubow@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Jamrisko and Danielle Trubow, Bloomberg
Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product
December 23, 2024 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Coway USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-3516, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192849, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant sold and/or marketed a product and, thus, could be held liable for an alleged defect in the product. The plaintiff, a subrogating insurance carrier, brought strict product liability and breach of warranty claims against the defendant—the installer of a bidet in its insured’s home—claiming that the defendant also marketed and sold the bidet. The sole evidence to support a finding that the defendant sold the bidet was the homeowner’s testimony that she bought the product from the installer. The court found that the insured’s testimony, without any documentation or other corroborating evidence, was insufficient to establish that the defendant sold the product. Since proof of a sale is a required element for strict product liability and breach of warranty claims, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
This case involved a water loss to the Pennsylvania residence of Mikyung Kim and her husband Adrian Kim (collectively, the Kims) that was discovered in April 2021. An investigation revealed that the water loss originated from the failure of a bidet for a toilet in the second-floor bathroom. The Kims alleged that defendant, Coway USA, Inc. (Coway), sold the bidet and installed it around 2010. An employee of the plaintiff’s liability expert, a materials engineer, opined that a T-connector—a plastic valve that regulates the flow of water to and through the bidet—failed due to overtightening of the connector during the manufacturing process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Louisiana Court Holds That Application of Pollution Exclusion Would Lead to Absurd Results
October 21, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA Louisiana court recently denied an excess insurer’s bid for summary judgment, finding that the insurer’s interpretation of a pollution exclusion would lead to “absurd results.”
Central Crude, Inc., a crude oil transporter company, experienced an oil pipeline leak, allegedly causing damage to property belonging to Columbia Gas Transmission Company. Columbia Gas sued Central Crude seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief to compel remediation of the site. Central Crude sought coverage under a CGL primary insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. The insurer initially agreed to cover Central Crude’s “reasonable and necessary costs” relating to the incident, but later refused to defend or indemnify Central Crude for any costs incurred from the incident. As a result, Central Crude brought suit against Liberty Mutual and its excess insurer, Great American, to enforce coverage.
Great American moved for summary judgment arguing coverage was excluded by the excess policy’s pollution exclusion, which precludes coverage for injury “arising out of a discharge of pollutants.” Central Crude responded arguing that the exclusion’s applicability was invalidated or at least rendered ambiguous by the Following Form Endorsements, which reflect an intent to mirror the coverage afforded under the primary Liberty Mutual policy, and because coverage appears to be specifically authorized through the Premises Operations Liability Endorsement.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Indeed, You Just Design ‘Em”
April 29, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologySeeking to be extracted from personal injury litigation initiated by a laborer on a project in New Orleans, an architect sued for negligence filed a motion for summary judgment.
The plaintiff had “testified in his deposition that after demolishing most of one of the side walls of the vault and a smaller section of the front wall, he was instructed to stand on top of the vault's concrete ceiling in order to demolish it with a hydraulic jackhammer.” One court noted that: “Shortly after beginning that task, the entire vault structure collapsed.” Claims against the architect included assertions of “failure to monitor and supervise the execution of the plans to ensure safety at the jobsite.”
The architect urged in support of its MSJ that it did not owe a duty to oversee, supervise, or maintain the construction site, or have any responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety. Summary judgment was granted to the architect by the trial court, and an appeal ensued, whereupon the appellate court reversed. That intermediate court found that potential intervening knowledge of the architect of a potentially unsafe demolition practice created an issue of material fact.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Damages in First Trial Establishing Liability of Tortfeasor Binding in Bad Faith Trial Against Insurer
October 22, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court considered whether, in a second trial for bad faith, the insured was required to again prove her damages, instead of relying on the jury's damage determination in the first trial where the tortfeasor's liability was established. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 2014 Fla. Ct. App. LEXIS 14362 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2014).
The insured was injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of the underinsured driver. Geico paid the insured the $10,000 policy limit under her policy. The insured's mother also had uninsured/underinsured coverage with Geico, with policy limits of $100,000. When the insured demanded the $100,000 policy limits from her mother's policy, Geico offered $1,000. Later, Geico offered $5,000, but returned to the $1,000 offer after the insured refused to settle. When the insured reduced her demand to $22,500, Geico did not respond.
The insured sued and the case went to trial. The jury awarded $10,000 for past pain and suffering, and $350,000 for future pain and suffering. The verdict set the insured's total damages at $469,247. Geico did not file a motion for new trial nor did it appeal. Judgment was entered in favor of the insured, but was limited to the $100,000 UM policy limits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
