BHA Sponsors the 9th Annual Construction Law Institute
January 21, 2016 —
CDJ STAFF Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. is proud to be partnering with the Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education Committee and the Construction Law Committee of the Florida Bar Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section, as a sponsor and exhibitor at 9th Annual Construction Law Institute to be held March 11th, 12th & 13th, 2016 at the JW Marriott Orlando Grande Lakes in Orlando.
With offices in Miami serving all of Florida, Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. (BHA) offers the experience of over 20 years of service to carriers, defense counsel, and insurance professionals as designated experts in nearly 6,000 cases. BHA’s staff encompasses a broad range of licensed and credentialed experts in the areas of general contracting and specialty trades, as well as architects, and both civil and structural engineers, and has provided services on behalf of developers, general contractors and sub-contractors.
BHA’s experience covers the full range of construction defect litigation, including single and multi-family residential (including high-rise), institutional (schools, hospitals and government buildings), commercial, and industrial claims. BHA specializes in coverage, exposure, premises liability, and delay claim analysis as well.
As the litigation climate in Florida continues to change, and as the number of construction defect and other construction related cases continues to rise, it is becoming more important for contractors and builders here to be aggressive in preparing for claims before they are made, and in defending against those claims once they are filed. Since 1993, Bert L. Howe & Associates has been an industry leader in providing construction consulting services, and has been a trusted partner with builders and insurance carriers, both large and small, across the Western and Southern United States. Here in Florida, we have been providing construction defect and construction-claims related forensic expert services for the past decade with a proven track record of successful results.
For those of you planning on attending the conference, or those who may know someone who will be, we encourage you to stop by the BHA booth and we welcome the opportunity to discuss further the broad range of services provided by BHA.
For your convenience, here is a link to the registration page for the 9th Annual Construction Law Institute:
http://www.floridabar.org/FBWEB/CLEReg.nsf/zLocations2/MAOS-A4UK4Z?OpenDocument
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Washington Court Denies Subcontractor’s Claim Based on Contractual Change and Notice Provisions
January 29, 2024 —
Wendy Rosenstein - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe recent unpublished case, Cascade Civil Construction, LLC v. Jackson Dean Construction, Inc., et al.,[1] provides a legal justification for contractors to require a directive or change order in advance of performing changed work—thereby preventing the party who requested the changed work from later arguing that notice provisions were not complied with.
In the case, Jackson Dean, the prime contractor, hired Cascade to perform excavation work on a project to build a new Costco Corporate headquarters. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and other issues, Jackson Dean directed resequencing, which required Cascade to perform excavation concurrent to dewatering. Jackson Dean also required deeper-than-planned excavation under one of the buildings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wendy Rosenstein, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Rosenstein may be contacted at
wendy.rosenstein@acslawyers.com
2017 Construction Outlook: Slow, Mature Growth, but No Decline, Expected
December 21, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogAs we count down the remaining days of 2016 (thank God) it’s time to think about what the new year will bring (I’m good with pretty much anything at this point).
The economists at Dodge Data & Analytics have a few predictions. According to their 2017 Dodge Construction Outlook, they predict that U.S. construction starts will increase modestly in 2017, up 5% to $713 billion, after rather anemic growth in 2016 following several years of steady growth.
According to Robert Murray, chief economist for Dodge Data & Analytics, while the first half of 2016 lagged behind construction activity in 2015, that shortfall grew smaller as the year progressed, easing concern that the construction industry might be in the early stage of a cyclical decline. Rather, according to Murray, it appears that the construction industry has now entered a more mature phase of expansion, one characterized by slower rates of growth than during the 2012-2015 period and that construction spending can be expected to see moderate gains through 2017 and beyond[.]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera Obtain Voluntary Dismissal in Favor of Construction Company Under the Vertical Immunity Doctrine
June 21, 2024 —
Christian Romaguera - Traub LiebermanIn a lawsuit filed in Orange County, Traub Lieberman Partner Michael Logan and Associate Christian Romaguera achieved a voluntary dismissal in favor of their Client, a construction company. The Plaintiff claimed that he was seriously and permanently injured, and demanded $1,000,000.00. The Plaintiff turned out to be an employee of our Client’s subcontractor, and the Plaintiff received worker’s compensation benefits from his employer, the subcontractor. Under Florida Statute § 440.11(1), “The liability of an employer . . . shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability, including vicarious liability, of such employer to any third-party tortfeasor and to the employee . . .” When a subcontractor provides workers’ compensation benefits to its injured employee, workers’ compensation immunity would not only apply to the subcontractor but to the general contractor as well. This is also known as “vertical immunity.” The Traub Lieberman team filed a detailed motion and memorandum of law to argue its case, and the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the claim against the Client just before that motion was set to be argued before the Judge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christian Romaguera, Traub LiebermanMr. Romaguera may be contacted at
cromaguera@tlsslaw.com
Tarriffs, a Pandemic and War: Construction Contracts Must Withstand the Unforeseeable
May 16, 2022 —
Brett Moritz, Adrian Bastianelli III & Adam Handfinger - Construction ExecutiveSince the tariffs on steel and the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the construction industry has been reeling from the impact of material shortages and price increases, labor shortages, breakdowns in the supply chain and the inflationary effect of these issues. Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine has only exacerbated the situation.
International conflicts can constrain supply, resulting in delays and price increases for contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. The disruption caused by the war is expected to be particularly acute due to the role that Russia and Ukraine play in the world economy and the effect of the economic sanctions that have been imposed on Russia by the United States and other countries. Russia controls approximately 10% of the global copper reserves and is estimated to produce about 10% of the world’s nickel supply. It also provides at least 30% of Europe’s oil and natural gas. Ukraine is a significant source of raw materials, such as iron. Thus, the war will cause significant shortages and price increases to the global construction industry. There are already reports of delays and cost increases for commodities such as nickel, aluminum, copper and—most importantly—steel, which have resulted in impacts to construction costs and schedules. Suppliers are especially sensitive to the volatile markets caused by these conditions. Some are insisting on automatic price increases in their purchase orders.
All of this, not to mention the anticipation of what may come next, points to the necessity for a new paradigm to achieve a successful project. It is more important today than ever that owners, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers reasonably address the economic and time impacts of these unforeseeable events in preparing contracts for future work and in administering existing contracts. Otherwise, the risk of a default on more than one level may put projects in jeopardy, to no one’s benefit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Housing Starts Fall as U.S. Single-Family Projects Decline
February 18, 2015 —
Bloomberg News(Bloomberg) -- Builders broke ground on fewer U.S. residential construction projects in January as demand for single-family homes cooled from an almost seven-year high, signaling the rebound in housing remains uneven.
Housing starts declined 2 percent to a 1.07 million annual rate, following the prior month’s 1.09 million pace, a Commerce Department report showed Wednesday in Washington. The median forecast of 82 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was 1.07 million. Permits, a proxy for future construction, also fell.
Student debt, tight credit conditions and rising prices are probably preventing would-be first-time homebuyers from entering the market, which will damp construction. At the same time, a strengthening labor market and rising household formation may support building of rental units, underpinning residential real estate.
Nina Glinski may be contacted at nglinski@bloomberg.net; Shobhana Chandra may be contacted at schandra1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
July 11, 2018 —
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:
Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at
jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com
