BWB&O is Recognized in the 2024 Edition of Best Law Firms®!
November 16, 2023 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is honored to announce the firm has been recognized for its fourth consecutive year in the 2024 edition of Best Law Firms® and is ranked by Best Lawyers® regionally in three practice areas. To read the publication, please click
here.
Regional Tier 1
Las Vegas: Litigation – Construction
Orange County: Litigation – Construction
Regional Tier 2
Orange County: Family Law
Regional Tier 3
Orange County: Commercial Litigation
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Texas Court of Appeals Conditionally Grant Petition for Writ of Mandamus to Anderson
April 25, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals conditionally grant mandamus relief to Anderson Construction Company and Ronnie Anderson (collectively “Anderson”)… from the trial court in a construction defect lawsuit filed by Brent L. Mainwaring and Tatayana Mainwaring. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.001-.007 (West 2000 & Supp. 2010). Relators contend the trial court abused its discretion by compelling discovery while the case was abated by operation of law.
The Court of Appeals opinion describes what led up to the proceedings: “The Mainwarings’ original petition identified certain defects in their Anderson-constructed home. Those defects concerned the roof trusses and framing, air conditioning, mortar and masonry, exterior doors and windows, and weep holes. With respect to the five areas of defects identified in their original petition, the Mainwarings gave Anderson the statutorily required notice on January 13, 2010. After implementing agreed extensions, Anderson made an offer of settlement for the defects the Mainwarings identified in their notice. Almost eight months later, the Mainwarings filed an amended petition adding defects they had not included in their original petition and notice. The additional defects the Mainwarings included in their amended petition had not been addressed by Anderson’s offer of settlement.”
Following these events, Anderson claimed the Mainwarings did not respond in writing to their settlement offer. “Anderson filed a verified plea in abatement on December 2, 2010. In the trial court, Anderson claimed that the Mainwarings failed to respond in writing to Anderson’s settlement offer, as required by Section 27.004(b) of the RCLA. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(b)(1). The Mainwarings moved to compel discovery responses from Anderson. The Mainwarings alleged that they rejected Anderson’s settlement offer, and that if their response was insufficient, they contend that Anderson’s offer was rejected by operation of law on the twenty-fifth day after the Mainwarings received it. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(i). The Mainwarings’ motion to compel was not supported by affidavit. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 27.004(d)(2). On January 13, 2011, Anderson filed a verified supplemental plea in abatement. Anderson alleged that the Mainwarings failed to provide written notice concerning the newly alleged defects and complained the Mainwarings were attempting to circumvent the inspection and resolution procedure of the RCLA. Over Anderson’s objection that the lawsuit had been abated, the trial court granted the Mainwarings’ motion to compel discovery.”
After listening to both sides, the Court of Appeals offered this reasoning for their opinion: “The parties do not dispute that Anderson inspected the property before the Mainwarings alleged the existence of additional defects in their amended pleading, nor do the Mainwarings claim that Anderson has been given an opportunity to inspect the additional defects the Mainwarings identified in their amended pleadings. We conclude the trial court did not have the discretion to deny or lift the abatement until the Mainwarings established their compliance with the statute. In other words, the Mainwarings are required to provide Anderson a reasonable opportunity to inspect the additional defects identified by their amended pleading, which will allow Anderson the opportunity to cure or settle with respect to the newly identified defects.”
The Court of Appeals spoke directly on the issue of mandamus relief: “The Mainwarings contend that mandamus relief is not available because the trial court’s ruling does not prevent Anderson from making settlement offers during the discovery process. ‘An appellate remedy is “adequate” when any benefits to mandamus review are outweighed by the detriments.’ In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004). The failure to abate a case is typically not subject to mandamus. See In re Allstate Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co., 85 S.W.3d 193, 196 (Tex. 2002) (citing Abor v. Black, 695 S.W.2d 564, 567 (Tex. 1985)). In this case, however, the case was abated by operation of law. By ignoring the statutory abatement, the trial court interfered with the statutory procedure for developing and resolving construction defect claims. See In re Kimball Hill Homes Tex., Inc., 969 S.W.2d 522, 525 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, orig. proceeding) (An appeal provides an inadequate remedy for the trial court’s failure to observe automatic abatement pursuant to the RCLA.). The benefits of mandamus review are not outweighed by the detriments of mandamus review in this case.“
In conclusion, “The trial court had no discretion to compel discovery while the case was abated, and Anderson, who has been compelled to respond to discovery during a period the case was under an automatic abatement, has no adequate remedy on appeal. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus. The writ will issue only if the trial court fails to vacate its order of February 3, 2011, and fails to refrain from proceeding with the case until a motion to reinstate is filed that establishes compliance with the notice and inspection requirements of the Residential Construction Liability Act.”
Read the trial court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What The U.S. Can Learn from China to Bring Its Buildings to New Heights
November 15, 2022 —
Marc Gravely - Gravely PC“China’s history is marked by thousands of years of world-changing innovations: from the compass and gunpowder to acupuncture and the printing press. No one should be surprised that China has re-emerged as an economic superpower.” —Gary Locke
Westerners have often criticized China’s ‘creative’ interpretation of the concept of intellectual property, but even its harshest critics recognize the Asian superpower’s ability to build large-scale infrastructure projects at a breakneck pace. America does not want to emulate the absolute government control that has allowed China to build futuristic bridges and airports in record time. However, there are still some things we can learn from our biggest global competitor.
The White House itself has invoked China’s grand achievements in its quest to secure more infrastructure funding from Congress. The administration believes that the only way to compete with China is to spend
at least $2 trillion on upgrading bridges and mass transit, modernizing neighborhoods and airports, and making broadband access universal.
The skylines of China’s largest metropolises are nothing short of mesmerizing. Its grand airports and auditoriums amaze tourists and locals alike. Explore any important Chinese city on Google maps, and you will find a level of modernization in infrastructure that far surpasses American cities of similar size. Scholars have coined the phrase
“China envy” to refer to the effects of this phenomenon.
According to urban planning historian Thomas J. Campanella, China is doing the kind of things America used to do: amazing the world with grand structures that push engineering and architecture forward. The question is, if China has emulated us, can we now emulate China?
China Envy
There are some basic differences between the two nations which make emulation difficult. On the one hand, China has leapfrogged from rudimentary infrastructure to suborbital spaceships and bullet trains. America is at a different stage and moves at a different pace. Chinese leaders don’t need approval from the opposition in Congress; they have total control. If the Chinese administration wants to build a bridge, they just go ahead and do it. Democracy is a bit more complicated, but we naturally welcome the complexities, considering how stifling the political atmosphere is under communist rule.
Another difference some analysts have pointed out is that the current Chinese President and his predecessor both studied engineering, so they were naturally keen on innovation in their field. Meanwhile, U.S. presidents have seldom had such backgrounds. The American public has more often elected lawyers to rule over our nation.
China envy is understandable. Our competitor is home to
49 of the planet’s 100 tallest skyscrapers. It also boasts a million bridges. While the U.S. spends 2.4 percent of GDP on infrastructure,
China spends 8 percent. This was an important selling point for the White House’s ambitious infrastructure plan.
Located in a mountainous region with over 1,500 rivers, China has built bridges of fantastic proportions to keep urban centers and important agricultural areas connected.
The Pingtang Bridge in Guizhou province links two sides of a canyon that are 7,000 feet apart. The spectacular, 7-mile-long Hutong Yangtze River Bridge efficiently provides railway and highway access to Shanghai from Jiangsu province.
As climate change forces us to reevaluate Americans’ preference for private cars and the neglect of our railway systems, the inferior car ownership that was once a disadvantage for China is now an advantage. By 2025, high-speed trains will service
98 percent of Chinese cities. Subways are common in many of them. Today, the country boasts a high-speed rail network totaling more than 23,500 miles, or
eight times the distance between New York and LA. Chinese workers travel on bullet trains at 215 miles per hour, much faster than their American counterparts.
The gap between China and the U.S. when it comes to infrastructure is one of astronomic proportions. A few years ago, Bill Gates announced that China had used as much cement in three years as the U.S. in 100 years. China currently produces 14 times more steel than the U.S. and about 2.2 gigatons of cement per year, roughly half of the
4.5 gigatons our country used in the 20th century. In China, city planners have not focused on short-term return on investment, but on broader societal benefits. For example, World Bank officials were not enamored with the idea of creating a subway in Shanghai; the region’s geology made the project far too complex. The World Bank suggested buses would be a better solution for the city’s transit, but Chinese officials
didn’t listen and went ahead. Thirty years later, the Shanghai subway has become an example of efficiency, transporting more than 10 million people every day. It is as if China followed a different logic, one that often pays off.
According to Mr. Campanella, “We need a bit of China to be stirred into our game. . . We’re over privileging the immediately affected residents. What we don’t do is give requisite weight to the larger society.” China’s modernization has, however, not been without cost. Accelerated construction creates pollution, and not all the country’s massive structures are green or energy efficient. President Xi’s country is conscious about pollution, and it has poured significant resources into green infrastructure projects like wind and solar farms.
There is a boldness in China’s infrastructure planning, a pioneering spirit that we would do well to imitate. What American jurisdiction would spend billions on a new state-of-the-art airport only 50 miles away from a recently modernized one? China has done it in Beijing. In a way, it seems that China is seeing beyond the here and now, planning for tomorrow, and this is something we can learn from our competitors.
Marc Gravely is the founder and lead attorney at Gravely PC and author of Reframing America’s Infrastructure: A Ruins to Renaissance Playbook.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses
January 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that in calculating interest on the expense of repairing construction defects would start at the time that the defect was repaired. In 2009, the Colorado State Legislature introduced a bill that would have made homeowners eligible for interest back to the purchase date of their homes. The Colorado Springs Business Journal notes that the Colorado Springs Housing and Building Association is concerned that the legislature might take up the issue again, in which case, the HBA would oppose it.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Certified Question Asks Washington Supreme Court Whether Insurer is Bound by Contradictory Certificate of Insurance
January 21, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Ninth Circuit certified a question to the Washington Supreme Court as follows:
Under Washington law, is an insurer bound by representations made by its authorized agent in a certificate of insurance with respect to a party's status as an additional insured under a policy issued by the insurer, when the certificate includes language disclaiming its authority and ability to expand coverage?
T-Mobile USA Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co lf Am., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31863 (9th Cir. Nov. 9, 2018).
In 2010, T-Mobile entered into a Field Services Agreement (FSA) with Innovative Engineering, Inc. under which Innovative would provide services in connection with the construction of rooftop cellular antennae towers in New York City. The FSA required Innovative to maintain general liability insurance naming T-Mobile as an additional insured, and required that Innovative provide T-Mobile with certificates of insurance documenting the coverage. Innovative obtained coverage from Selective Insurance Company of America.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Design-Build Contracting for County Road Projects
September 19, 2022 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPEffective July 1, 2022, counties may execute design-build contracts for transportation-related projects that include buildings, bridges and approaches, rail corridors, technology deployments, and limited- or controlled-access project, or projects that may be constructed within existing rights of way when the work is clearly defined or when significant savings may result in project delivery time.
[1] Additionally, counties may combine any environmental services, utility-relocation services, right-of-way services, design services, and construction phases of a public road or other project into a single design-build contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLP
Mr. Cook may be contacted at cook@ahclaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?
March 05, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorOSHA has long held the opinion that general contractors may be held liable for subcontractor’s OSHA violations and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, overseeing the Midwest, has agreed since 2009. To combat this risk, general contractors would be well served to incorporate targeted indemnity provisions into their subcontracts that require subcontractors to pay for all claims and costs associated with subcontractor caused OSHA violations.
OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy
OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy, a/k/a OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-124, allows OSHA to cite multiple employers at a single worksite for creating a hazard, or for failing to prevent or correct a hazard, even if their own workers are not exposed to the hazard. A ‘‘controlling’’ or ‘‘correcting’’ employer is liable for hazards that it did not take ‘‘reasonable care’’ to detect and prevent.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Proposed Changes to Federal Lease Accounting Standards
January 19, 2017 —
Susan Elliott & Lori A. Lange - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has proposed amendments to federal lease accounting standards found within Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standard (SFFAS) 5, ‘Accounting of Liabilities of the Federal Government,’ and SFFAS 6, ‘Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment,’ promulgated by FASAB. The proposals would require entities leasing property to the federal government, such as private landlords, to recognize a lease receivable and deferred revenue at the beginning of the lease term (except on intragovernmental or short-term leases). The proposals are slated to take eff ect in reporting periods following September 30, 2018.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE DUE JANUARY 6, 2017.
The federal government is one of the largest tenants in the country. The General Services Administration (GSA) alone leases space to house over 600,000 government workers. GSA has over 8,000 leases throughout the U.S.
Reprinted courtesy of
Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Lori A. Lange, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com
Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
