Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado

November 23, 2020 — Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
Earlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.” See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020). As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context. This significant ruling is at odds with a prior division’s broad statement, while considering a prescriptive easement claim, that “[i]n general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant’s claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use.” See Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo. App. 2006). Perhaps for that reason, Woodbridge II is currently pending certiorari review before the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that should provide some much-needed clarity on what constitutes “adverse use” in the context of a prescriptive easement. As we await the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I thought it worthwhile to provide a brief analysis of the Woodbridge II court’s deep dive into the nuances of “adverse use” in this field of Colorado law. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at lmecklenburg@swlaw.com

Pandemic Magnifies Financial Risk in Construction: What Executives Can Do to Speed up Customer Payments

August 23, 2021 — Lori J. Drake - Construction Executive
Construction businesses are waiting longer for payment in 2021, according to the newly released 2021 Construction Cash Flow and Payment Report conducted by Levelset. According to respondents, only 10% of construction businesses get paid in full, which is a 75% drop from 2020, and only 9% get paid on time, which is a drop of 60% over last year. The report, based on a survey of 764 construction professionals, illustrates that financial risk in the industry flowed down the payment chain. General contractors were four times more likely to get paid in 30 days, and 50% more likely to get paid in full. However, 20% of subcontractors, suppliers and other second-tier companies were kept waiting more than 60 days to collect payment. Reprinted courtesy of Lori J. Drake, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Discussing Parametric Design with Shajay Bhooshan of Zaha Hadid Architects

May 10, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
obotics, 3D printing, and digital fabrication—these evolving technologies are changing how we design and construct. Looking into the future can surprisingly cause us to rediscover history, as I learned when discussing parametric design with Shajay Bhooshan. During the AEC Hackathon Munich in April 2017, I became acquainted with Shajay Bhooshan, associate at Zaha Hadid Architects. Shajay showed me designs that were intriguingly reminiscent of natural forms but completely modern in expression. He explained how these lightweight structures had been digitally designed and constructed with minimal use of material. One of the examples he shared was a large shell structure that consisted of aluminium elements that could be assembled and dismantled easily. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies

November 12, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
On August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context. The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.” Reprinted courtesy of Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Amid the Chaos, Trump Signs Executive Order Streamlining Environmental Permitting and Disbands Infrastructure Council

August 24, 2017 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
We’ve been trying to stay focused here at the California Construction Law Blog. But it’s been hard. This past week, a couple of new developments took place at the federal level on infrastructure, although if you blinked, you may have missed it. Executive Order on Environmental Permitting This past Tuesday, at a press conference quickly overshadowed by the President’s comments about the tragic events that took place in Charlottesville, President Trump announced that he had signed a new executive order aimed at streamlining the environmental permitting process for federally-funded projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (11/03/21)

December 06, 2021 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Amenity-rich buildings become a key focus in enticing employees back into the office, supply chain links are strained by a lack of storage capacity in warehouses and port areas, green lease signings are on the uptick, and more.

In an effort to draw employees back into the office and retain talent in a tight labor market, businesses are spending more than ever on upscale workspaces, paying high rents for modern, amenity-rich buildings. (Peter Grant, The Wall Street Journal)
As sustainability and ESG factors become increasingly important, net-zero carbon commitments are emerging as the next big “must-have” for commercial real estate owners, as more than 100 businesses and organizations have signed on to the World Green Building Council’s Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment, which seeks to decarbonize the buildings sector by 2050 and get halfway there by 2030. (Elsa Wenzel, GreenBiz)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

Mortgagors Seek Coverage Under Mortgagee's Policy

July 19, 2021 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The mortgagor homeowners survived a motion to dismiss their claim for coverageunder the lender's property policy after their home suffered hurricane damage. Gary v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100010 (W.D. La. May 26, 2021). Plaintiffs' home was mortgaged by Pennymac Loan Services, LLC. Pennymac held a property policy with American Security to insure its interest in the home. Plaintiffs were not named as insureds or additional insureds under the policy. Plaintiffs were identified as the borrowers under the policy on the Declarations page. After hurricane damage to their home, plaintiffs sued American Security for coverage for the losses. American Security moved to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs were neither additional insureds nor third party beneficiaries. Lender-placed policies were designed to insure the lender's collateral whenever the borrower failed to maintain adequate insurance. The Loss Payment provisions in the policy stated that "Loss will be made payable to the named insured [Pennymac]. No coverage will be available to any mortgagee other than that shown as the named insured on the Declarations." 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

Students for Fair Admissions: Shaking the Foundations of EEOC Programs and M/WBE Requirements

October 16, 2023 — Denise Farris Scrivener - The Dispute Resolver
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, holding that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 143 S. Ct. 2141, 216 L. Ed. 2d 857 (2023). On July 13, 2023, thirteen state Attorney Generals, relying on Students for Fair Admissions, issued a joint letter to the CEOs of the Fortune 100 companies, urging the elimination of all race-based programs in EEOC and government and private contracting. On July 19, 2023, a Tennessee district court judge issued an injunctive order against the Small Business Administration’s 8(a) application program on the basis of the program’s race-based presumption of disadvantage. Ultima Servs. Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., No. 220CV00041DCLCCRW, 2023 WL 4633481 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2023). The message to be taken from these developments: all race-based programs and, by extension, potentially all gender-based programs—including ones that require or reward participation of Minority Business Enterprises (“MBE”) or Women Business Enterprise (“WBE”) in construction programs—currently stand on shaky ground. This post will explain the constitutional foundations at play, the decisions shaking things up, and why well-rounded dialogue is urgently needed to address the status of these programs before they’re dead in the water. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Denise Farris Scrivener, Farris Legal Services LLC
Ms. Scrivener may be contacted at denise@farrislegal.net

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES