Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

National Engineering and Public Works Roadshow Highlights Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston

April 29, 2024 — Engineering and Public Works Roadshow
CHARLESTON, SC — On Thursday, the nationwide Engineering and Public Works Roadshow stopped at the Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston. The event highlighted the role engineers and public works professionals play in infrastructure projects like the local seawall improvements that increase coastal resiliency along the historic urban shoreline. The event, which took place along the newly constructed battery wall section between King Street and Battery Place along Murray Boulevard, marked the latest stop of the Engineering and Public Works Roadshow – a joint effort by the American Council of Engineering Companies, the American Public Works Association, and the American Society of Civil Engineers to bring public attention to the essential role engineers and public works professionals play in making our modern world possible. The battery project underscores the importance of innovative engineering solutions in addressing the challenges of climate change and rising sea levels. Thursday's event was also a chance to spotlight the engineering, construction, and public officials involved in the project, whose work often goes unrecognized. About the Engineering and Public Works Roadshow: The Engineering and Public Works Roadshow is a series of nationwide events highlighting critical infrastructure projects and the skilled professionals who make them possible. It is an opportunity to learn about the importance of infrastructure investment, showcase the work of engineers and public works professionals, and celebrate these projects' positive impact on our communities. Learn more at www.infrastructureroadshow.org. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

How the Cumulative Impact Theory has been Defined

November 30, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Largely in the federal contract arena, there is a theory referred to as “cumulative impacts” used by a contractor to recover unforeseeable costs associated with a multitude of changes that have an overwhelming ripple effect on its efficiency, particularly efficiency dealing with its original, base contract work. In other words, by dealing with extensive changes, there is an unforeseeable impact imposed on the contractor relative to its unchanged or base contract work. Under this theory, the contractor oftentimes prices its cumulative impact under a total cost approach with an examination on its cost overrun. However, this is not an easy theory to prevail on because there needs to be a focus on the sheer number of changes, causation supporting the impact, and whether there were concurrent impacts or delays that played a role in the ripple effect. See, e.g., Appeals of J.A. Jones Const. Co., ENGBCA No. 6348, 00-2 BCA P 31000 (July 7, 2000) (“However, in the vast majority of cases such claims are routinely denied because there were an insufficient number of changes, contractor-caused concurrent delays, disruptions and inefficiencies and/or a general absence of evidence of causation and impact.”). To best articulate how the cumulative impact theory has been defined, I want to include language directly from courts and board of contract appeals that have dealt with this theory. This way the contractor knows how to best work with their experts with this definition in mind–and, yes, experts will be needed–to persuasively package and establish causation and damages stemming from the multitude of changes. While many of these definitions are worded differently, you will see they have the same focus dealing with the unforeseeable ripple effect of the extensive changes. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

Last Call: Tokyo Iconic Okura Hotel Meets the Wrecking Ball

August 26, 2015 — Komaki Ito & Andreea Papuc – Bloomberg
Tokyo’s iconic nod to Japanese Modernism, the Hotel Okura, will bid farewell to its last guests next week and face the wrecking ball, despite petitions from around the world to save it. The 1960s-era hotel, which has welcomed international dignitaries and inspired a throng of admirers eager for preservation, will close its doors Aug. 31 to make way for a gleaming new hotel rebuilt in time for the 2020 Olympics, at a cost of about 100 billion yen ($836 million). “What’s odd about the Okura is that it’s a perfect embodiment of ‘60s Modernism, and it represents that very first wave of new development in the region,” Tyler Brule, editor in chief of Monocle magazine, who spearheaded a campaign that included a petition with almost 9,000 signatures, said in an e-mailed response to questions. “For this reason alone, it deserves to be preserved.” Reprinted courtesy of Komaki Ito, Bloomberg and Andreea Papuc, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Travelers’ 3rd Circ. Win Curbs Insurers’ Asbestos Exposure

May 03, 2017 — Gregory D. Podolak - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In breaking news this week, LAW360.com posted that the Third Circuit ruled Friday that “a common exclusion found in a Travelers policy bars coverage for claims arising out of asbestos in any form, limiting insurers’ potential exposure to asbestos injury claims by precluding policyholders from arguing that the exclusionary language is ambiguous and doesn’t extend to products containing the carcinogen.” In its detailed analysis of the decision, LAW360 turned to Greg Podolak for his analysis. Gregory D. Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC’s Southeast office, said the ruling is a cautionary tale that should galvanize policyholders and their insurance brokers to take a closer look at policies to delete or curtail broad “arising out of” language in exclusions. Otherwise, insureds could find themselves without any coverage for claims even remotely related to a certain product, he said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com

Maria Latest Threat to Puerto Rico After $1 Billion Irma Hit

September 20, 2017 — Brian K. Sullivan & Ezra Fieser - Bloomberg
Hurricane Maria was on course to hit Puerto Rico just two weeks after Irma caused as much as $1 billion in damages on the bankrupt island. Maria’s top winds were at 155 miles (250 kilometers) an hour, the National Hurricane Center said in a notice around 6 a.m. New York time. At Category 5, the strongest classification on the five-step Saffir-Simpson scale, Maria was about 35 miles southeast of San Juan in Puerto Rico. Reprinted courtesy of Brian K. Sullivan, Bloomberg and Ezra Fieser, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Insurance for Defective Construction Now in Third Edition

November 07, 2012 — CDJ STAFF
Available both in print and online, the International Risk Management Institute, Inc has brought out a third edition of Insurance for Defective Construction. The work is written by Patrick J. Wielinski of Cokinos, Bosien & Young, a Dallas-Fort Worth law firm. Mr. Wielinski practice focuses on insurance coverage. Insurance for Defective Construction is described as “a must read for anyone who buys, sell, or underwrites construction insurance or who becomes involved in construction claims.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Construction Contract Terms Matter. Be Careful When You Draft Them.

February 01, 2022 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
In a prior post, I discussed the case of Fluor Fed. Sols., LLC v. Bae Sys. Ordinance Sys in the context of the interplay between fraud, contract, and statutes of limitation. Some cases just keep on giving. This time the case illustrates the need for careful drafting of those pesky, and highly important, clauses in your construction documents. In the current iteration of this ongoing saga, the Court considered the contractual aspects of the matter. As a reminder, the facts are as follows: In May 2011, the United States Army (“Army) awarded BAE Systems Ordnance Systems, Inc. (“BAE”) a contract to design and construct a natural gas-fired combined heating and power plant for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (“RAAP”). On October 7, 2015, BAE issued a request for a proposal from Fluor Federal Solutions, LLC (“Fluor”) to design and build a temporary boiler facility at a specific location on the RAAP property. On October 13, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to change the location of the boiler facility. On December 10, 2015, the Army modified the prime contract to require BAE to design and construct a permanent boiler facility. On December 30, 2015, Fluor and BAE executed a fixed-price subcontract for Fluor to design and construct the temporary boiler. Throughout 2016, BAE issued several modifications to Fluor’s subcontract to reflect the modifications BAE received from the Army on the prime contract. On March 23, 2016, BAE directed Fluor to build a permanent – rather than temporary – boiler facility. On March 28, 2016, Fluor began construction of the permanent facility and began negotiations with BAE about the cost of the permanent facility. On September 1, 2016, the parties reached an agreement on the cost for the design of the permanent facility, but not on the cost to construct the permanent facility. On November 29, 2016, the parties executed a modification to the subcontract, officially replacing the requirement to construct a temporary facility with a requirement to construct a permanent facility and agreeing to “negotiate and definitize the price to construct by December 15, 2016.” The parties were unable to reach an agreement on the construction price. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule

September 09, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
A common question from clients, when a dispute arises on a construction project, is whether they can recover their attorney’s fees from the other side if they pursue a case and win. More often than not, such fees are not recoverable. As a general rule (commonly known as the “American Rule”), each party to a dispute must bear their own attorney’s fees unless there is some statutory provision or contractual agreement between the parties allowing otherwise. Since most construction disputes involve claims for breach of contract and/or negligence, no realistic statutory provision often allows for attorney’s fees. Many construction contracts do not typically provide a prevailing party the right to collect attorney’s fees from the other side. However, even if the American Rule applies, there may be another path to recovering attorney’s fees if the parties agree to arbitrate their dispute under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules. Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES