Five Types of Structural Systems in High Rise Buildings
November 02, 2020 —
Chris Jackson - Construction ExecutiveToday, many cities in different countries have high-rise buildings or more popularly known as skyscrapers. The concept of skyscraper was first used to define the more than 137-foot-high buildings constructed in Chicago in 1885. It is generally defined as one that is taller than the maximum height that requires mechanical vertical transportation for people. Usually, these buildings only have limited uses and are primarily focused on functioning as residential apartments, hotels and office buildings, though they occasionally include retail and educational facilities. Because high-rise buildings are among the largest buildings built, it is necessary that their commercial and office functions require a high degree of flexibility.
That’s why it is important for high-rise buildings to have structural systems or structural frames—the assembly of interrelated or interdependent elements that forms a complex structure. These structural systems are built and designed for resisting different loads. To further understand how structural systems work, take the human body as a comparison. If human bones are weak and not properly aligned, the human body as a whole will not be able to perform or work well. Structural systems, in the same way, would not be able to take loads if not built properly. After all, no one wants a toppling skyscraper. To give the readers more information about structural systems in high-rise buildings, this article will discuss some of them.
Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Jackson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Requirement to Post Collateral Under General Agreement of Indemnity Is Real
May 16, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn prior postings, I have discussed the all-powerful General Agreement of Indemnity (click
here and
here). This is the document a bond-principal executes to obtain bonds (e.g., performance and payment bonds). Not only does the bond-principal execute this General Agreement of Indemnity, but typically, so do other indemnitors such as the company’s principals and their spouses, other related companies, etc. The objective is that the surety has financial comfort that if a claim is made against the bond, there are avenues where it will get reimbursed and indemnified for any cost it incurs, or payment it makes, relative to that claim against the bond. When a surety issues bonds, the objective is that all losses it incurs gets reimbursed because the bonds are NOT insurance policies.
One of the powerful tools the surety can exercise in the General Agreement of Indemnity is to demand the bond-principal and other indemnitors to post collateral in an amount the surety deems sufficient to cover any losses it may incur. This is a right in any General Agreement of Indemnity I have seen and is a right the surety can rightfully exercise.
A recent example is shown from the opinion in Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Quinco Electrical, Inc., 2022 WL 1230110 (M.D.Fla. 2022), which pertains to the surety’s motion for preliminary injunction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Assembly Bill 1701 Contemplates Broader Duty to Subcontractor’s Employees by General Contractor
August 17, 2017 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerAB 1701 recently passed the Assembly and is pending in the Senate’s Labor and
Industrial Relations and Judiciary Committees. The Bill, if signed by the Governor, would
create a new section in the California Labor Code (Section 218.7) making “direct contractors” –
defined as a contractor “making or taking a contract in the state for the erection, construction,
alteration, or repair of a building, structure, or other private work” – liable for wages a
subcontractor or sub-subcontractor fails to pay to its employee for work included in the general
contractor’s contract with the project owner.
Under the new law, direct contractors would be liable for up to one year from the date of
completion of the work for unpaid wages, fringe benefits, health and welfare benefits, and
pension fund contributions, including interest and state tax payments owed to a subcontractor’s
employee. The employee, however, would not be able to recover penalties or liquidated
damages from the general contractor.
AB 1701 would give the employee, Labor Commissioner, or a joint labor-management
cooperation committee the right to enforce the direct contractor’s liability through a civil action.
It would also extend to third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or
contributions on the employee’s behalf. Pursuant to the proposed language of the new statute, a
prevailing plaintiff in such an action would be entitled to their reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs, including expert witness fees.
Although Labor Code § 218.7 would impose certain obligations on the subcontractor to
provide the direct contractor with relevant project and payroll records, the subcontractor’s failure
to comply with those obligations does not relieve the direct contractor from liability.
Impact
AB 1701’s apparent purpose is to protect employees, an undeniably important legislative
goal. However, if passed, the bill could greatly increase general contractors’ exposure when
subcontracting work and their cost of doing business. Especially because the new law would not
impact existing laws requiring a direct contractor to timely pay a subcontractor.
As a result, many coalitions against AB 1701 stress the halting effect this could have on
the construction industry as a whole, particularly private construction, which is not as heavily
regulated as public works.
CGDRB will continue to monitor this Bill and provide updates as developments occur.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea L. Zwart, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.K. Construction Unexpectedly Strengthens for a Second Month
March 05, 2015 —
Bloomberg News(Bloomberg) -- U.K. construction growth unexpectedly accelerated for a second month in February, led by a strengthening in homebuilding.
Markit Economics said its Purchasing Managers’ Index rose to 60.1, the highest in four months, from 59.1 in January. It fell to a 17-month low of 57.6 in December. Economists forecast the gauge would slip to 59 in February, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg NewsScott Hamilton may be contacted at
shamilton8@bloomberg.net
Increases in U.S. Office Rents Led by San Jose and Dallas
October 01, 2014 —
Hui-yong Yu – BloombergSan Jose, California, and Dallas led the U.S. in office-rent increases in the third quarter as cities benefiting from growth in the technology and energy industries outperformed the gradual national recovery.
Rents after any landlord discounts, known as effective rents, climbed 6.7 percent from a year earlier in San Jose, compared with the U.S. average increase of 2.6 percent, property researcher Reis Inc. (REIS) said. Dallas rents rose 5.2 percent, followed by San Francisco’s 5.1 percent gain, Houston’s 4.4 percent increase and New York’s 3.9 percent advance.
The national sluggishness in the office market’s growth is being bucked by parts of Northern California and Texas, where large bases of technology or energy workers drive demand for space, Reis said. Throughout the U.S., increases in office occupancies show that the market “is in the midst of a recovery,” according to the New York-based company.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hui-yong Yu, BloombergHui-yong Yu may be contacted at
hyu@bloomberg.net
Homeowners Must Comply with Arbitration over Construction Defects
January 06, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by the Superior Court of Kern County that homeowners must comply with arbitration procedures in their construction defect claim. The California Court of Appeals ruled on December 14 in the case of Baeza v. Superior Court of Kern County, denying the plaintiff’s petition that the trial court vacate its order.
The plaintiffs in the case are homeowners in various developments built by Castle & Cook. The homes were sold with a contract that provided for “nonadversarial prelitigation procedures, including mediation, and judicial reference.” The homeowners made defect claims and argued that Castle & Cooke failed to comply with statutory disclosure requirements and that some of the contracts violate related statutes.
The appeals court found that there was no ground for appeal of the lower court’s order to continue with prelitigation procedures. The court noted that the plaintiffs could not seek a review of the mediation until a judgment was issued, but that then the issue would be moot. The court felt that there were issues presented that needed clarification, and so they reviewed this case. This was cleared for publication.
The court considered the intent of the legislature in passing the Right to Repair Act, noting that “under the statutory scheme, the builder has the option of contracting for an alternative nonadversarial prelitigation procedure,” as established in Chapter 4. The court noted that Chapter 4 “contains no specifics regarding what provisions the alternative nonadversarial contractual provisions may or must include.”
The plaintiffs contended that the builder was in violation of the standards set out in Section 912, however the court responded that these sections set out one set of procedures, but they concluded that “if the Legislature had intended the section 912 disclosure provisions…it could have made the requirements applicable to all builders by locating them in a section outside Chapter 4.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Building on New Risks: Construction in the Age of Greening
February 20, 2023 —
Blanca Berruguete - Construction ExecutiveFire and explosions remain the No. 1 cause of construction and engineering insurance claims, accounting for 27% of the value of insurance claims over the last five years, according to industry claims data analysis conducted by global commercial insurer AGCS.
Natural catastrophes, such as hurricanes or floods, account for almost a fifth of claims by value (19%), followed by defective products (10%). Faulty workmanship or maintenance (8%) and machinery breakdown (7%) round out the top five causes of construction and engineering losses, according to the value of claims.
The Risks and Benefits of Greening
The analysis was conducted on 22,705 insurance claims made worldwide between January 2017 and December 2021. The claims were worth approximately $13.9 billion in value and include the share of other insurers as well as AGCS. But if there is an impression that the risks remain in stasis, that is not the case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Blanca Berruguete, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
#10 CDJ Topic: Carithers v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFCraig Martin of
Lamson Dugan and Murray, LLP on his
Construction Contractor Advisor blog used the Carithers case to demonstrate how “[w]hen you are involved in construction litigation, you have battles on several fronts, including those against subcontractors, owners, insurers and the court. Shoring up your defenses on each of these fronts is imperative, or you may lose the battle or, worse yet, the war.” Martin discusses the various “battle fronts” including the “Claim Against Contractor,” “Where Are You Litigating,” “Claim Against Insurance Company,” and “Damages.”
Read the full story...
In the article, “Duty to Defend Construction Defect Case Affirmed, Duty to Indemnify Reversed In Part,” attorney
Tred R. Eyerly also covered the Carithers case. Eyerly explained, “Determining whether there was coverage for the damages awarded required the court to decide which trigger applied. Examining the policy language, the court determined that property damage occurred when the damage happened, not when the damage was discovered or discoverable. Therefore, the district court did not err in applying the injury in fact trigger.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
