Builders Arrested after Building Collapses in India
July 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDeaths from a building collapse in Chennai, India is currently at nineteen, while forty-two people have been rescued, according to the New York Times, and “40 others are feared trapped in the debris,” reported BBC News.
The Chennai police arrested six people, “including the partners of the construction company, the architect and the structural engineer, and charged them with criminal negligence in connection with the building collapse there,” according to P. Subramniam, a Chaennai police officer, as quoted by the New York Times.
"It appears they have not adhered to approved plans,” Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa told BBC News. “The building appears to have serious structural defects."
Building collapses are frequent in India, and most are “blamed on lax safety and substandard materials,” reported BBC News. The New York Times pointed out that “municipal authorities rarely condemn buildings even when they appear to have dangerous defects.” Regardless, “even unsafe buildings attract people who want to live in them because the competition for shelter is fierce among millions of city residents.”
Read the full story, New York Times...
Read the full story, BBC News... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Specific Source of Water Not Relevant in Construction Defect Claim
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Nebraska Court of Appeals has concluded that a lower court came to the correct conclusion in a construction defect case involving water intrusion. The Hiatts built a home in North Platte, Nebraska, in in 2004 which they sold to the Oettingers in May, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the Oettingers started experiencing problems with water intrusion and contacted the Hiatts. The Hiatts responded by replacing the septic lift. Subsequently, the Oettingers landscaped their yard, which they allege was done with the assistance of the Hiatts. The water problems continued and “the parties took substantial remedial measures, including excavating the sidewalk and inspecting the downspouts.” The water problems continued, getting worse and requiring increasingly aggressive responses.
The Oettingers then had a series of inspections, and they hired the last of these inspectors to actually fix the water intrusion problem. At that point, they filed a lawsuit against the Hiatts alleging that the Hiatts “breached their contact by constructing and selling a home that was not built according to reasonable construction standards,” and that they “were negligent in the repair of the home in 2009.”
During the trial, Irving Hiatt testified that they “tarred the outside of the basement and put plastic into the tar and another layer of plastic over the top of that.” He claimed that the problem was with the Oettingers’ landscaping. This was further claimed in testimony of his son, Vernon Hiatt, who said the landscaping lacked drainage.
The Oettingers had three experts testify, all of whom noted that the landscaping could not have been the problem. All three experts testified as to problems with the Hiatts’ construction. The court concluded that the Hiatts had breached an implied warranty, rejecting the claim that the water intrusion was due to the landscaping. The Hiatts appealed the decision of the county court to the district court. Here, the judgment of the lowest court was confirmed, with the district court again finding a breach of the implied warranty of workmanlike performance.
The Hiatts appealed again. They alleged that the district court should not have held a breach of implied warranty existed without proving the source of the water intrusion, and that damages should have been apportioned based on the degree to which the Oettingers’ landscaping and basement alterations were responsible. The appeals court dispensed with the second claim first, noting that “they do not argue this error in their brief nor do they explain how or why the trial court should have apportioned damages.” The court also noted that although the Oettingers made a negligence claim in their suit, the case had been decided on the basis of a breach of implied warranty.
The appeals court upheld the Oettingers’ claim of a breach of implied warranty. In order to do this, the court noted that the Oettingers had to show that an implied warranty existed, that the Haitts breached that warranty, damage was suffered as a result, and that no express warranty limited the implied warranty. That court noted that “the record is sufficient to prove that the Hiatts breached the implied warranty in the method in which they constructed the basement” and that “this breach was the cause of the Oettingers’ damages.”
The court concluded that the Oettingers “provided sufficient evidence that the Hiatts’ faulty construction allowed water, whatever its source, to infiltrate the basement.” The court rejected the Hiatts’ claim that the Oettingers’ repairs voided the warranty, as it was clear that the Hiatts were involved in carrying out these repairs. The court’s final conclusion was that “the evidence in the record supports the trial court’s factual finding that the Hiatts’ flawed construction caused water damage to the Oettingers’ basement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know
February 07, 2018 —
Sarah K. Carpenter – Smith Currie BlogClaims on construction projects are unpleasant, but sometimes unavoidable. Contract with the federal government and you are by statute and by contract required to resolve any and all disputes under the Contract Disputes Act. So what is the Contract Disputes Act? This article sets forth basic information all federal government contractors should know when faced with the necessity of making or defending a claim on a federal project.
What Is the Contract Disputes Act?
The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA or Act) was enacted by Congress to implement a comprehensive statutory scheme for the resolution of government contract claims. The CDA provides a framework for asserting and handling claims by either the government or a contractor. All disputes under the CDA must be submitted to either the U.S Court of Federal Claims or to an administrative board of contract appeals. The vast majority of board cases are handled by either the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The ASBCA is generally responsible for deciding appeals from decisions of contracting officers in the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, NASA, and when specified, the CIA. The CBCA hears disputes from all other executive agencies except the United States Postal Service (USPS), the Postal Rate Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The USPS is served by the Postal Service BCA. In addition, the Government Accountability Office Contract Appeals Board handles contract disputes arising in the legislative branch, and the Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition handles contract disputes and bid protests arising out of Federal Aviation Administration procurements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
New York Team’s Win Limits Scope of Property Owners’ Duties to Workers for Hazards Inherent in Their Work
May 20, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomNew York, N.Y. (May 9, 2024) - New York Partners Jennifer Oxman and Andrew Harms recently secured dismissal of a personal injury plaintiff’s complaint on summary judgment in Queens County, with a state judge accepting their argument that a porter who allegedly tripped and fell on loose wood in a stairwell had no cause of action against the property owner because it was his job to clean the stairs in the first instance. The porter was not an employee of the property owner, but rather an employee of a property management company. Therefore, the workers compensation bar did not apply to the employee’s claims.
In a four-page decision, Justice Chereé A. Buggs of Queens County Supreme Court found that plaintiff’s duties as a porter included cleaning the stairwell and that he saw and cleaned loose pieces of wood on occasions prior to his accident. Justice Buggs held that while the wood debris likely came from an “outside source”, i.e. a contractor performing work at a neighboring building, the source of the debris was not relevant. Rather, what mattered was the fact that the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped was “inherent in or related to” plaintiff’s work responsibilities. By contrast, Justice Buggs held that the contractor who allegedly was the source of the wood was not entitled to summary judgment under the same legal theory because it arguably caused and created the hazard upon which plaintiff tripped.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Leonard Fadeeff v. State Farm General Insurance Company
September 21, 2020 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn Fadeeff v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 50 Cal.App.5th 94 (May 22, 2020), the California Court of Appeal reversed the entry of summary judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) in connection with a smoke and soot damage claim made by Leonard and Patricia Fadeeff (the “Fadeeffs”) for damage sustained by their home due to the 2015 Valley Fire. The parties’ dispute arose out of the Valley Fire, which took place in Lake County, California. The Fadeeffs’ home was located in Hidden Valley Lake.
The Fadeeffs submitted a claim to State Farm under their homeowners policy. Initially, after an adjuster inspected the home and noted that it was “well maintained” with no apparent maintenance issues, State Farm made a series of payments and arranged for ServPro to clean the smoke and soot damage. Subsequently, the Fadeeffs retained an independent adjuster and submitted a supplemental claim in the amount of $75,000. State Farm retained a different unlicensed adjuster to investigate the claim and retained expert, Forensic Analytical Consulting Services (FACS) to inspect the Fadeeffs’ home, and another company referred to as HVACi, to inspect the Fadeeffs’ HVAC system.
The independent adjuster used to investigate the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim failed to follow company guidelines in connection with using experts, which required specific questions to be addressed by the expert. In addition, FACS only took surface samples of the walls in the Fadeeffs’ home. Ultimately, the reports prepared by FACS and HVACi concluded that no additional work was required to remediate the damage sustained by the Fadeeffs’ home. Thereafter, State Farm denied the Fadeeffs’ supplemental claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
Trump Administration Announces New Eviction Moratorium
October 12, 2020 —
Zachary Kessler - Gravel2GavelWith the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic continuing to be felt by the American public, the Trump Administration has taken steps to try to allay a coming eviction crisis by enacting a moratorium on evictions through the end of 2020. With the first eviction moratorium instituted by the CARES Act expiring, lawmakers have been pushing to include eviction protections in the next COVID-19 relief package. However, with Congressional leaders still far from an agreement on the next bill, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has now used its emergency pandemic powers under the Public Health Service Act to temporarily halt residential evictions.
Under the Order, a landlord, owner of a residential property, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction or possessory actions will not be permitted to evict any covered person through December 31, 2020. Under the Order, “covered persons,” are any tenant, lessee, or resident of a residential property who meets the five-part test included in the order and delivers the executed declaration to their landlord. The five requirements in the declaration, which must be certified under the penalty of perjury are:
- The individual has used best efforts to obtain all available government assistance for rent or housing;
- The individual either (i) expects to earn no more than $99,000 in annual income for Calendar Year 2020 (or no more than $198,000 if filing a joint tax return), (ii) was not required to report any income in 2019 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or (iii) received an Economic Impact Payment (stimulus check) pursuant to Section 2201 of the CARES Act;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, PillsburyMr. Kessler may be contacted at
zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
Maui Wildfire Cleanup Advances to Debris Removal Phase
February 05, 2024 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordContractors hauled the first truckload of debris from homes destroyed by last year’s wildfires in Lahaina, Hawaii, on Jan. 16. The move marked the beginning of the second phase of debris removal efforts coordinated by federal, state and local officials.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lost Productivity or Inefficiency Claim Can Be Challenging to Prove
May 02, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOne of the most challenging claims to prove is a lost productivity or inefficiency claim. There is an alluring appeal to these claims because there are oftentimes intriguing facts and high damages. But the allure of the presentation of the claim does not compensate for the actual burden of proof in proving the lost productivity or inefficiency claim, which will require an expert. And they really are challenging to prove.
Don’t take it from me. A recent Federal Claims Court opinion, Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, (Fed.Cl. 2022), that I also discussed in the preceding
article, exemplifies this point.
To determine lost productivity or inefficiency, the claimant’s expert tried three different methodologies.
First, the expert looked at industry standard lost productivity factors such as those promulgated by the Mechanical Contractor’s Association. However, the claimant was not a mechanical contractor and there is a bunch of subjectivity involved when using these factors. The expert decided not to use such industry standard factors correctly noting they provide value when you are looking at a potential impact prospectively, but once you incur actual damages and have real data, it is not an accurate measure.
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
