New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board
July 01, 2019 —
Kristen E. Andreoli - White and William's Taking Care of Business BlogOn April 10, 2019, the New York City Council adopted Intro No. 1253 – the largest effort in a series of bills known as the Climate Mobilization Act. Intro No. 1253 enacts new regulations to reduce the city’s current largest source of carbon emissions – the operation of buildings.
Jared Brey, in his April 25, 2019 article in U.S. News and World Report, “How an Evolving Movement Pushed NYC to Address the Climate Crisis,” states that “[i]n the city, around 70% of carbon emissions are produced by buildings, and around half of all building emissions are produced by just 2% of structures larger than 25,000 square feet that are covered by the bill.”
The level of development, population density and relative economic power of a city such as New York have made this bill particularly interesting to other jurisdictions around the globe which may be considering their own similar legislation. In his article, Brey cites David Miller, a former mayor of Toronto and the North American regional director for C40, a group of cities coordinating strategies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement:
“I think what New York has done is globally significant … It’s really a huge step forward, using the city’s powers and influence to directly address a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions without waiting for the national government or the international community to act.”
Several other jurisdictions have already begun to approach this issue, generally either by passing bills or creating task forces to further investigate how to meet stated emissions reduction goals. In 2018, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed an executive order with a stated goal of net-zero carbon emissions within the state by the year 2045. The California State Assembly subsequently passed a bill creating a task force to investigate the potential to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses by both commercial and residential buildings by 2030, although their plan is not due until January 1, 2021. The city of San Jose has implemented new building standards for all new residential buildings to be net-carbon neutral by 2020, and all new commercial buildings must be so by 2030.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kristen E. Andreoli, White and Williams LLPMs. Andreoli may be contacted at
andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com
Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe case Illinois National Insurance Co. v Nordic PCL, et al. “involves a dispute about whether insurance benefits are available to a general contractor who built structures that allegedly have construction defects. Plaintiffs Illinois National Insurance Company (‘Illinois National’) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (‘National Union’) (collectively, the ‘Insurers’), commenced this action for declaratory relief against Defendant Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction, Ltd. ("Nordic"), on August 23, 2011.”
The court was asked to rule on a long list of motions: “Counterclaim Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their (1) Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim, ECF No. 16 (‘Request for Judicial Notice’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 14 (‘Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 15 (‘Motion to Strike’); Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 33 (‘Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay’); Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction Ltd.’s Substantive Joinder to Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 36 (‘Nordic’s Joinder’); and Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts V and VI of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint, ECF No. 29 (‘Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’).”
In result, the court reached the following decisions: “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice to the extent it covers matters relevant to these motions; GRANTS IN PART the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, but gives Nordic leave to amend the Counterclaim in certain respects; DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike; DENIES Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder; and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
The court provides a bit of background on the case: “This action arises out of alleged construction defects involving two projects on which Nordic acted as the general contractor. Nordic is a defendant in a pending state court action with respect to one of the projects and says it spent more than $400,000 on repairs with respect to the other project. Nordic tendered the defense of the pending state court action to the Insurers and sought reimbursement of the cost of repairs already performed. The Insurers responded by filing this action to determine their rights under the insurance policies issued to Nordic.”
Furthermore, the court presented a brief procedural history: “The Insurers commenced this declaratory action in this court on August 23, 2011. The Complaint asserts two claims, one seeking a declaration that the Insurers have no duty to provide a defense or indemnification regarding the Safeway Action, the other seeking such a declaration regarding the Moanalua Claims. Along with its Answer, Nordic filed a Counterclaim against the Insurers. The Counterclaim asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and bad faith, and seeks declaratory relief against the Insurers.”
The procedural history continues: “Nordic also filed a Third-Party Complaint against Marsh, the broker that had procured the Policies from the Insurers for Nordic. Nordic alleges that it reasonably believed that the Policies would provide completed operations insurance coverage for the types of construction defects alleged in the Safeway Action and Moanalua Claims. The Third-Party Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duties, implied indemnity, and contribution and equitable subrogation.”
In conclusion, “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice. With regard to the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, the court GRANTS the motion as to Count I (breach of contract), Count II (duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count III (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation), the portion of Count IV (bad faith) premised on fraud, and Count IV (declaratory relief). The court DENIES the motion as to Count IV (bad faith) that is not premised on fraud. Except with respect to the "occurrence" issue, which the court disposes of here on the merits, and Count V, which concerns only a form of relief, Nordic is given leave to amend its Counterclaim within three weeks of the date of this order. The court DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Marsh’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder, and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Counts V and VI of the Third-Party Complaint.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Beach Hotel to Get $185 Million Luxury Rebuild
September 17, 2014 —
Nadja Brandt – BloombergRick Caruso, a Los Angeles shopping-mall developer, plans to spend about $185 million to rebuild a Southern California seaside hotel with a troubled past into a luxury getaway.
The 170-room Miramar Beach Resort and Bungalows in Montecito, near Santa Barbara, will have such amenities as a beach club, spa, restaurants and two swimming pools, said Caruso, founder of closely held developer Caruso Affiliated. The site’s former hotel, known as Miramar by the Sea, has already been razed.
Caruso bought the property in 2007 from H. Ty Warner, the billionaire creator of Beanie Babies plush toys and owner of the Four Seasons Hotel New York. The California hotel, on about 15 acres (6 hectares), had been out of service for more than a decade as past revival efforts were stalled by local opposition to development and the property market’s crash. Former owners include hotelier Ian Schrager.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadja Brandt, BloombergMs. Brandt may be contacted at
nbrandt@bloomberg.net
Settlement Reached on Troubled Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas
November 16, 2023 —
Daniel Tyson - Engineering News-RecordA $400-million settlement was reached between the Texas Dept. of Transportation and general contractor Flatiron/Dragados over Corpus Christi’s Harbor Bridge in mid-October. The accord ends all disagreements and damage claims concerning the cable-stayed bridge, a project halted multiple times.
Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Tyson, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Tyson may be contacted at tysond@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Why Do Construction Companies Fail?
February 14, 2023 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsIf a construction company takes on a lot of work, it’s a good thing, right? Not exactly. In fact, overextension is one of the primary reasons why contractors fail. And it’s something that contractors should consider as a priority for their risk management plan.
Of the 43,277 construction businesses that started in March 2011, only 37.6% of companies survived 10 years later.
1
“The construction industry has a high rate of failure,” explains Tim Holicky, senior executive underwriter in The Hartford’s construction central bond team. “And more often than not, it’s because of too much work, rather than too little of it. The key to a contractor’s long-term survival is knowing when to say no.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
South Carolina Legislature Redefining Occurrences to Include Construction Defects in CGL Policies
April 01, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe question of what circumstances must be in place for construction defects to be covered in a general commercial liability (CGL) policies is being raised by the courts and the legislature in South Carolina. The Insurance Journal reports that the American Insurance Association as well as the Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America are speaking out on the issue.
The problem seems to be centered on what defines an “occurrence.” CGL policies were not meant to cover faulty workmanship, according to the filing by the South Carolina Supreme Court. In January of this year, the South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the ruling in Crossmann Communities v Harleysville Mutual declaring that “Respondents cannot show the damage here was the result of an occurrence. Rather, the damage was a direct result and the natural and expected consequence of faulty workmanship; faulty workmanship did not cause an occurrence resulting in damage.” They focused their attention on the word “accident,” stating that there is a fortuity element that is not diminished.
The South Carolina legislature reacted by producing a bill that would add new language directly negating the ruling by the Supreme Court. The South Carolina bill S-431 would change the definition of an occurrence in regards to construction defects as follows: “For a liability insurance policy issued to a construction professional, an ‘occurrence’ means, at a minimum: (1) an accident; or (2) continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful condition or substance. No additional requirement of a fortuitous event is needed to constitute an ‘occurrence.’”
S-431 is currently residing in the House Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Named to Hudson Valley Magazine’s 2022 Top Lawyers List
January 24, 2022 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that nine Partners from the Hawthorne, NY office have been named to the 2022 Hudson Valley Magazine Top Lawyers List.
2022 Hudson Valley Magazine’s Top Lawyers:
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis
January 08, 2024 —
Janeen M. Thomas - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim.
In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Thomas may be contacted at
JThomas@sdvlaw.com
