Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (4/10/24) – Hotels Integrate AI, Baby-Boomers Stay Put, and Insurance Affects Housing Market
May 06, 2024 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn our latest roundup, DOT’s major grant programs, proptech’s solution to climate change risks, mortgage-locked sellers put their homes on the market, and more!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
The Partial Building Collapse of the 12-Story Florida Condo
June 28, 2021 —
Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ StaffOn Thursday, the Champlain Towers South Condo building in Surfside, Florida suffered a partial collapse. As of Monday morning, the official death toll stood at 10 with 151 persons unaccounted for, according to the Miami Herald.
NPR uncovered minutes from a November 15th, 2018 Chaplain Tower South Condominium Association board meeting where the inspector made assurances that “the building was ‘in very good shape.’” However, “an
engineering report from five weeks earlier” alleged “that failed waterproofing in a concrete structural slab needed to be replaced ‘in the near future.’” Daniella Levine Cava, the Miami-Dade County mayor, told reporters that “officials ‘knew nothing’ about the report.”
The New York Times on Sunday reported that experts looking at video footage of the incident believe that the cause is centered on a location “in the lowest part of the condominium complex — possibly in or below the underground parking garage — where an initial failure could have set off a structural avalanche.” The cause of the incident remains unclear, however. This “progressive collapse” could have been caused by a number of different factors “including design flaws or the less robust construction allowed under the building codes of four decades ago.”
A witness, according to the New York Times, saw a hole appear near the pool: “Michael Stratton said his wife, Cassie Stratton, who is missing, was on the phone with him and was looking out through the window of her fourth-floor unit when, she told him, the hole appeared. After that, the call cut off.”
Possible reasons for the “initial failure at the bottom of the building could include a problem with the deep, reinforced concrete pilings on which the building sits — perhaps set off by an unknown void or a sinkhole below — which then compromised the lower columns. Or the steel reinforcing the columns in the parking garage or first few floors could have been so corroded that they somehow gave way on their own. Or the building itself could have been poorly designed, built with substandard concrete or steel — or simply with insufficient steel at critical points.”
"It will take many months to complete the analysis necessary to understand the cause or causes of the collapse,” Eric Ruzicka, a partner at the international law firm Dorsey & Whitney and a commercial litigator who specializes in the area of construction and real estate litigation, stated in a media release. “Often, information that comes out early can be very misleading or misunderstood unless the full context of the information is known.”
Ruzicka explained that Florida’s statues of limitations and repose may be relevant. “These statutes will likely eliminate the liability of those involved in the original development, design and construction of the building. Rather, victims and their families' recovery will be limited to those involved in the building's maintenance and those assessing the condition of the building over the past four years.”
Miami and Sunny Isles Beach have announced they will audit older structures in their communities “ahead of the mandatory 40-year recertification,” the Miami Herald reported.
Read the full story (Miami Herald)...
Read the full story (NPR)...
Read the full story (NY Times)...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony Luckie Speaks With Columbia University On Receiving Graduate Degree in Construction Administration Alongside His Father
October 02, 2023 —
Lewis BrisboisNew York, N.Y. (September 7, 2023) – New York Partner Anthony P. Luckie recently spoke with the Columbia University School of Professional Studies' Alumni publication regarding earning a Master of Science in Construction Administration alongside his father, as well as how the degree will benefit his law practice and clients.
As the article explains, Mr. Luckie and his father completed Columbia’s Construction Administration Program last year – only one week before the birth of Mr. Luckie’s own son. Mr. Luckie described that being accepted into the program at Columbia – a school from which “some of the most important figures in American history” have graduated – “was a really big thrill . . . .” He further explained that although he felt a sense of pride in earning the degree, the fact that he and his father shared the experience held even greater meaning for him. He noted, “[W]hile it’s an incredible achievement for both of us to graduate from an Ivy League school, for me, that day was a culmination of a father raising his son. Standing there with him onstage . . . I made sure I took time to feel grateful.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Sometimes It’s Okay to Destroy Evidence
August 17, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Miller v. Lankow that Mr. Miller was within his rights to remediate his home, even though doing so destroyed the evidence of water intrusion.
Linda Lankow built a home in 1992. In 2001 or 2002, Lankow discovered a stucco problem at the garage which she attributed to moisture intrusion. She asked the original contractor to fix the wall. In 2003, Lankow attempted to sell her home, but the home inspection revealed fungal growth in the basement. Lankow made further repairs, including alterations to the landscaping.
In 2004, Lankow put her house on the market once again and entered into an agreement with David Miller. Miller declined to have an independent inspection, as the home had been repaired by professional contractors.
In 2005, Miller put the house on the market. A prospective buyer requested a moisture inspection. The inspection firm, Private Eye, Inc. found “significant moisture intrusion problems.”
Miller hired an attorney who sent letters to the contractors and to Lankow and her husband. Lankow’s husband, Jim Betz, an attorney, represented his wife and sent a letter to Miller’s attorney that Miller had declined an opportunity to inspect the home.
In 2007, Miller’s new attorney sent letters to all parties that Miller had decided to begin remediation work on the house. All stucco was removed. Miller then filed a lawsuit against the prior owners, the builders, and the realtors.
Two of the contractors and the prior owners moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Miller had spoliated evidence by removing the stucco. They requested that Miller’s expert reports be excluded. The district court found for the defendants and imposed sanctions on Miller.
The Minnesota Supreme court found that “a custodial party’s duty to preserve evidence is not boundless,” stating that “it may be particularly import to allow remediation in cases such as the one before us.” Their reasoning was that “remediation of the moisture intrusion problem in the home may be necessary, even essential, to address immediate health concerns.”
Given that Miller needed to remediate the problem in order to continue living there, and that he had given the other parties a “full and fair opportunity to inspect,” the court found that he was within his rights. The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and remanded it to them for review.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers
January 16, 2024 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationJanuary 10th marked the first day of the 2024 Colorado legislative session. After the pomp and circumstance of opening day, a total of eighty-six bills were introduced. Among them, two impact the construction and insurance industries. First,
House Bill 24-1008 would make general contractors and their subcontractors, which are direct employers of an employee, jointly and severally liable for all debts owed based on wage claims or investigations. Essentially, if HB 24-1008 were to become law, general contractors would become the guarantors of wage payments to their subcontractors’ employees. The second bill,
House Bill 24-1083, would require the Colorado Division of Insurance to conduct a study of construction liability insurance for construction professionals in Colorado and would require that, 14 days prior to closing the sale of a new residence, the seller provide the purchaser and the county clerk and recorder’s office certain information regarding the insurance coverage for the home. In a year when the legislature should be focusing on construction defect reform and affordable housing for Coloradoans, these first two bills will likely drive up the cost of new construction.
House Bill 20-1008, sponsored by Representatives Duran and Froelich, Brown, deGruy Kennedy, Epps, Garcia, Hamrick, Hernandez, Joseph, Lieder, Lindstedt, Mabrey, Mauro, Ricks, Rutinel, Story, Velasco, and Vigil and Senators Danielson and Jaquez Lewis, Exum, Gonzales, Kolker, Marchman, and Sullivan, has been assigned to the House Committee on Business Affairs & Labor but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. The bill summary states:
For wage claims brought by individuals working in the construction industry, the bill:
- Requires that a subcontractor that receives a written demand for payment forward a copy of the written demand for payment to the general contractor within 3 business days after receipt;
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
A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines
August 03, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelSeveral interesting decisions have recently been made by federal and state courts.
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – ARCO Shifts from State to Federal and No Vigor for VIM
On June 18, 2020, the court decided the case of Baker, et al. v. ARCO, holding that the revised federal removal statutes authorize the removal to federal court of a state-filed complaint against several defendants by the former residents of an Indiana housing complex who contended that the defendants were responsible for the industrial pollution attributed to the operations of a now-closed industrial plant. The housing complex was constructed at the site of the former U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery. During the Second World War, the plant produced products for the use of the government war effort, thus triggering the applicability of the federal removal statutes.
On June 25, 2020, the court decided the case of Greene, et al. v. Westfield Insurance Company. As the court notes, this is a matter that “began as a case about environmental pollution and evolved into a joint garnishment action.” An Indiana wood recycling facility, VIM Recycling, was the subject of many complaints by nearby residents that its operations and waste disposal activities exposed then to dust and odors in violation of federal law and triggered state tort law claims. VIM was sued in state court, but neglected to notify its insurer, as required by its insurance policy with Westfield Insurance. One thing led to another, and a default judgment in the amount of $ 50 million was entered against VIM. Since VIM at that point had no assets, the plaintiffs and later VIM sought recovery from Westfield. When this dispute landed in federal court, the court, after reviewing the policy, concluded that there was a provision excluding coverage when the insured knew it had these liabilities when it purchased the insurance. As a result, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and this decision has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
California Court of Appeal Provides Clarity On What Triggers Supplemental Analysis Under California Environmental Quality Act
July 20, 2020 —
Kelly Alhadeff-Black & Alexander N. Knaub - Lewis BrisboisIn a recent ruling, California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal clarified the need for supplemental environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Willow Glen Trestle Conservancy v. City of San Jose (6th Dist., May 18, 2020). Specifically, the court held that seeking additional discretionary approvals, such as regulatory permits, does not constitute a “new discretionary approval for the project” under the California Public Resources Code Section 21166 and the California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15162 (the CEQA Guidelines).
In 2014, the City of San Jose approved a project that included the demolition and replacement of a wooden railroad bridge known as the Willow Glen Trestle (the Project). CEQA review for the Project was conducted via mitigated negative declaration (MND). The Project was quickly challenged by a local group called Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle, alleging that the City should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report based on the allegation that the Willow Glen Trestle constituted an historic resource for CEQA purposes. Ultimately, the City prevailed in that litigation (See Friends of the Willow Glen Trestle v. City of San Jose, et al. (6th Dist., 2016), which remanded the case to the trial court for further review consistent with the Court of Appeal’s verdict) with the court eventually finding that the City correctly analyzed and answered the question of historic resource classification and significance in reference to the Willow Glen Trestle.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kelly Alhadeff-Black, Lewis Brisbois and
Alexander N. Knaub, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Alhadeff-Black may be contacted at Kelly.Black@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Knaub may be contacted at Alexander.Knaub@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Broker for Homeowners Policy Has No Duty to Advise Insureds on Excess Flood Coverage
November 02, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA broker who assisted the insureds in procuring a homeowners policy had no duty to advise the insureds to secure additional flood coverage. Ring v. Meeker Sharkey Assocs., LLC, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 3458 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. Sept.26, 2017).
The insureds owned two beachfront properties that were located in a designated flood zone. They secured homeowners and flood insurance through Meeker's predecessor. Subsequently, Meeker became the insureds' homeowners insurance broker while Willis, N.A. was their flood insurance broker.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
