COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

EPA Announces that January 2017 Revised RMP Rules are Now Effective

February 06, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 3, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Federal Register notice advising the regulated community that EPA’s controversial Clean Air Act (CAA) stationary source Risk Management Program (RMP) rules are effective as of December 3, 2018 – the Final Rule: Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs Under the Clean Air Act (83 FR 62268). The initial package of the RMP rules was promulgated in 1996, but a series of chemical explosions prompted the development of new rules, whose process safety, third party auditing, emergency response, preparedness and information sharing provisions were designed to confront these challenges. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Ten-Year Statute Of Repose To Sue For Latent Construction Defects

November 12, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are dealing with latent construction defects, it is imperative that you consult with counsel to understand your rights. This not only includes claims for property damage stemming from latent construction defects, but also personal injury stemming from such defects. There is a ten-year statute of repose to sue for latent construction defects. See Fla.Stat. s. 95.11(3)(c). After the expiration of this statute of repose you are out of luck, meaning you can no longer sue. Now, I probably will not be the first to tell you that the statute of repose is not written so clear that you know the precise date it ends (or the last date you can sue for a latent defect). For this reason, you really want to operate conservatively, meaning it is always better to sue early if you think you could be running on the end of the statute of repose period. It is always advisable to avoid any legitimate argument that you filed your construction defect lawsuit too late. In Harrell v. The Ryland Group, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2054b (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), a subsequent owner of a house sued the original homebuilder in negligence for a construction defect causing a personal injury. The subsequent owner claimed the homebuilder defectively installed an attic ladder (that provided access to the attic for the original construction) which collapsed as he was using it. The homebuilder filed a motion for summary judgment that the statute of repose expired so the owner’s claim was time-barred. The First District agreed. 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

---

California Department of Corrections Gets Hit With the Prison Bid Protest Blues

October 16, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
“I’m breakin’ rocks in the hot sun . . . I fought the law and the law won . . . I needed money ’cause I had none . . . I fought the law and the law won” – The Clash, I Fought the Law (1978) In the recent case, West Coast Air Conditioning Company, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. D071106 (February 22, 2018), those lyrics could be aptly revised to, “the law fought the courts and the courts won.” West Coast Air Conditioning Company, Inc. v. California Department of Corrections In February 2015, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) published an invitation for bids for a new central air conditioning plant for the Ironwood State Prison in Blythe, California. West Coast Air Conditioning Company, Inc., Hensel Phelps Construction Co., and four other companies submitted bids. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

New World to Demolish Luxury Hong Kong Towers in Major Setback

August 04, 2021 — Shawna Kwan - Bloomberg
New World Development Co. will demolish two towers at Hong Kong’s most popular housing development in decades and compensate buyers after finding unexpected defects, in a major setback for the real estate company. The developer will pull down and rebuild the existing floors of Towers 1 and 8 at its Pavilia Farm III project near Tai Wai station after it found the concrete strength in some areas did not meet design requirements, the Hong Kong-based company said in a statement. Shares of New World fell as much as 4.8% Thursday in Hong Kong, the most in more than seven months, before recovering to close 3.9% lower. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shawna Kwan, Bloomberg

---

Proving Impacts to Critical Path to Defeat Liquidated Damages Assessment

December 16, 2019 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When a contractor is staring down the barrel of an owner’s assessment of liquidated damages, the burden will fall on the contractor to establish that the delay was attributable to the owner and the owner’s agents. The contractor will want to do this not only to defeat the assessment of liquidated damages, but because it will want to establish that the delay caused it to incur extended field overhead (general conditions) for which the owner is responsible. A contractor supports its burden by proving the impacts to its critical path. “In general, proving an allegation of government-caused delays without a means of showing the critical path is a steep prospect.” James Talcott Construction v. U.S., 2019 WL 1040383, *8 (Fed. Cl. 2019) (unreported opinion) (finding that because contractor did NOT present a critical path analysis it could not support its claim for delay caused by the government). Avoiding the assessment of liquidated damages means the contractor needs to support that it encountered excusable delay and it is/was entitled to an extension of time to complete the project. 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

---

NJ Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision that Exxon Has No Duty to Indemnify Insurers for Environmental Liability Under Prior Settlement Agreement

November 29, 2021 — Patricia B. Santelle & Laura Rossi - White and Williams
On November 1, 2021, in a single-sentence Order, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied a request for review of a decision that ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon) did not have to indemnify certain of its insurers over environmental liabilities as required by a previous settlement agreement. The case, entitled Home Insurance Company v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Incorporated, et al., has a unique and convoluted procedural history but, in short, the denial of review leaves standing a holding by the intermediate appellate court that the insurers’ “untimely notice actually prejudiced Exxon, violated the no-prejudice rule, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” The court declined to consider the question framed by the insurers: whether the importance of enforcing settlement agreements outweighs New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine. The matter dated back almost thirty years, when the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection notified the Appearing London Market Insurers (ALMI) of the potential liability of Cornell-Dublier Electronics (CDE), a former indirect subsidiary of Exxon, for pollution at a site in New Jersey. Coverage litigation followed in New Jersey, which ALMI defended under policies issued to CDE. Exxon was not named in the CDE suit nor were the policies which ALMI issued to Exxon at issue in that case; Exxon instead had its own pollution coverage case pending in New York. In June 2000, Exxon and its insurers, including ALMI, entered into a settlement agreement which (a) required Exxon to indemnify the insurers for any environmental liability claims involving its subsidiaries, and (b) provided for application of New York substantive law and litigation in New York City court for any dispute between the parties under it. Reprinted courtesy of Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and Laura Rossi, White and Williams Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Incorporation, Indemnity and Statutes of Limitations, Oh My!

January 19, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
We all know that the contract is king in Virginia. We also know that Virginia will allow for a so called “incorporation” clause that will allow for “flow down” of certain prime contract provisions in a way that will make those provisions applicable to subcontractors. We also know that a claim for breach of contract or other contractual claim does not last forever due to certain statutes of limitation found in the Code of Virginia. What happens when all of these elements crash together in one place leading to litigation? Well, a relatively recent case from the Virginia Supreme Court gives at least a partial answer. In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc, the Virginia Supreme Court considered a claim that arose from construction at Virginia Tech by Hensel Phelps. The construction concluded in 1998 (remember that date). The Prime Contract included language concerning a one year “Guarantee of Work” as well as fairly typical Warranty of Workmanship” language. However the Prime Contract also stated that the one year guaranty term did nothing to affect any other limitations period for any other action pursuant to the Prime Contract (this is important as well because Virginia Tech was not subject to any statute of limitations due to its status as an agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia). Final payment was made to Hensel Phelps and subsequently to the subcontractors in 1999. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Timely Written Notice to Insurer and Cooperating with Insurer

June 21, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
I harp on notifying a liability insurer in writing once a claim is asserted against you. As soon as possible. I harp on this because as an insured you want to remove any doubt or argument that the insurer was prejudiced due to a lack of timely notice. In a recent opinion, Zurich American Insurance Co. v. European Tile and Floors, Inc., 2017 WL 2427172 (M.D.Fla. 2017), the insurer moved for summary judgment in a coverage action arguing that its insured failed to provide it timely written notice. Specifically, the insurer argued that the insured violated the clause in the liability policy that states: 2. Duties in the Event of Occurrence, Offense, Claim or Suit

b. If a claim is made or “suit” is brought against any insured, you must:
1. Immediately record the specifics of the claim or “suit” and the date received; and
2. Notify us as soon as practicable.

You must see to it that we receive written notice of the claim or “suit” as soon as practicable.

c. You and any other insured must:
1. Immediately send us copies of any demands, notices, summonses or legal papers received in connection with the claim or “suit”;
2. Authorize us to obtain records and other information;
3. Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the claim or “suit”; and
4. Assist us, upon our request, in the enforcement of any right against any person or organization which may be liable to the insured because of injury or damage to which this insurance may also apply.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---