Affordable Harlem Housing Allegedly Riddled with Construction Defects
July 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA family in Harlem, New York has demanded that Abyssinian Development Corporation pay $250,000 to fix the construction defects in their newly-purchased townhouse, according to The Daily News.
Allegedly, “[i]nterior walls, bamboo-tiled floors and windowsills began to crack shortly after they moved in, and an improperly installed gas boiler system” stopped working, while “rain has caused cellar walls to deteriorate.”
The townhouse is part of the “Harlem Village Homes II initiative that offers affordable houses in Harlem to those making below $130,000.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.S. Supreme Court Halts Enforcement of the OSHA Vaccine or Test Mandate
January 17, 2022 —
Stephen E. Irving, Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & AbramsonThe United States Supreme Court today stayed enforcement of the OSHA emergency temporary standard (ETS) requiring employers with 100 or more employees to require employees either be “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing. The ruling immediately stops enforcement of the rule which had gone into effect on January 10, 2022.
Today’s order raises significant doubt as to whether the ETS requirement will ever take effect in its current form. A 6 to 3 majority of the Supreme Court justices issued the profound statement that the parties opposed to the rule “are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate.” The Court went on to state that the OSH Act does not authorize the agency to “set . . . broad public health measures,” such as the found in the current emergency standard.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen E. Irving, Peckar & Abramson,
Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson,
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson and
Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Irving may be contacted at sirving@pecklaw.com
Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Motion for Remand
December 21, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court refused to remand the insureds' case after the insurer removed from state court. Maui Land & Pineapple Co. v. Liberty Ins. Underwriters, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15681 (D. Haw. Nov. 10, 2016).
The underlying case was filed in state court on Maui. The underlying plaintiffs were condominium owners who brought claims against the insured, Maui Land and Pineapple Co., Inc. (MLP), and other defendants allegedly involved in the development of the project. Ryan Churchill, one of the named defendants, served as president of MLP and was on the board of the project's Association of Apartment Owners (AOAO). The underlying plaintiffs asserted claims for: breach of fiduciary duty; seeking access to books and records of the AOAO; and for injunctive/declaratory relief against MLP, Mr. Churchill, and all other defendants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
“Incidental” Versus “Direct” Third Party Beneficiaries Under Insurance Policies in Which a Party is Not an Additional Insured
April 18, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAs they say, when it rains, it pours. Indemnity and insurance are the “Big Two” when it comes to risk avoidance on construction projects. The next case,
LaBarbera v. Security National Security Company, 86 Cal.App.5th 1329 (2022), involves both. It’s an interesting case, which I think could have gone either way, involving claims by a higher-tiered party that they were a third party beneficiary under an insurance policy in which they were not named as an additional insured.
The LaBarbera Case
The Indemnity Provision and Insurance Policy
In June 1016, Chris LaBarbera hired Richard Knight doing business as Knight Construction to remodel his house in Carmichael, California. The construction contract included an indemnity provision which provided that Knight would defend and indemnify LaBarbera from all claims arising out the remodeling work except for claims arising from LaBarbera’s sole negligence and willful misconduct.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Orange County Team Obtains Unanimous Defense Verdict in Case Involving Failed Real Estate Transaction
March 25, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomOrange County, Calif. (March 4, 2024) - Orange County Partners Esther P. Holm and Alexandra Anast obtained a unanimous defense verdict in a real estate matter involving a failed real estate transaction. The property at issue, which was located in the West Hollywood Hills and had beautiful views, was undergoing extensive remodeling. There were several bids for its purchase. Ultimately, the plaintiff, a real estate investor, was awarded the purchase.
The plaintiff and the seller entered into a real estate purchase agreement, but the plaintiff failed to release the physical contingencies within the 17-day period prescribed by the contract. Instead, the plaintiff demanded a reduction in price, which the seller rejected. The plaintiff then filed a lis pendens on the property, clouding the title and making it impossible for the sellers to sell the property to anyone else. The buyer and seller subsequently engaged counsel. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit against the seller as well as the real estate company and its agents. Prior to trial, the plaintiff and the seller reached a settlement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Turner Construction Selected for Anaheim Convention Center Expansion Project
May 21, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Anaheim, California city council selected Turner Construction Company “to manage a $180 million expansion of the Anaheim Convention Center, a venue that hosted 238 tradeshows, conventions, meetings and consumer events in 2013,” according to Construction Digital.
“Turner’s Southern California office calls Anaheim home, and we are pleased to be working on such a great project in our own backyard,” Kevin Dow, Vice President and General Manager of Turner’s Southern California office told Construction Digital.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nondelegable Duty of Care Owed to Third Persons
May 29, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAlthough a personal injury case, the recent opinion in Garcia v. Southern Cleaning Service, Inc., 48 Fla.L.Weekly D977a (Fla. 1stDCA 2023) raises an interesting issue regarding nondelegable duties owed to third persons applicable in negligence actions. Remember, in order for there to be a negligence claim, the defendant MUST owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. No duty, no negligence claim.
What if a defendant’s duty was delegated to, say, an independent contractor?
[A] party that hires an independent contractor may be liable for the contractor’s negligence where a nondelegable duty is involved. Such a duty may be imposed by statute, contract, or the common law. In determining whether a duty is nondelegable, the question is whether the responsibility at issue is so important to the community that an employer should not be allowed to transfer it to a third party.
Garcia, supra, (internal citations omitted).
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
