Manhattan Site for Supertall Condo Finds New Owner at Auction
December 15, 2016 —
Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergA development site slated for an almost 1,000-foot condo tower on Manhattan’s far east side found a new owner through a bankruptcy auction Tuesday, removing a hurdle for construction after about a year of delays.
Gamma Real Estate, the lender to the project, won the auction with a credit bid of $86 million and is poised to take control of the site, pending approval from the bankruptcy court, said David Schechtman, a broker with Meridian Investment Sales, which handled the auction with another brokerage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, BloombergMr. Carmiel can be followed on Twitter @OshratCarmiel
Safety Versus a False Sense of Security: Challenges to the Use of Construction Cranes
March 18, 2019 —
Christopher Machut - Construction ExecutiveThe history of safety is, in part, the history of resistance to safety. From transportation and travel to sports and entertainment, the safeguards taken for granted were once too allegedly controversial or costly for companies to grant to consumers. Imagine driving a car without a seatbelt or being a passenger in a minivan without side-impact airbags or anti-lock brakes, or playing football without a helmet or riding a roller coaster without a shoulder harness. Imagine, too, pulling out of parking space without a rear-view camera, unable to see passing cars or pedestrians.
Cameras are now as common among compact cars as on the most uncommonly expensive sports cars and sedans.
And yet, the technology that earns drivers a discount on car insurance is the same or mostly similar technology that insurers refuse to cover elsewhere. The technologies that makes parallel parking easier or easing a car into traffic a cinch is considered an extravagance on construction equipment, despite the dangers crane operators face but cannot see, despite what workers on the ground can see but not forecast, despite what cameras can record and capture.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Machut, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know
September 09, 2019 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPremises liability is a relatively simple concept: landowners, lessors, and occupiers of land must keep their property safe and avoid causing harm to others. Premises liability lawsuits can arise from an array of circumstances including a slip and fall by an individual, a construction site accident, or an accident at occurs on a residential or commercial property. Under California law, everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property. California Civil Code 1714 (a). When an individual is injured on a property, the person harmed generally brings a lawsuit based upon a theory of negligence. Under this theory, an injured Plaintiff must prove the following:
- The defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property;
- The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
- The plaintiff was harmed; and
- The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
California Civil Jury Instructions 1000.
When evaluating a negligence claim under the theory of premises liability, there are several key elements for both a Plaintiff and a Defendant to consider. First, the landowner, occupier, or lessor of a premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use or maintenance of the premises to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). Essentially, a landowner or occupier is required to take steps to keep individuals on the property free from harm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Texas Law Bars Coverage under Homeowner’s Policy for Mold Damage
July 13, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the insurer paid for some of the mold damage at the insured’s home, the Fifth Circuit eventually determined the homeowner’s policy did not cover such damage. Rooters v. State Farm Lloyds, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12306 (5th Cir. June 15, 2011).
The policy excluded loss caused by hail to personal property unless the direct force of wind or hail made an opening in the roof allowing rain to enter. Further, the policy excluded loss caused by mold or other fungi.
In 1999, hail and rain caused water damage to the roof and interior of the residence. State Farm paid $19,000 to repair the roof. Another $1,800 was paid for repairs to the interior of the building. In 2002, the insured noticed black mold. State Farm issued an additional check for $4,402 for mold abatement.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim
January 27, 2010 —
Steven M. CvitanovicIn the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.
In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.
Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California
September 24, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogStairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so.
A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station.
Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed.
The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].)
The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256.
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Timely Legal Trends and Developments for Construction
February 18, 2019 —
Matt Viator - Construction ExecutiveThe construction industry is broad and the legal concerns of industry members can be far-reaching. What seems like tomorrow’s problem often jumps to the forefront and becomes a high priority today. 2018 was full of moments like these – and it’s important to keep track of legal developments for a glimpse at what may be waiting around the corner. With that in mind, here are some of the most important legal developments for the construction industry from the second half of 2018.
Sureties and Litigation – a Broad Topic
Sureties play a vital role on construction projects. On federal jobs and state, county or municipal jobs, surety bonds are typically required. That means it’s important to stay on top of how the courts are treating surety agreements.
Reprinted courtesy of
Matt Viator, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Big Bertha Lawsuits—Hitachi Zosen Weighs In
January 31, 2018 —
John P. Ahlers – Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn a recent article published by
Seattle Business Magazine, the Japanese manufacturer of the much-maligned tunnel machine (nicknamed “Bertha”) provided its version of events and its position to the public. The interview took place after executives from Hitachi Zosen were not invited to the ceremony celebrating Bertha’s breakthrough at the end of its two-mile journey underground Seattle. Ultimately, apparently, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), the general contractor for the project, and Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) agreed that Hitachi Zosen executives could attend the event, but they were not allowed to stand with other dignitaries on a specially-built viewing platform. The $3.2 billion Alaska Way Viaduct replacement project is embroiled in a number of legal controversies. Now that the tunnel is finished, Hitachi Zosen has finally decided to tell its side of the story.
Hitachi’s problems started on December 5, 2013, three days after the tunnel-boring machine (“TBM”) hit a 120-foot long, eight-inch diameter steel well casing (the project DRB has determined that the pipe was a differing site condition), the TBM overheated and ground to a halt. The project was shut down almost two years while the TBM was being repaired. According to Hitachi Zosen, it always worked hard to get the job done. “We wanted to finish the tunnel and make Seattle happy with the results,” said Hidetoshi Hirata, the general manager for Hitachi Zosen.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
