MBS’s $500 Billion Desert Dream Just Keeps Getting Weirder
August 29, 2022 —
Vivian Nereim - BloombergOne day last September, a curious email arrived in Chris Hables Gray’s inbox. An author and self-described anarchist, feminist, and revolutionary, Gray fits right into Santa Cruz, Calif., where he lives. He’s written extensively about genetic engineering and the inevitable rise of cyborgs, attending protests in between for causes such as Black Lives Matter.
While Gray had taken some consulting gigs over the years, he’d never received an offer like this one. The first shock was the money: significantly more than he’d earned from all but one of his books. The second was the task: researching the aesthetics of seminal works of science fiction such as Blade Runner. The biggest surprise, however, was the ultimate client: Mohammed bin Salman, the 36-year-old crown prince of Saudi Arabia.
MBS, as he’s known abroad, was in the early stages of one of the largest and most difficult construction projects in history, which involves turning an expanse of desert the size of Belgium into a high-tech city-region called Neom. Starting with a budget of $500 billion, MBS bills Neom as a showpiece that will transform Saudi Arabia’s economy and serve as a testbed for technologies that could revolutionize daily life. And as Gray’s proposed assignment suggested, the crown prince’s vision bears little resemblance to the cities of today. Intrigued, Gray took the job. “If I can be honest with how I see the world, I’ll pretty much put my work out to anyone,” he says.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Vivian Nereim, Bloomberg
Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim
April 03, 2013 —
Brian M. Falcon - Frost Brown Todd LLCEarlier this year, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an important opinion that impacts contractors and sureties alike. The decision should give contractors in Indiana pause before ceasing work while a dispute with the owner is pending. Sureties also have been placed on notice that strict compliance with the terms of their bonds is amongst their best defenses to claims made by owners and bond claimants.
In Dave's Excavating, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. City of New Castle, Indiana, 959 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the contractor (“Dave’s”) was the successful bidder on a public sanitary sewer and water main extension project. Dave's procured a performance bond from Liberty Mutual to guarantee its performance obligations to the owner (the "City"). After encountering what it deemed different subsurface conditions—and indeed after having been previously granted a change order to use excavated materials as backfill in light of the subsurface conditions on site—Dave’s placed the project engineer on notice of a differing site conditions claim. The total claim amounted to an 84% increase in the total contract price. With the claim, Dave's advised the project engineer it was ceasing further work until the project engineer provided direction.
While the project engineer reviewed the claim, it reminded Dave's of its contractual obligation to "carry on the work and adhere to the progress schedule during all disputes or disagreements with the OWNER." A dispute immediately occurred regarding whether Dave's was required to continue to work while the project engineer resolved the differing site condition claim. After Dave's maintained its position that it was not required to continue to work, the project engineer placed it on notice of default and copied the letter to Liberty Mutual.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian M. FalconBrian M. Falcon can be contacted at http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/contact.html
California Supreme Court Holds that Prevailing Wages are Not Required for Mobilization Work, for Now
October 18, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn the midst of the Great Depression the federal government enacted the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. section 32141 et seq.) to help workers on federal construction projects. Under the Davis-Bacon Act, minimum wages must be paid to workers on federal public works projects based on local “prevailing” wages. At the time, the goal of the law was to help curb the displacement of families by employers who were recruiting lower-wage workers from outside local areas. A darker history suggests that it was also intended to discourage minority workers from competing with unionized white workers.
Fast forward to today. Many states, including California, adopted “Little Davis-Bacon” laws applying similar requirements on state and local public works projects. California’s prevailing wage law (Labor Code section 1720 et seq.) requires contractors on state and local public works projects pay their workers the general prevailing rate of per diem wages based on the classification or type of work performed by the employee in the locality where the project is located.
Over the years, labor unions have sought to expand the definition of what constitutes a “public works project” from private residential developments receiving public funding (generally, prevailing wages required) to off-site fabrication of materials at permanent facility for a public works project (no prevailing wages required) to enforcement mechanisms such as making a general contractor liable for prevailing wage violations of its subcontractors (yes, indeedy, see Labor Code section 1775).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues
November 30, 2020 —
Paul A. Briganti - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterOn October 9, 2020, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decided an appeal from a trial court’s 2018 summary judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising out of asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 396 CA 18-02292, Mem. & Order (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 4th Dep’t Oct. 9, 2020).
The Fourth Department reversed the trial court’s ruling that, under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit as a matter of law. The parties agreed that, because the policy language at issue required personal injury to take place “during the policy period,” “the applicable test in determining what event constitutes personal injury sufficient to trigger coverage is injury-in-fact, ‘which rests on when the injury, sickness, disease or disability actually began.’” Id. at 3 (quoting Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., 609 N.E.2d 506, 511 (N.Y. 1993)). The Fourth Department concluded that, in resolving the issue, the trial court erred by relying on inapposite decisions in other cases where: (1) the parties had stipulated or otherwise not disputed that first exposure triggered coverage[1]; or (2) the issue had not been resolved on summary judgment, but rather at trial based on expert medical evidence[2]. The Fourth Department further explained that, even if plaintiffs here had met their initial burden on summary judgment by submitting admissible evidence that asbestos-related injury actually begins upon first exposure, the defendant-insurer’s opposition – which included affidavits of medical experts contradicting that evidence and averring instead that “harm occurs only when a threshold level of asbestos fiber or particle burden is reached that overtakes the body’s defense mechanisms” – raised a triable issue of fact. Id. at 4. The Fourth Department also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant-insurer was collaterally estopped on the “trigger” issue by a California appellate court’s decision in Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). The Fourth Department reasoned that the issues litigated in the two cases were not identical because, among other things, California and New York “apply different substantive law in determining when asbestos-related injury occurs.” Carrier, Mem. & Order at 4.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLPMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
5 Ways Equipment Financing is Empowering Small Construction Businesses
August 24, 2017 —
Duane Craig - Construction InformerSmall construction businesses can often get 100% equipment financing, eliminating the down payment, and freeing up cash, according to the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association (ELFA).
Most small businesses need equipment in order to operate and grow, and each business must decide on an acquisition strategy that is right for it. But, a majority of businesses turn to equipment leasing and financing so they can take advantage of a range of benefits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Duane Craig, Construction InformerMr. Craig may be contacted at
dtcraig@constructioninformer.com
Extreme Heat, Smoke Should Get US Disaster Label, Groups Say
July 15, 2024 —
Jennifer A Dlouhy - BloombergActivists are petitioning the US government to formally classify extreme heat and wildfire smoke as major disasters, as soaring temperatures threaten to set records across much of the country.
In a petition filed with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, they seek to unlock new funding to help communities address such events before they strike, with money for air filters that strip out smoke and rooftop solar systems that can supply electricity when demand overwhelms power grids.
Climate change has made fatal heat waves more intense and frequent, while hotter, drier conditions stoke the risk of fires that can blanket the US in toxic smoke. An estimated 2,300 people in the US died from heat-related illness in 2023, the hottest year on record. And heavy smoke from wildfires in Canada last year traveled as far south as Georgia, prompting people to shelter inside and canceling flights in some of the largest US cities.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer A Dlouhy, Bloomberg
New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds
March 11, 2024 —
Matthew D. Stockwell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn response to the June 2021 Champlain Towers collapse in Florida, New Jersey supplemented its State Uniform Construction Code Act by enacting legislation (effective January 8, 2024) to strengthen laws related to the structural integrity of certain residential structures in the State. The legislation applies to condominiums and cooperatives (but not single-family dwellings or primarily rental buildings) with structural components made of steel, reinforced concrete, heavy timber or a combination of such materials. The legislation also supplements the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act to ensure that associations created under the Act maintain adequate reserve funds for certain repairs.
The legislation requires structural engineering inspections of any primary load-bearing system (structural components applying force to the building which deliver force to the ground including any connected balconies). Buildings that are constructed after the date the legislation was signed must have their first inspection within 15 years after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. Buildings that are 15 years or older must be inspected within two years of the legislation. Thereafter, the structural inspector will determine when the next inspection should take place, which will be no more than 10 years after the preceding inspection, except for buildings more than 20 years old which must be inspected every five years. Also, if damage to the primary load-bearing system is otherwise observable, an inspection must be performed within 60 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew D. Stockwell, PillsburyMr. Stockwell may be contacted at
matthew.stockwell@pillsburylaw.com
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
