7 Ways Technology is Changing Construction (guest post)
July 28, 2018 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaToday, we have a guest post by Eric Weisbrot, Chief Marketing Officer of JW Surety Bonds. With years of experience in the surety industry under several different roles within the company, he is also a contributing author to the surety bond blog. Welcome, Eric!
It is difficult to argue that technology is having minimal impact on society as a whole. Not only are digital enhancements making waves on the consumer side of the line, but businesses are feeling the effects as much if not more in recent years. The construction industry is no exception to this technological shift, but the influence the change is having on licensed construction contractors and long-standing businesses is far-reaching. Here are several ways technology is disrupting construction on a day to day basis.
#1. Autonomous Equipment. One of the most notable changes in construction is the addition of autonomous equipment on job sites. Several technology-focused companies are currently testing and perfecting construction machines that require no human interaction to operate. The hope behind this shift is to reduce the impact of the labor shortage in the industry while improving efficiency and productivity on each job.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett, PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered
July 13, 2017 —
Bob Henry - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogClearing up any lingering confusion, in Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. Woods, 767 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4 (June 22, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed that residential forcible entry and detainer actions in Arizona accrue for statute of limitations purposes when a party entitled to possession makes a formal demand for return of possession not when the party could have made a demand for return of possession.
In Carrington, the borrowers (the Woodses) remained in property that they had acquired in 2008 but then lost to foreclosure several years later. The original lender obtained title to the property at a trustee’s sale on February 16, 2010, but did not take any action to remove the Woodses at that time. Title to the property was then transferred through a series of transactions over the next six years. Ultimately, Carrington acquired the title and, in 2016, sent a formal “Notice to Vacate” the premises to the Woodses. After the Woodses failed to timely vacate pursuant to the demand, Carrington initiated an FED action to evict them from the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bob Henry, Snell & WilmerMr. Henry may be contacted at
bhenry@swlaw.com
Convictions Obtained in Las Vegas HOA Fraud Case
March 19, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that a jury “convicted four defendants charged in the massive scheme to take over and defraud homeowners associations.” Convicted defendants included former Benzer attorney Keith Gregory, Benzer’s half-sister Edith Gillespie, Salvatore Ruvolo, and David Ball.
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Prosecutors contended the multimillion-dollar scheme was carried out between 2003 and 2009 by former construction company boss Leon Benzer and the late construction defects lawyer Nancy Quon. Benzer has since pleaded guilty. Quon committed suicide in 2012 under the weight of the high-profile investigation.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Trial Court Clarifies Application of SB800 Roofing Standards and Expert’s Opinions
February 18, 2020 —
Scott Calkins & Anthony Gaeta - Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli; Mark Chapman - Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli partners Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta obtained a trial victory when the jury returned a 12-0 defense verdict against one plaintiff homeowner, and awarded the other homeowner less than $2,000, an amount well below the defendant’s pre-trial CCP 998 Offers to Compromise. One of the main issues in the case was the application of SB800 roofing standards. Plaintiffs’ roofing expert testified in deposition no water entered the structure or passed through a moisture barrier [Civ. Code §896(a)(4)], and no materials had fallen off the roof [§896(g)(11)]. In an attempt to circumvent the applicable performance standards, Plaintiffs argued Civ. Code §869(g)(3)(A), also known as the ‘useful life’ exception, applied because the various components of the roof (nailing pattern, tiles, vents, etc.) were installed in such a manner so as to reduce the useful life of the roof. Following pre-trial motions and objections made during Plaintiffs’ direct examination, the Court ruled Section 896(g)(3)(A) did not apply to a conventional roof, as it is not a “manufactured product” as defined in §896(g)(3)(C). Plaintiffs’ roofing claims were summarily dismissed and Plaintiffs’ expert was prevented from testifying.
In contrast, the defense expert, Mark Chapman, was allowed to testify regarding his expert opinions as to the appropriate SB800 standard relative to each alleged defect and whether the standards were violated. The SB800 performance standards were included on the jury verdict form, and the jury found Mr. Chapman’s testimony compelling, which was a substantial factor in awarding only minor damages to one Plaintiff.
For more information, contact
Scott Calkins (scalkins@cslawoffices.com),
Anthony Gaeta (ageta@cslawoffices.com) or
Mark Chapman (mchapman@berthowe.com).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A General Contractor’s Guide to Additional Insured Coverage
August 10, 2017 —
Gregory D. Podolak - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.LAW360.com recently surveyed attorneys to offer tips for what general contractors should – and shouldn’t – do when pursuing additional insured coverage. According to the article, “With the broad array of risks present on a typical construction site, one of a general contractor’s top options to shield itself from liability for property damage and bodily injury claims is to secure expansive “additional insured” coverage through its subcontractors.”
In the piece, Greg Podolak discussed techniques for avoiding potential gaps in coverage:
“Carriers will try to say in the additional insured endorsement that they will only be responsible to provide limits for what is required in the trade contract,” said Greg Podolak, managing partner of Saxe Doernberger & Vita PC’s southeast office. “If it turns out the trade contract requires lower limits than the policy, the insurer will likely say it only wants to be responsible for those lower limits.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Podolak may be contacted at
gdp@sdvlaw.com
Breach of an Oral Contract and Unjust Enrichment and Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
December 23, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an ideal world, parties would have written contracts. In reality, parties should endeavor to ensure every transaction they enter into is memorialized in a written contract. This should not be disputed. Of course, written contracts are not always the case. Parties enter transactions too often whereby the transaction is not memorialized in a clean written agreement. Rather, it is piecemealing invoices, or texts, or discussions, or proposals and the course of business. A contract can still exist in this context but it is likely an oral contract. Keep in mind if there is a dispute, what you think the oral contract says will invariably be different than what the other party believes the oral contract says. This “he said she said” scenario gets removed, for the most part, with a written contract that memorializes the written terms, conditions, and scope.
A recent federal district court opinion dealt with the alleged breach of an oral contract. In Movie Prop Rentals LLC vs. The Kingdom of God Global Church, 2023 WL 8275922 (S.D.Fla. 2023), a dispute concerned the fabrication and installation of a complex, modular stage prop to be used for an event. But here lies the problem. The dispute was based on an oral contract and invoices. The plaintiff, the party that was fabricating the modular stage prop, sued the defendant, the party that ordered the stage prop for the event, for non-payment under various claims. The defendant countersued under various claims.
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
The Uncertain Future of the IECC
January 11, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday, I welcome an old friend and past Guest Post Friday contributor, Mike Collignon. Mike is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Green Builder® Coalition. He engages in national and state-level advocacy and publishes regular content for Green Builder® Media. Mike is also the Chair of the WERS Development Group and has served as the moderator or host for Green Builder® Media’s Impact Series webinars from 2012–present.
The following is an op-ed based on the author’s attendance at public meetings and conversations with inside sources.
“I think that you will all agree that we are living in most interesting times.” – Joseph Chamberlain, 1898
2020 was a historic year, both for reasons we currently comprehend and for reasons we may only understand in retrospect. Depending on how an upcoming ICC Board decision goes, it may prove to be the year the IECC met its demise.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
What to Expect From the New Self-Retracting Devices Standard
November 29, 2021 —
Andre Pelland - Construction ExecutiveOne of the latest and most anticipated changes to occur this year relevant to fall protection is the publishing of the ANSI/ASSP Z359.14 2021 revision. Although the effective date isn’t until August 2022, this change is prompting the need for end user to prepare for using and understanding the new terminology performance requirements that will ultimately alter equipment selection criteria.
The reason for its relevance is mostly due to its industry dependence and the increasing popularity of these types of devices. This voluntary consensus standard accounts for a vast portion of the fall protection market equipment and has been adopted as the industry standard, even though it is not the legal requirement. To assure a smooth transition, the immediate priority should be to understand the changes and what it means from a usability standpoint. A clear understanding of what changes devices need to comply will allow users to proceed with a comprehensive transition plan.
What Are the Most Relevant Changes for the User?
Classes
The most significant changes are for Class A and B devices used to designate arrest distances and forces and the introduction of the Class 1 and 2 devices. These classes were known as designators for arresting falls at 24 inches and under with higher forces (Class A), and 54 inches and under with lower forces (Class B). Class 1 devices allow anchoring on overhead anchorages only and limitg freefall to no more than two feet.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andre Pelland, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Pelland may be contacted at
andre.pelland@puresafetygroup.com
