Infrared Photography Illuminates Construction Defects and Patent Trolling
October 01, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFReuben Saltzman, a home inspector in the Minneapolis area wrote a piece for the Star Tribune in which he discussed the use of infrared photography in home inspections. Lack of insulation and water intrusion show up clearly on infrared photography where there is not yet any visible damage.
Moist or cold areas show up as darker than their surroundings. Mr. Saltzman included one photo with his article in which the problem shows up as a hot spot: a carpet installer had covered over a floor register.
Mr. Saltzman’s use of infrared photography may be in danger, as he recently learned that a Mississippi firm has actually taken out a patent on using infrared photography for home inspections.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tiny Houses Big With U.S. Owners Seeking Economic Freedom
July 16, 2014 —
Nina Glinski – BloombergDoug Immel recently completed his custom-built dream home, sparing no expense on details like cherry-wood floors, cathedral ceilings and stained-glass windows -- in just 164 square feet of living space including a loft.
The 57-year-old schoolteacher’s tiny house near Providence, Rhode Island, cost $28,000 -- a seventh of the median price of single-family residences in his state.
“I wanted to have an edge against career vagaries,” said Immel, a former real estate appraiser. A dwelling with minimal financial burden “gives you a little attitude.” He invests the money he would have spent on a mortgage and related costs in a mutual fund, halving his retirement horizon to 10 years and maybe even as soon as three. “I am infinitely happier.”
Dramatic downsizing is gaining interest among Americans, gauging by increased sales of plans and ready-made homes and growing audiences for websites related to the niche. A+E Networks Corp. will air, beginning today, “Tiny House Nation” a series on FYI that “celebrates the exploding movement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nina Glinski, BloombergMs. Glinski may be contacted at
nglinski@bloomberg.net
When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors
August 13, 2019 —
Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocsPayment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment.
A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and
Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP
Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon
May 01, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j.
Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs.
Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Navigating the Hurdles of Florida Construction Defect Lawsuits
April 03, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Florida law firm of Williams Law Association reminds readers that under the law, homeowners “cannot immediately file a lawsuit against their contractor if they subsequently discover construction defects.” The contractor must first have a chance to fix the defect. Further, there is a waiting period between informing the contractor and actually filing the lawsuit. For individual homeowners, that wait is 60 days, but for associations of more than 20 parcels, it’s 120 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NYC Building Explosion Kills Two After Neighbor Reports Gas Leak
March 12, 2014 —
Michelle Kaske and Henry Goldman, BloombergFifteen minutes after a New York City resident reported the pervasive smell of gas in her East Harlem neighborhood, a massive explosion destroyed two buildings, killing two people and injuring at least 18. Utility workers arrived too late.
The explosion at 1644 and 1646 Park Ave., near 116th Street, reported about 9:30 a.m., was heard miles away and turned into a five-alarm fire. Windows were blown out as far as 10 blocks away, and cars across the street were wrecked. The blast sent debris onto adjacent elevated train tracks, halting commuter rail service in and out of Grand Central Terminal. Minor wounds were too numerous to count, said Frank Gribbon, a spokesman for the New York City Fire Department.
“This is a tragedy of the worst kind,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said during a news conference near the scene. He said residents are still missing from the buildings, which had a total of 15 units, and crews would search for them when the fire is extinguished.
Ms. Kaske may be contacted at mkaske@bloomberg.net; Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Kaske and Henry Goldman, Bloomberg
Another Reminder to ALWAYS Show up for Court
July 20, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI have discussed the need to always respond to a lawsuit on multiple occasions here at Construction Law Musings. However, I keep reading cases where the defendant fails to appear either by pleading or in person. Such action is never a good idea as demonstrated once again in the case of Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Precision Constr. & Mgmt. Group, LLC, a case out of the Eastern District of Virginia.
The basic facts are not a surprise and are taken from the magistrates report that was adopted by the District Court. Balfour Beatty and Precision entered into a subcontract for some electrical work at a project located in Loudoun County. The subcontract included an attorney fees provision and provided for liquidated damages for late performance and the typical damages for default. The project began in July of 2016 with substantial completion July 5, 2018. Precision failed to supply sufficient manpower and sent a letter to Precision stating the same. After an agreement between the parties regarding supplementation by Balfour Beatty and to the accompanying back charge, Balfour Beatty informed Precision by letter that it would be liable for any liquidated damages. The Owner began assessing liquidated damages and Balfour Beatty subsequently terminated the subcontract and discovered defective work by Precision.
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
The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation
February 25, 2011 —
Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen LauderdaleThis article is the first in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010
1. Centex Homes v. Financial Pacific Life Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
After settling numerous homeowners’ construction defect claims — and more than ten years after the homes were substantially completed — a home developer brought suit against one of the concrete fabrication subcontractors for the development seeking indemnity for amounts paid to the homeowners, as well as for damages for breach of the subcontractor’s duties to procure specific insurance and to defend the developer against the homeowners’ claims. The subcontractor brought a motion for summary adjudication on the ground the developer’s claims were barred by the ten year statute of repose contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15.
The District Court agreed the developer’s claim for indemnity was barred by Section 337.15. And it held that because the damages recoverable for breach of the subcontractor’s duty to purchase insurance are identical to the damages recoverable through the developer’s indemnity claim, the breach of duty to procure insurance claim also was time-barred. The District Court, however, allowed the claim for breach of the duty to defend to proceed. The categories of losses associated with such a claim (attorneys’ fees and other defense costs) are distinct from the damages recoverable through claims governed by Section 337.15 (latent deficiency in the design and construction of the homes and injury to property arising out of the latent deficiencies).
2. UDC — Universal Development v. CH2M Hill, 181 Cal. App. 4th 10 (6th Dist. Jan. 2010)
Indemnification clauses in construction agreements often state that one party to the agreement — the “indemnitor” — will defend and indemnify the other party from particular types of claims. Of course, having a contract right to a defense is not the same as actually receiving a defense. Any indemnitor attempting to avoid paying for defense costs can simply deny the tender of defense with the hope that when the underlying claim is resolved the defense obligations will be forgotten. In the past, when parties entitled to a defense — the “indemnitees” — had long memories and pressed to recover defense costs, indemnitors attempted to justify denying the tender by claiming their defense obligations coincided with their indemnity obligations and neither arose until a final determination was made that the underlying claim was one for which indemnity was owed.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Ms. Matson can be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com, Mr. Hamersmith can be contacted at hhamersmith@sheppardmullin.com, and Ms. Lauderdale can be contacted at hlauderdale@sheppardmullin.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
