Insured's Motion for Reconsideration on Protecting the Integrity of Referral Sources under Florida Statute s. 542.335
September 28, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesReferral sources are generally important for all businesses. Due to their importance, certain businesses require employees to execute non-solicitation or even non-compete agreements to protect the integrity of their referral sources. Now, whether referral sources for a particular business constitutes a legitimate business interest (very important words) is a question where the context must be examined. Nonetheless, in a case that is certainly important for businesses, the Florida Supreme Court held that referral sources can serve as a legitimate business interest. While this case dealt with home health care companies, the rationale would be the same no matter the business, provided that referral sources are contextually a legitimate business interest for that business.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A New Study: Unexpected Overtime is Predictable and Controllable
January 31, 2022 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessA new study by Dodge Construction Network and Versatile, a construction technology pioneer using artificial intelligence (AI) and the internet of things (IoT) to optimize construction processes, found that unexpected overtime is predictable and controllable through regular job site activity measurement. According to the study, overtime is predictable at an 88% confidence level, if proper measurement is utilized.
Overtime is a persistent feature of construction sites, however, it is often unplanned and unpredictable. Despite the cost of overtime, its impact on skilled workers, and its implications for safety and other key factors on a project site, it is often applied to address immediate concerns rather than planned to maximize its effects. This recent study shows that in order to best understand overtime and its impact, data and measurement of jobsite activities are key.
“Unique insights derived from advanced data and analytics tools will empower construction crews to build better,” said Meirav Oren, co-founder and CEO of Versatile. “Overtime can be a very effective tool on the jobsite. Through the power of data, general contractors gain the ability to minimize unnecessary overtime while maximizing its strategic benefits.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Another (Insurer) Bites The Dust: Virginia District Court Rejects Narrow Reading of Pollution Exclusion
September 10, 2018 —
Michael S. Levine & Latosha M. Ellis - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a victory for policyholders, and an honorable mention for Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the dispersal of concrete dust that damaged inventory stored in an aircraft part distributor’s warehouse was a pollutant, as defined by the policy, but that it also constituted “smoke” as that term was defined in the dictionary, thereby implicating an exception to the policy’s pollution exclusion. The Court then granted summary judgment for the policyholder, who had suffered a $3.2 million loss.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Latosha M. Ellis, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Las Vegas Team Obtains Complete Dismissal of a Traumatic Brain Injury Claim
June 21, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPCongratulations to Partner,
Jeffrey W. Saab and Associate,
Shanna B. Carter on their successful Motion to Dismiss!
This personal injury claim arose from an incident whereby Plaintiff allegedly tripped and fell in front of the client’s business and sustained a traumatic brain injury. Initially, a default was entered against the client, and BWB&O was retained to unwind the same, and then defend against the claim. However, during the initial investigation, Shanna uncovered a defect in the service of the Complaint which invalidated not only the default, but more importantly service of the Complaint itself. Working as a team, Shanna performed the research and writing, and Jeff argued the Motion to Dismiss which was granted dispensing of the entire claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Contract Change #8: Direct Communications between Owners and Contractors (law note)
March 28, 2018 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaAs the Engineer or Architect of Record, you probably have frequently experienced Owners and Contractors communicating directly, in direct contravention of the language of the contract that requires them to endeavor to route all communications through the design team. With the latest version of the 201,
direct communication is now authorized, to recognize both the reality of what was happening on the ground and to recognize that sometimes Owners and Contractors may need to communicate without waiting for the design team.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Insurer in Bad Faith For Refusing to Commit to Appraisal
October 08, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied State Farm's motion for summary judgment on the insured homeowners' bad faith claim for State Farm's failure to agree to an appraisal. Currie v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4081051 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2014).
Superstorm Sandy caused a tree to crash in the insureds' home. The loss was reported to State Farm. The State Farm adjuster verbally quoted the roof replacement at more than $100,000. State Farm eventually paid $60,000 for the roof replacement. The insureds' adjuster estimated the loss at $363,804.98.
The insureds demanded an appraisal. State Farm rejected the demand because the claim involved certain items for which State Farm did not admit liability, including damage to the interior hardwood floors. State Farm contended that since the dispute went beyond the amount of loss, an appraisal was not an appropriate method of resolution.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
LA’s $1.2 Billion Graffiti Towers Put on Sale After Bankruptcy
June 04, 2024 —
John Gittelsohn - BloombergFor sale: Steel skeletons of three towers in downtown Los Angeles, erected by a Chinese developer that spent $1.2 billion before running into financial troubles.
The site, called Oceanwide Plaza, became famous this year when graffiti artists covered the 49-floor-tall structures. Now, the property is going on the market, with lenders and other creditors needing about $400 million to recoup their money.
The brokerage Colliers and advisory firm Hilco Real Estate have been hired to market and handle a sale of the property, subject to bankruptcy court approval, according to a statement.
“We are determined to run a disciplined and orderly process to identify the right developer to finish the project in time for the 2028 Summer Olympics,” said Mark Tarczynski, an executive vice president at Colliers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
