43% of U.S. Homes in High Natural Disaster Risk Areas
September 03, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFRealtyTrac released data that declared that “35.8 million U.S. single family homes and condos with a combined estimated market value of $6.6 trillion are in counties with high or very high natural hazard risk.” Each county was assigned one of five risk catagories for overall risk of natural disaster: Very High, High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low. States whose scores fell into the “Very High” category included California, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina.
“The weather is beautiful in SoCal, but we are statistically more susceptible to the risk of fire, floods and earthquakes than most areas. Our agents must be articulate in explaining the higher risks to buyers. People have to be able trust their agent to fully disclose the risks of natural disasters and homeownership to allow buyers to make the most informed decisions,” Mark Hughes, chief operating officer with First Team Real Estate, covering the Southern California market, told RealtyTrac. “A well-informed knowledgeable buyer is best prepared to take on the potential risks associated with SoCal homeownership.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Retainage on Pennsylvania Public Contracts
January 31, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsAh yes, retainage, what could represent your profit on a project and something frequently abused by owners on private and public projects alike. Fortunately, Pennsylvania law offers public works contractors some protection from retainage abuse. The Public Prompt Payment Act dictates when retainage can be withheld and when it must be released. Agencies that fail to follow the Prompt Payment Act’s retainage rules can end up owing you interest, penalty, and attorney’s fees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Contractors Liable For Their Subcontractor’s Failure To Pay Its Employees’ Wages And Benefits
November 01, 2022 —
Edward O. Pacer & David J. Scriven-Young - ConsensusDocsRecently, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed two House Bills that amend the Illinois Wage Payment & Collections Act, 820 ILCS 115 et. seq. (“Wage Act”), to provide greater protection for individuals working in the construction trades against wage theft in a defined class of projects. Pursuant to this new law, every general contractor, construction manager, or “primary contractor,” working on the projects included in the Bill’s purview will be liable for wages that have not been paid by a subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor on any contract entered into after July 1, 2022, together with unpaid fringe benefits plus attorneys’ fees and costs that are incurred by the employee in bringing an action under the Wage Act. This new wage theft law follows several other states that have considered and passed similar legislation.
These amendments to the Wage Act apply to a primary contractor engaged in “erection, construction, alteration, or repair of a building structure, or other private work.” However, there are important limitations to the amendment’s applicability. The amendment does not apply to projects under contract with state or local government, or to general contractors that are parties to a collective bargaining agreement on a project where the work is being performed. Additionally, the amendment does not apply to primary contractors who are doing work with a value of less than $20,000, or work that involves only the altering or repairing of an existing single-family dwelling or single residential unit in a multi-unit building.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward O. Pacer, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs) and
David J. Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Pacer may be contacted at epacer@pecklaw.com
Mr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at dscriven-young@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Another Colorado District Court Refuses to Apply HB 10-1394 Retroactively
October 28, 2011 —
In Martinez v. Mike Wells Construction Company, 09CV227, Teller County District Court Judge Edward S. Colt refused to apply C.R.S. § 13-20-808 retroactively to provide coverage for the underlying construction defect allegations. According to the recitation of facts in Judge Colt’s March 2011 order, Martinez contracted with Mike Wells Construction to serve as the general contractor for the construction of a home. At that time, Mike Wells Construction was insured through ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company, RRG. Disputes arose between Martinez and Mike Wells Construction, resulting in Martinez ordering it off of the project in mid-November 2007 and terminating its right to work there by letter dated November 28, 2007.
Mike Wells, the owner of the corporation, subsequently died. Martinez sued Mike Wells Construction in July 2009 for breach of contract and various claims relating to alleged defecting workmanship. Martinez provided notice of the suit to the special administrator of the probate estate. No answer having been filed, the court entered a default judgment against Mike Wells Construction and Martinez sought to garnish Mike Wells Construction’s ProBuilders insurance policy.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. McClain can be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
BLOK, a Wired UK Hottest 100 Housing Market Startup, Gets Funding from a Renowned Group of Investors
October 11, 2017 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessBlok, listed as one of the Hottest 100 European Startups by Wired UK, has secured several renowned investors to promote the company’s product development and marketing in its second round of financing.
The Helsinki-based startup company aims to revolutionize the housing market through automation and artificial intelligence. Blok believes that the future of the housing market will be on the Internet, where intelligent technology is opening up new opportunities for disrupting traditional business models.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aarni@aepartners.fi
Zillow Topping Realogy Shows Web Surge for Housing Market
July 30, 2014 —
Prashant Gopal and John Gittelsohn – BloombergZillow Inc. (Z)’s purchase of Trulia Inc. makes the online company such a force in U.S. real estate that its market value now surpasses that of Realogy Corp., owner of renowned brokerage brands from Coldwell Banker to Century 21.
Zillow, the biggest U.S. real estate website, has seen its market value jump to about $5.83 billion from $4.99 billion on July 23, the day before Bloomberg News reported the deal talks with rival Trulia. Realogy, the largest residential brokerage operator, has a market value of about $5.47 billion, compared with $5.67 billion last week, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
The shift underscores the growing role of the Web in U.S. home sales as buyers start their hunt for homes and mortgages online and rely less on real estate agents, a migration that has taken longer than in industries such as music or travel. While Zillow is unlikely to compete directly with brokers, whose ad dollars are its top revenue source, buying Trulia (TRLA) gives it more command over marketing fees, sparking concerns among Realtors such as Stephen FitzMaurice that costs will rise.
Mr. Gopal may be contacted at pgopal2@bloomberg.net; Mr. Gittelsohn may be contacted at johngitt@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal and John Gittelsohn, Bloomberg
Pollution Exclusion Does Not Apply To Concrete Settling Dust
November 28, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Virginia law, the federal district court determined that the pollution exclusion did not bar coverage. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Zenith Aviation, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14727 (E.D. Va. Aug. 29, 2018).
Zenith Aviation, Inc. hired Abby Construction Company to install an elevator at its warehouse. A wet saw was used to cut away concrete, but Abby did not use any water with the wet saw. This created a significant amount of concrete dust to leave the warehouse. Surrounding businesses contacted the fire department because they thought the dust was smoke from a fire. The concrete dust settled inside Zenith's building, damaging airplane parts stored in the warehouse.
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
