Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?
June 08, 2020 —
Ben Volpe - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn 1986, the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Pro Rata Liability Act, codified at C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, which eliminated joint and several liability for defendants in favor of pro rata liability.[1] The statute was “designed to avoid holding defendants liable for an amount of compensatory damages reflecting more than their respective degrees of fault.”[2] However, the following year, the Colorado legislature carved out an exception to preserve joint liability for persons “who consciously conspire and deliberately pursue a common plan or design to commit a tortious act.”[3] Because of this conspiracy exception, plaintiffs try to circumvent the general rule against joint and several liability by arguing that construction professionals defending construction defect cases were acting in concert, as co-conspirators. Plaintiffs argue that if they can prove that two or more construction professionals consciously conspired and deliberately pursued a common plan or design, i.e., to build a home or residential community, and such a plan results in the commission of a tort, i.e., negligence, the defendants may be held jointly and severally liable for all of the damages awarded.
Since 1986, Colorado courts have construed the “conspiracy” provision in § 13-21-111.5(4), but some have disagreed as to what constitutes a conspiracy for purposes of imposing joint liability.
Civil Conspiracy
In Colorado, the elements of civil conspiracy are that: “(1) two or more persons; (2) come to a meeting of the minds; (3) on an object to be accomplished or a course of action to be followed; (4) and one or more overt unlawful acts are performed; (5) with damages as the proximate result thereof.”[4]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Benjamin Volpe, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Volpe may be contacted at
volpe@hhmrlaw.com
Court Denies Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Collapse Claim
January 20, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiFacing yet another collapse claim based upon alleged poorly mixed cement, the Federal District Court in Connecticut denied the insurer's motion to dismiss. Oliveria v. Safeco Ins Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147256 (D. Conn. Aug. 29, 2019).
In 1993, the insureds' purchased their home that had been built in 1986. Safeco insured the property. In February 2017, the insureds noticed that the basement walls had a series of cracks. They consulted professionals and learned that the cracking was due to a chemical compound found in certain concrete walls constructed in the late 1980s with concrete most likely from the J. J. Mottes Concrete Company.
The insureds submitted a claim to Safeco for the substantial impairment to the structural integrity of their basement walls. Safeco denied the claim. The insureds filed suit. Safeco moved to dismiss.
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
NYC’s Next Hot Neighborhoods Targeted With Property Funds
August 20, 2014 —
Jonathan LaMantia – BloombergNew York’s real estate world is filled with tales of ordinary people who bought property decades ago and saw values skyrocket to the millions. Seth Weissman is seeking investors to get in early on the next hot neighborhoods.
The veteran of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and hedge fund Perry Capital LLC started CityShares, which enables participants to reap rewards from increasing apartment demand in gentrifying areas. Investors who pledge at least $100,000 to one of the program’s neighborhood-focused funds become partial owners of a group of buildings and share in the rental income. The first pool is more than halfway toward its target of $5 million, which will be used to buy properties in Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant.
Harlem in upper Manhattan is next, with a goal of as much as $20 million. Additional funds are planned for Bushwick, Crown Heights and Sunset Park, all in Brooklyn. Renters are pushing into those more-distant areas after getting squeezed out of the borough’s waterfront communities, where leasing costs rival Manhattan’s. CityShares is the first program of its kind and offers a way to invest in burgeoning markets that are poised to grow as New York’s workforce expands, Weissman said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan LaMantia, BloombergMr. Lamantia may be contacted at
jlamantia1@bloomberg.net
Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend
February 28, 2022 —
Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company1 benefits insureds seeking to establish an insurer’s duty to defend. As a matter of first impression, the court clarified that insureds have the burden to prove that an exception to a policy exclusion applies in order to trigger the insured’s duty to defend. However, while the policyholder may use extrinsic evidence to establish the insurer’s duty to defend, the insurer may not use extrinsic evidence to deny that duty.
The facts of the underlying claim are set in the 2000s when the insured subcontractors worked to build thousands of homes in Nevada. The subcontractors were insured by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) during that period. After the homes were complete, the subcontractors switched from Zurich to Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”). Between 2010 and 2013, homeowners brought claims against the subcontractors alleging that the properties were damaged due to construction defects. The subcontractors tendered the claims to Zurich as the insurer at the time of construction. Zurich then sought defense and indemnification from Ironshore. Ironshore denied coverage under a “continuing and progressive” policy exclusion, claiming that the property damage occurred due to faulty work that predated the Ironshore policy. Notably, an exception to the exclusion applied if “sudden and accidental” property damage occurred within the Ironshore policy period. Given that the underlying lawsuits did not include specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred, Ironshore and Zurich disagreed on whether the exception to the exclusion was triggered..
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Barrese may be contacted at
BBarrese@sdvlaw.com
SFAA and Coalition of Partners Encourage Lawmakers to Require Essential Surety Bonding Protections on All Federally-Financed Projects Receiving WIFIA Funds
February 21, 2022 —
The Surety & Fidelity Association of AmericaFebruary 17, 2022 (WASHINGTON, DC) – The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) in collaboration with 15 trade associations, sent a letter strongly encouraging members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, led by Chairman Tom Carper (D-DE) and Ranking Member Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), to require payment and performance protections on federally-financed infrastructure projects receiving Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loans, including public-private projects (P3s).
“As the Environment and Public Works Committee looks at legislation in the second session of the 117th Congress to continue the important work of addressing our nation’s water infrastructure, we urge the Committee to amend the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) program to help protect taxpayer funds, workers, subcontractors and suppliers, including Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program participants and subcontractors, who build water infrastructure especially in at-risk low income communities,” said Lee Covington, president and CEO, SFAA.
The coalition of partners includes:
American Property and Casualty Association
American Subcontractor Association
Business Coalition for Fair Competition
Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers
Finishing Contractors Association International
International Union of Operating Engineers
Mechanical Contractors Association of America
National Association of Electrical Contractor
National Association of Minority Contractors
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
National Association of Surety Bond Producers
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association
The Association of Union Constructors
The Construction Employers of America
Women Construction Owners and Executives
The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan trade association representing all segments of the surety and fidelity industry. Based in Washington, D.C., SFAA works to promote the value of surety and fidelity bonding by proactively advocating on behalf of its members and stakeholders. The association’s more than 450 member companies write 98 percent of surety and fidelity bonds in the U.S. For more information visit www.surety.org.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Power of Team Bonding: Transforming Workplaces for the Better
June 10, 2024 —
Alexa Stephenson & Brittney Aquino - Kahana FeldThe number of civil Complaints filed in California has been steadily rising over the last few years. When employees struggle daily to make a dent in what seems as an insurmountable to-do list, taking time away from work to chat with coworkers about their weekends or the latest Netflix drop seems counterintuitive. Yet recent studies suggest that taking even 30 minutes away from your workday to engage in team bonding has lasting benefits. Investing in team bonding activities is not just about having fun; it is about creating a cohesive, motivated, and high-performing team that can drive organizational success. As the evidence suggests, the return on investment for team bonding activities is substantial, making it a vital component of any successful workplace strategy.
Enhancing Communication and Collaboration
One of the primary benefits of team bonding is improved communication among team members. Effective communication is the bedrock of any successful team, and activities designed to foster relationships can significantly enhance this aspect. A study conducted by MIT’s Human Dynamics Laboratory found that teams with higher levels of social interaction outside of formal meetings performed better than those with limited interaction. These teams were more cohesive, coordinated, and ultimately more productive.
Bonding activities, as simple as group lunches or intensive as a weekend retreat, create opportunities for employees to interact in a relaxed setting. This helps break down barriers and encourages open communication, which translates into a more collaborative work environment. When employees feel comfortable sharing ideas and feedback, it leads to better problem-solving and innovation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alexa Stephenson, Kahana Feld and
Brittney Aquino, Kahana Feld
Ms. Stephenson may be contacted at astephenson@kahanafeld.com
Ms. Aquino may be contacted at baquino@kahanafeld.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“But it’s 2021!” Service of Motion to Vacate Via Email Found Insufficient by the Eleventh Circuit
June 21, 2021 —
Justin K. Fortescue - White and WilliamsWhile we are all getting used to the “new normal” of working remotely and relying on emails for almost all communications, a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit provides arbitration practitioners with a stark reminder – the “notice” requirements of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) will be strictly enforced and providing notice of a motion to vacate via email may not qualify as proper service.
In O'Neal Constructors, LLC v. DRT Am., LLC, 991 F.3d 1376 (11th Cir. 2021), O’Neal Constructors, LLC (O’Neal) and DRT America (DRT) entered into a contract containing an arbitration provision. Following a dispute, the parties went to arbitration and, on January 7, 2019, the panel issued an award requiring DRT to pay O’Neal a total of $1,415,193. The amount awarded to O’Neal consisted of two parts: $765,102 for the underlying contract dispute and $650,090 for reimbursement of O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees. While DRT paid O’Neal the first portion of the award, DRT refused to pay the portion that related to O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees.
On April 4, 2019, as a result of DRT’s refusal to pay O’Neal’s attorneys’ fees, O’Neal filed a motion to confirm the award in Georgia state court (which was subsequently removed to the Northern District of Georgia). The next day, in a separate action, DRT filed a motion to vacate the attorneys’ fees portion of the award and, that same night, DRT’s counsel emailed O’Neal’s counsel a “courtesy copy” of DRT’s memorandum in support of the motion to vacate. A few weeks later, on April 30, 2019 (i.e., more than three months after the award was issued), DRT served O’Neal (via U.S. Marshall) with a copy of the motion to vacate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Justin Fortescue, White and WilliamsMr. Fortescue may be contacted at
fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com
Insured’s Bad Faith Insurance Claim Evaporates Before its Eyes
August 03, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogSometimes it’s right there before your eyes. Then, poof, it’s gone. This was the experience of one insured, who brought a bad faith insurance denial claim against his insurer thinking that the facts were in his favor, only to discover they were not.
The 501 E .51st Street Case
The Water Main Break and AGI’s Report
The owner of a 10-unit apartment building built in 1963, 501 East 51st Street, Long Beach-10 LLC (just rolls off the tongue doesn’t it?), filed a bad faith action against its insurer Kookmin Best Insurance Co., Ltd., after it denied 501 East’s insurance tender following a water main break that caused the building’s foundation to subside.
The water main break occurred sometimes between December 31, 2015 and January 2, 2016 next to the southwest side of the building. 501 East tendered its insurance claim to Kookmin on March 8, 2016, and in April 2016, presented a report prepared by American Geotechnical, Inc. (“AGI”) concerning damage to the building. According to the report prepared by AGI, AGI conducted a “limited geotechnical investigation” to “evaluate site conditions relating to the reported building distress following a waterline breach near the south end of the building.” The scope of AGI’s investigation was limited to “observation, photo documentation of the site conditions, [and[ floor-level survey of the interior of the first level units.” AGI’s investigation did not involve any subsurface investigation or soil testing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
