California Statutes Authorizing Public-Private Partnership Contracting
February 01, 2022 —
Robert A. James & Shade Oladetimi - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogPublic-private partnerships are often cited as a key pathway to restoring and enhancing the nation’s infrastructure. They can be challenging arrangements to structure. (As a result of the pandemic, they have even suffered the indignity of having their “PPP” acronym coopted by the
Paycheck Protection Program. With apologies to Small Business Administration practitioners, we use “PPP” in this article to refer to the infrastructure tool.)
One gating condition to setting up a PPP is identifying the authority for a public entity to use a contracting method that does not run afoul of the general requirements that (i) works of improvement be let to the lowest responsive bid by a responsible bidder and (ii) design services be awarded through a qualifications-based selection process. Integrated forms of project delivery that vest in a single concessionaire multiple design, construction, financing, operation, maintenance and entrepreneurial roles must find an exception to any applicable background rules.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury and
Shade Oladetimi, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Oladetimi may be contacted at shade.oladetimi@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim
November 08, 2017 —
Afua S. Akoto - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Recently, a New Jersey Magistrate ruled that an insurer did not have to provide coverage for a chocolatier’s property damage and business interruption losses due to Hurricane Sandy.
Madeline Chocolate Novelties Inc. (Madeline), a family-owned chocolatier in Queens Rockaway Beach, held a one-year all-risk policy with Great Northern Insurance (Great Northern). The policy contained a flood exclusion and a windstorm endorsement. When Hurricane Sandy hit in October 2012, Madeline suffered extensive damage and ceased operations during the ensuing holiday season. The chocolatier claimed $40 million in property damage and $13.5 million in business interruption losses and sought coverage under its policy. Great Northern paid just under $4 million and denied the remainder of the claim, citing the policy’s flood exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Akoto may be contacted at
asa@sdvlaw.com
Texas “your work” exclusion
January 06, 2012 —
CDCoverage.comIn American Home Assurance Co. v. Cat Tech, L.L.C., No. 10-20499 (5th Cir. Oct. 5, 2011), claimant Ergon hired insured Cat Tech to perform service on a reactor at Ergon’s refinery. During a start-up of the reactor after Cat Tech had completed its work, the reactor suffered damage. Cat Tech performed additional service and repairs. However, again upon start-up of the reactor, it suffered additional damage. Ergon hired another contractor to repair the reactor. Ergon initiated arbitration proceedings against Cat Tech. Cat Tech’s CGL insurer American Home defended Cat Tech against the Ergon arbitration under a reservation of rights.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights
November 26, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, & Colin T. Murphy - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Moorefield Construction, Inc. v. Intervest-Mortgage Investment Co., 230 Cal. App. 4th 146 (4th Dist. 2014), a California appellate court upheld an agreement executed by a general contractor which subordinated its mechanic’s lien to a construction lender’s deed of trust.
In 2006, developer DBN Parkside LLC ("DBN") purchased land in San Jacinto, California (the "property") to build a medical complex (the "project"). DBN hired Moorefield Construction, Inc. (“Moorefield”) to act as general contractor and sought funding for the project from Intervest-Mortgage Investment Company (“Intervest”). Prior to the recordation of the construction loan, and unbeknownst to Intervest, Moorefield cleared and grubbed the project site. Pursuant to the construction loan agreement, Intervest required DBN to assign its rights and remedies under the construction contract to Intervest. Under its construction contract, Moorefield agreed to subordinate its lien rights to the construction loan.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Steven M. Cvitanovic,
Jessica M. Lassere Ryland and
Colin T. Murphy
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Lassere Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Utah’s Highest Court Holds That Plaintiffs Must Properly Commence an Action to Rely on the Relation-Back Doctrine to Overcome the Statute of Repose
August 20, 2018 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistEarlier this summer, in Gables & Villas at River Oaks Homeowners Ass’n v. Castlewood Builders LLC, 2018 UT 28, the Supreme Court of Utah addressed the question of whether the plaintiff’s construction defects claims against the general contractor for a construction project were timely-filed, or barred by the statute of repose. In Utah, the statute of repose requires that an action be “commenced within six years of the date of completion.” The plaintiff alleged that its 2014 amended complaint naming the general contractor as a defendant was timely-commenced because, before the date on which Utah’s statute of repose ran, a defendant filed a motion to amend its third-party complaint to name the general contractor as a defendant, and the defendant subsequently assigned its claims to the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the filing of its 2014 amended complaint related back[1] to the date of its original complaint. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that an action is “commenced” by filing a complaint and that a motion for leave to amend does not count as “commencing” an action.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLPMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Bert L. Howe & Associates Celebrates 21-Year Success Story
July 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJuly 31, 2014 marks the 21st anniversary of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc. (BHA). The company commenced operations on this date 21 years ago today. During the last two decades, the landscape of the construction defect industry as a whole has shifted significantly. In the early nineties, the industry consisted substantially of multi-family residential projects, and construction defect litigation was a regional concern focused primarily on Southern California.
In the intervening 21 years, the construction defect industry has become a nationwide concern with the majority of states adopting builders’ right to repair legislation. To mark the 21st anniversary of BHA, we spoke with some of the key personnel to get some insights and impressions of how the industry and the company have evolved throughout the years.
On July 31st, 1993, Bert formed the company after a long career as a general contractor. He had become involved in the construction forensics field in 1988, providing general construction investigation and expert support services to legal professionals handling multifamily residential cases.
James Howe, the firm's current President and Chief Operating Officer, joined the company in November 1993. Previously, he had been recruited by The New York Times and served as operations manager for their Orange County, Los Angeles, and Inland Empire operations.
In January of 1994, operations were relocated to a small, 1,100-square foot, two-story walk-up in Anaheim Hills, California. James stated that they purchased furniture from Plummers, and he and Bert carted all of the furniture up the stairs and assembled it themselves over the weekend.
Immediately, they hired the first employee, Matthew J. Nardella, an architect and graduate from Cal Poly University, who also came to the firm with substantial construction and design experience.
Matt was scheduled to begin work on January 17th, 1994, the day of the Northridge earthquake. “I remember calling Bert,” Matt said. “‘Bert, is everything okay down there? Do you want me to come in?’ All of the news said freeways collapsed. I didn’t know what was going on with the roads,” Matt continued. “Bert’s like, ‘Yeah, nothing happened here, get over here.’ I said, ‘Okay, I’ll be there.’” Matt chuckled at the memory.
Even back in early 1994, Bert was in high demand as an expert witness. “He was everyone’s go-to-guy,” Matt Nardella stated. “The day a case was filed they would call him first.”
“He had a real desire,” Susan Howe, BHA’s Chief Executive Officer, said. “The primary way Bert worked on growing the business was by showing up, being prepared, and being full of ideas. If there was a problem or an issue, he would come up with a solution on how to handle it in the scope of what we were doing. He identified solutions and provided additional benefits to his clients. That’s how he grew the business, really. He grew each individual relationship.”
During that period, the type and scope of projects began to shift into a more diversified mix, including hotels, resorts, warehouses, storage facilities, restaurants, and more, though, at the time, BHA mainly provided expert witness support in construction defect cases involving attached housing developments, such as condominiums and townhomes.
Many of the other current key employees within the firm were hired during the mid-90s and continue with the firm today. Don MacGregor, John B. A. Mancini, and Jorge Porter were hired during this period. “The business was growing quickly and constantly from the moment I walked in the door,” Don MacGregor said, speaking of his early days with BHA. “Within just a few months of me being hired, the firm added six additional architects, engineers, and design professionals to meet client demands.”
Between 1995 and 1996, the company moved to a larger office (about 2,000 square feet), then added an additional 1,000 square feet of office space by adding on an adjoining unit. However, by 1997, James started looking for new, bigger office space. It was during this time that the firm’s current Chief Executive Officer joined the company.
Susan G. Howe left an executive position at a Newport Beach based business bank to focus her energy full time on the company's financial affairs and regulatory compliance issues.
When James walked in to what is now the firm’s Corporate Headquarters at 5415 E. La Palma in Anaheim Hills, it seemed enormous. At 5,500 square feet, it was twice the size of the modest current office. The space had previously been built out by American Express Travel Related Services.
In 1998, shortly after moving operations to Anaheim Hills, another key person in the BHA story joined the firm, Mark Chapman. "I remember interviewing Mark and feeling strongly that he was destined to become a recognized presence within this industry,” James Howe stated. “I was particularly intrigued with his dual credentials. Being a licensed professional engineer and a licensed general contractor provided the credibility he needed to speak to both civil engineering issues and general contracting or cost issues. This seemed like a win-win for the client. He was also a very strong negotiator coming in, and I respected that," James mused.
Mark recalled the recruitment process and his early discussions with James. "The job at BHA was different and intriguing enough to get me to make what ultimately turned out to be the right decision,” Mark stated. “I had been concerned with design for most of my career, but was interested in this highly specialized niche industry. I knew the industry existed, but it was still highly specialized at the time. I had no idea that I could make a career out of it. Nor did I realize that my skill set as an engineer and contractor was the perfect fit to handle the multi-faceted analysis that is sometimes required. The combination of design analysis, field work, meetings, and mediations turned out to be a refreshing career change.
"Working with Bert was a learning experience I will always remember and cherish,” Mark said. “He always said his door was open anytime I needed anything. When I did have a question, he would always take whatever time was needed to listen, think about it, and give me an answer. I was always impressed because not only did he always have an answer, it was always the right answer. Bert made me feel like family. I knew I had made it and gained his confidence when I walked into his office one day and asked his opinion and he simply said ‘You can handle it, I trust you.’ The past 16 years of my life have been the most rewarding personally and professionally. I owe it mostly to my experience at BHA, the Howe family's generosity, and my associates. It takes a great team to be successful. No one can do it by themselves.”
Soon enough, the once cavernous space was too small. The company was still growing, and arrangements were made to lease the adjoining unit, 5413, doubling the corporate office's footprint to a little over 12,000 square feet. James wondered if the firm would once again fill the new space: “Again, it seemed big at the time,” James said. “Somehow we filled it up, and now we’re busting out of it.”
John Springman joined BHA in June of 2000. John had worked with Bert throughout the years on several cases, John as the architectural expert and Bert as the general contracting/cost designee. They had worked so well together, that Bert spent a year or two recruiting him to join BHA.
By this time, Bert, Susan, and James had expanded their vision from only Bert as an expert witness, to BHA becoming a ‘multi-disciplinary’ firm with experts in differing fields. “At first, [Bert’s] primary form of testimony was cost estimating and standard of care for general contracting practices,” Susan said, “but he soon realized the value in developing a construction experts group comprising licensed architects, engineers, roofing and waterproofing experts, and building envelope specialists."
Susan explained how innovative the one-stop shop philosophy was back then. “[Bert] had not only to recruit John Springman and people like him, but we had to communicate the synergies, cost and productivity benefits to our existing client base, because it was innovative and different.”
However, it didn’t take long for BHA’s clients to reap the great benefits having access to a multi-disciplinary integrated support solution offered: “We were able to provide cost savings to our clients, because we were collecting the data and sharing it to all of the different disciplines within our own organization,” Susan said.
In the early 2000s, the projects began changing from condominium developer cases to single-family home cases. According to John, “The insurance industry started to write in exclusions for condominiums. Forced to go elsewhere for business, it went to single family homes.”
Also around this time, the Aas court decision changed the construction defect industry in California. The court ruled that you have to have damage to have a claim. “Just because a code wasn’t followed didn’t matter unless damage occurred from it,” John said. “It is under breach of contract and other things, but not negligence. Insurance covered negligence, so it took away insurance coverage. Then SB 800 [California’s Right to Repair Act] came about and took a lot of those things and brought them back in.”
While continuing to grow its California market, in 1999 BHA extended its reach into other regions beginning with Nevada and Arizona. By 2003, their reach extended to the east coast with satellite offices in Ohio, Kentucky, and South Carolina.
The types of projects BHA handled also diversified. BHA continued their work with production housing and condominiums and other attached housing, and they supplemented this work with cases involving high-rise and mid-rise buildings, hospitals, hotels, schools and universities, religious institutions, sprawling custom homes, retail complexes, as well as handling delay claims, premises liability, trip-and-fall cases, worker compensation files, and others.
Susan recalled one of BHA’s first international cases that involved a mining operation in Chile. “The core of it was construction defect, but our main job was design analysis and estimating on a really huge scale,” Susan said. The firm was engaged directly through AIG. “An adjuster there contacted Bert at the West Coast Casualty seminar, a few weeks later Bert and half of the office were in Santiago. It was a very memorable assignment; I remember the litigation part of the case was handled largely in the capital city of Santiago. But the mining operations were quite remote. Each of our employees had to undergo altitude testing prior to being performing site investigations at the mining and processing facilities.”
By 2010, BHA had grown to a staff of over forty associates, with satellite offices across the country to support the growing regional businesses. However, in September of 2011, BHA’s beloved founder and President Bert Howe passed away after suffering a heart attack.
While Bert’s presence is still missed by the associates and, most especially, his wife and son, the company was well-positioned to continue on. Susan explained that James for about five years before Bert’s death had been slowly deleveraging Bert from the business. “He was helping his father to be able to work less,” Susan stated. “And as a result of that, we had all these great people like Matt Nardella, John Springman, Mark Chapman, Brad Hughes, John Tolman, Charlie Miller, Jerry Miles, and others who had significant tenure with the firm. They had all worked very closely with Bert, and had really matured, and now they had a few extra gray hairs."
So what’s next for Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.? Susan sees greater technological changes, as well as diversification in the types of projects, and the ability to offer additional value added services to their clients.
James stated that BHA has the capability to competitively enter new markets providing a superior credibility, cost, and customer service proposition. “Leveraging from our smart office techniques, proprietary construction forensics technologies, and mature business processes, we could effectively go into any regional market as efficiently as any other company, more efficiently than most, and bring a great deal of value to clients with minimal capital investment in these various markets.”
James also sees more opportunities for career BHA employees who are ready to take on new responsibilities. “I would like to see, and I’m trying to create, new opportunities and challenges for people to continue to be upwardly mobile,” James said. “I am energized by the prospect of delivering additional value to clients, and providing additional opportunities for key people here to grow and improve their lives economically through the growth of the company."
BHA currently is comprised of sixty employees, serving clients throughout the U.S. with offices in Anaheim Hills, California; Sacramento, California; San Diego, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; Salt Lake City, Utah; Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; Miami, Florida; Houston, Texas; and San Antonio, Texas.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Do You Have the Receipt? Pennsylvania Court Finds Insufficient Evidence That Defendant Sold the Product
December 23, 2024 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Coway USA, Inc., No. 22-cv-3516, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192849, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant sold and/or marketed a product and, thus, could be held liable for an alleged defect in the product. The plaintiff, a subrogating insurance carrier, brought strict product liability and breach of warranty claims against the defendant—the installer of a bidet in its insured’s home—claiming that the defendant also marketed and sold the bidet. The sole evidence to support a finding that the defendant sold the bidet was the homeowner’s testimony that she bought the product from the installer. The court found that the insured’s testimony, without any documentation or other corroborating evidence, was insufficient to establish that the defendant sold the product. Since proof of a sale is a required element for strict product liability and breach of warranty claims, the District Court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the case.
This case involved a water loss to the Pennsylvania residence of Mikyung Kim and her husband Adrian Kim (collectively, the Kims) that was discovered in April 2021. An investigation revealed that the water loss originated from the failure of a bidet for a toilet in the second-floor bathroom. The Kims alleged that defendant, Coway USA, Inc. (Coway), sold the bidet and installed it around 2010. An employee of the plaintiff’s liability expert, a materials engineer, opined that a T-connector—a plastic valve that regulates the flow of water to and through the bidet—failed due to overtightening of the connector during the manufacturing process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Traub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle Obtains Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss in Favor of Defendant
August 16, 2021 —
Lisa M. Rolle - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Lisa M. Rolle obtained a motion to dismiss in favor of an international hotel chain. In the case brought before the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, the Plaintiff sustained a slip and fall injury in a Portuguese hotel (“Hotel”), which was allegedly caused by violations of building codes and New York and Portuguese negligence laws. The Plaintiff notes that the Hotel utilized the branding affiliated with the international hotel chain, and the named corporate entities are subsidiaries of the parent company of the international hotel chain. Further, Plaintiff alleged that the named corporate entities “owned, operated, maintained, and controlled” the Hotel where the accident occurred, as the international hotel had previously acquired the entity which owned the spa branding utilized.
In moving for pre-answer dismissal, Traub Lieberman acknowledged purchase of the managing agent of the Hotel, which became a subsidiary of their operations. However, Traub Lieberman asserted that the international hotel chain had not owned, operated, maintained, or managed the Hotel. Under New York law, parent corporations cannot be held liable for the actions of their subsidiaries, except in cases that support piercing the corporate veil. Traub Lieberman argued that the motion should be granted as a parent company cannot be held liable for acts committed by its subsidiary and further claimed that the parent company has never owned or operated the Hotel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub LiebermanMs. Rolle may be contacted at
lrolle@tlsslaw.com
