COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

User Interface With a Building – Interview with Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties

September 14, 2017 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
Architect Mies van der Rohe once said that, “An office is a machine for working in.” From a maintenance person’s point of view that might be true. For a user, an office should offer a productive working environment. A pilot project, led by Esa Halmetoja of Senate Properties, is trying to find out how a digital twin of a building would serve both the needs of the maintenance worker and the office worker. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at info@aepartners.fi

---

Demand for New Homes Good News for Home Builders

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Stock prices are up for both KB Homes and Lennar, with shares of KB Homes up 7 % and Lennar up 5.5%. Both home builders are profiting from increased demand for new homes while supplies were scarce. Both firms have seen a strong increase in orders during the last quarter. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Florida Legislative Change Extends Completed Operations Tail for Condominium Projects

December 10, 2024 — Holly A. Rice - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
The Florida Legislature recently passed House Bill 1021 which amended Florida Statute § 718.124. The July 1, 2024 amendment changes Florida’s statute of repose (“SOR”) trigger date for condominium projects. Now, the SOR trigger for existing condominium projects will be governed by Florida Statute §718.124, not Florida Statute § 95.11. Most critically, Florida Statute § 718.124 changes the trigger events for when the “clock” starts running and impacts how long the SOR runs. Notably, Florida Statute § 718.124 already governed the trigger event for the statute of limitations (“SOR”) for condominium projects. One important overarching takeaway for contractors to carefully assess is that the change in the “trigger” event may result in the SOR concluding at a later date than originally planned – affecting time on the risk and, critically, the availability of insurance. The standard approach of using a static 10-year completed operations tail on a condominium construction insurance program may now be insufficient in certain circumstances. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Holly A. Rice, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Rice may be contacted at HRice@sdvlaw.com

---

Georgia Supreme Court Says Construction Defects Can Be an “Occurrence”

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The Georgia Supreme Court has ruled in an insurance coverage case, concluding that under a commercial general liability policy, defective construction can count as an occurrence. William Wildman and Kent Collier discuss the case in a Legal Alert published by their firm, Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP. The court decisions came about after the U.S. Court of Appeals certified the question to the Georgia Supreme Court. Wildman and Collier note that the Georgia Supreme Court “after analyzing recent Georgia decisions regarding CGL insurance and construction defects, as well as noting cases from other jurisdictions, held that ‘an “occurrence” as the term is used in a standard CGL policy, does not require damage to the property or work of someone other than the insured.” The court also “held that an ‘occurrence’ must arise from liability for a causeof action that is consistent with the concept that the ‘occurrence’ is ‘accidental.’” However, they note that the court also concluded that “certain ‘business risk’ coverage exclusions common in many standard CGL policies may apply to exclude coverage for defective construction even though such defective construction constitutes an ‘occurrence.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer

March 01, 2012 — CDJ STAFF

The South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.



Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.



The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”



Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”



The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”



Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”



The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.



Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.



Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”



The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.

Read the court’s decision…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

PCL Sues Big Bank for $30M in Claimed NJ Mall Unpaid Work

July 16, 2023 — Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record
Denver-based PCL Construction Services sued JPMorgan Chase Bank in federal court earlier this month for $30 million in claimed unpaid work and interest related to construction of a $5-billion northern New Jersey mall and entertainment center that also faces other financial challenges since its COVID-19-impacted opening in 2019. Reprinted courtesy of Mary B. Powers, Engineering News-Record ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Your Work Exclusion Applies to Damage to Tradesman's Property, Not Damage to Other Property

March 30, 2016 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Mexico Court of Appeals presented a cogent analysis of claims for construction defects and the application of the "your work" exclusion under a CGL policy in Pulte Homes of New Mexico, Inc. v. Indiana Lumbermens Ins. Co., 2015 N.M. App. LEXIS 134 (N. M. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2015). Pulte built 107 homes. Pulte contracted with 'Western Building Supply (WBS) to provide windows and sliding glass doors for the homes. Pulte was named as an additional insured under WBS's policy with Lumbermens (ILM). In 2007, a large group of homeowners sued Pulte, alleging numerous construction defects in their homes. Among the defects were windows that leaked and sliding glass doors that stuck and did not close completely. Many of the homeowners arbitrated their claims against Pulte. In May 2009, Pulte tendered its first demand for a defense to ILM. The arbitration award against Pulte found that windows and doors did not operate properly and had been replaced by Pulte. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages

November 05, 2014 — Jody Shenn - Bloomberg
Count Two Harbors Investment Corp. (TWO) among investors looking for profits in riskier home loans -- and expecting a market for bonds backed by them to re-emerge even with safer issuance showing limited signs of life. The real-estate investment trust, whose 74 percent total return over the past three years is almost double that of peers, recently told the lenders that have been selling it big, high-quality mortgages that it’s now also seeking to purchase non-prime loans and those with low down payments, Chief Investment Officer Bill Roth said today during a conference call for analysts and investors. “Our expectation and certainly hope would be as this market opens up and becomes fairly meaningful that a securitization market would develop,” he said. Of course, he sees the timeline as “probably measured in years, not months.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net

---