Texas Central Wins Authority to Take Land for High-Speed Rail System
October 03, 2022 —
Barclay Nicholson & Erica Gibbons - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogMove over luxury bus lines and quick flights. Central Texans should be on the lookout for bulldozers and train stops. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of Texas held that Texas Central Railroad & Infrastructure, Inc. and related entities (collectively “Texas Central”) have eminent domain authority to acquire property for a proposed high-speed rail system between Dallas and Houston.
[1] Specifically, the Court held that the corporation qualifies as an “interurban electric railway company” under the Texas Transportation Code. This ruling grants Texas Central the broad condemnation authority to procure land for the project.
Texas Central has Statutory Authority to Take Land
The plaintiff in the matter, a farm owner with property south of Dallas along the proposed path of the bullet train, challenged the companies power to condemn land. The landowner’s declaratory judgment action challenged Texas Central’s eminent-domain authority. Under Texas law, condemnation power must be conferred by the legislature, either expressly or by necessary implication.
[2]
Here, Texas Central was created for the purpose of constructing, acquiring, maintaining, or operating lines of electric railway between Texas municipalities. The Court found that Texas Central is engaged in activities to further that purpose. Therefore, the Court concluded, that although legislators did not contemplate high-speed railways at the time of drafting the Transportation Code, Texas Central nonetheless qualified as “interurban electric railway companies” under the statute.
Reprinted courtesy of
Barclay Nicholson, Sheppard Mullin and
Erica Gibbons, Sheppard Mullin
Mr. Nicholson may be contacted at bnicholson@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Gibbons may be contacted at egibbons@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insured's Experts Excluded, But Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment Denied
October 26, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiDespite barring the insured's expert witnesses from testifying as to the cause of the loss, lay witnesses were still available, making the district court's award of summary judgment to the insurer improper. Greater Hall Temple Church of God v. Southern Mut. Church Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21934 (11th Cir. July 15, 2020).
Hurricane Matthew damaged the Greater Hall Temple Church of God's (Church) roof. Leaks occurred, causing water damage to the Church's interior. A claim was submitted to Southern Mutual. The policy did not cover loss caused by water. Nor did it cover loss to the interior of buildings unless the rain entered through openings made by a specified peril. An independent adjuster found that the damage was caused not by wind, but by pre-exisiting structural issues. Southern Mutual denied the claim.
The Church filed suit. Southern Mutual moved for summary judgment and also moved to strike three of the Church's expert witnesses. The district court agreed that none of the witnesses could qualify as experts. Two of the witnesses did not have the requisite experience nor had they used a sufficiently reliable methodology formulating their opinions. A third expert was barred because his expert opinion had not been timely disclosed. Thereafter, Southern Mutual's motion for summary judgment was granted because the Church had not provided admissible evidence that damage to the Church's roof was caused by Hurricane Matthew.
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
NY Appellate Court Holds Common Interest Privilege Applies to Parties to a Merger
January 07, 2015 —
Jay Shapiro, Lori S. Smith and Brittney Edwards – White and Williams LLPThe common interest privilege is a doctrine that operates to maintain the confidentiality of communications between parties and counsel that have aligned interests. It is designed to encourage the free flow of information between these parties, and has historically been utilized primarily in the context of litigation. However, in Ambac Assurance Corp., et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department recently expanded the common interest privilege by holding that it is applicable in transactional contexts. 2014 WL 6803006, No. 651612/10 (1st Dep’t 2014). The Ambac court defined the common interest doctrine as “a limited exception to waiver of the attorney-client privilege” when a third party is present during a communication between an attorney and his or her client. The doctrine shields such communications from disclosure when they are (1) protected by the attorney client privilege and (2) “made for the purpose of furthering a legal interest or strategy common to the parties.”
Until Ambac, New York courts touched on, but never squarely addressed, whether a third requirement must be satisfied before the common interest doctrine can be invoked: “that the communication must affect pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.” The Ambac court addressed and rejected this purported third requirement while reversing the decision of the trial court which found that defendant Bank of America failed “to cite any New York case that applied the common-interest doctrine outside of either joint-representation of two parties by one attorney, or where parties reasonably anticipated litigation.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Jay Shapiro,
Lori S. Smith and
Brittney Edwards
Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at shapiroj@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Edwards may be contacted at edwardsb@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineer Proposes Slashing Scope of Millennium Tower Pile Upgrade
January 03, 2022 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordBased on further structural analysis and the success of a pilot program that installed three permanent piles using modified procedures, the structural engineer-of-record for the delayed perimeter pile upgrade of the 645-ft-tall Millennium Tower in San Francisco has proposed a significantly reduced scope for the project that he says would still arrest settlement and allow the slow recovery of some of the condominium building’s tilt.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Breach Of Duty of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Packaged With Contract Disputes Act Claim
March 27, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesAn interesting opinion on a motion to dismiss came out of the United States Court of Federal Claims dealing with the claim that the government breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing in administering the prime contract. The contractor’s argument was that the government breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying the contractor’s claim under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA). This was a creative claim and argument that deserves consideration because it tied in the contracting officer’s denial of the CDA claim for additional money with a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
In this case, Aries Construction Corp. v. U.S., 2023 WL 2146598 (Fed. Cl. 2023), a prime contractor was hired for a water pipeline construction project. The contractor encountered unexpected difficult site conditions that required additional equipment and labor. The contractor informed the contracting officer and alleged it was instructed to proceed with the additional equipment and labor. The contractor submitted a claim under the CDA but the contracting officer denied the claim. The contractor pursued the claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims arguing the government breached the contract and, of interest, breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The government moved to dismiss the breach of good faith and fair dealing claim arguing that besides failing to state a cause of action the Court of Federal Claims had no jurisdiction because the breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing was not properly presented to the contracting officer under the CDA. The Court of Federal Claims denied the government’s motion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Lets Broad General Release Stand in SB 800 Case
February 26, 2015 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPUnder California's SB 800 "Right to Repair Act," a builder may obtain a "reasonable release" to resolve a construction defect claim in exchange for a cash payment. So, what's a "reasonable release" under SB 800? This question was answered by the Second Appellate District in the case of Belasco v. Wells (filed 2/17/2015, No. B254525).
Plaintiff David Belasco ("Plaintiff") purchased a newly constructed residence in 2004 from the builder defendant Gary Loren Wells ("Wells"). In 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Wells with the Contractors' State License Board (the "Board") regarding certain alleged construction defects. The parties settled the 2006 action through written agreement that required Wells to pay Plaintiff $25,000 in consideration for Plaintiff executing a release and a Civil Code §1524 waiver of all known or unknown claims. In 2012, Plaintiff filed a subsequent action against Wells and Wells’ surety, American Contractors Indemnity Company ("American Contractors") (collectively "Defendants"), alleging a defect in the roof that was discovered by Plaintiff in 2011.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Colin T. Murphy, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Not in My Kitchen – California Supreme Court Decertifies Golden State Boring Case
November 26, 2014 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law BlogOn November 11, 2014, the California Supreme Court rejected the recent California Court of Appeals decision Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v Eastern Municipal Water District, 228 Cal.App.4th 273 (2014) which we wrote about earlier by “decertifying” it (meaning that lawyers cannot cite to the case as legal precedent) The decertification removed a decision that added substantially to the confusion as to when an action on a payment bond is timely filed. Even though the decision was determined in accordance with pre-2014 statutes, the case was relevant precedent for construction attorneys when determining time deadlines for filing a claim on a bond.
Background
In July of this year, the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a trial court’s granting of summary judgment against a project subcontractor Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. (GSB) who sued Safeco Insurance Company (Safeco) for unpaid contract amounts on a project payment bond issued by Safeco. Both at the trial level and on appeal Safeco successfully argued that GSB’s action on its payment bond claim was time barred by former California Civil Code Sections 3249 (now Section 9558), because it was filed more than six month after the period in which stop notices may be filed as provided by California’s Civil Code Section 3184 (now Section 9558).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Hughes may be contacted at
rhughes@wendel.com
Additional Insured Is Covered Under On-Going Operations Endorsement Despite Subcontractor's Completion of Work
December 20, 2017 —
Tred Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the homeowners did not own their homes when the subcontractors completed their work, the general contractor was still covered as an additional insured for the homeowners' suits based on the ongoing operations endorsement in the subcontractors' policies. McMillin Mgmt. Servs. v. Fin. Pac. Ins. Co., 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1000 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2017).
McMillin was the developer and general contractor for the project. Among the subcontractors were Martinez Construction Concrete Contractor, Inc. and Rozema Corporation. Martinez performed concrete flatwork between 2003 and November 2005. Rozema performed lath and stucco work between March 2003 and October 2005.
Lexington issued CGL policies to Martinez and Rozema. McMillin was an additional insured under both policies, "but only with respect to liability arising out of your [i.e., Martinez's or Rozema's] ongoing operations performed for [McMillin]." An exclusion provided that the insurance did not apply to property damage occurring after the insured subcontractor had completed operations on behalf of the additional insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
