With Historic Removal of Four Dams, Klamath River Flows Again Unhindered
October 21, 2024 —
Tim Newcomb - Engineering News-RecordIn a period of 16 months, four dams built between 1903 and 1962 came down as part of a monumental effort to clear 35 miles of the Klamath River spanning Oregon and California. The project owner, the Klamath River Renewal Corp., describes it as the largest dam removal effort in U.S.—and possibly world—history.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
French Laundry Spices Up COVID-19 Business Interruption Debate
April 20, 2020 —
Jeffrey J. Vita & Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaOn March 26, 2020, Michelin-rated Napa Valley restaurants, French Laundry and Bouchon Bistro, and their celebrity chef, Thomas Keller, filed the second known
coronavirus-related declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit by a restaurant. The restaurants filed their DJ against Hartford Fire Insurance Company just seven days after Napa County issued a Shelter at Home Order.1 Chef Keller’s suit comes on the heels of the first such suit by a restaurant seeking to recover business income losses, filed by iconic New Orleans French Quarter restaurant Oceana Grill2 on March 17, just four days after the Louisiana governor issued an order prohibiting gatherings of more than 250 people.
As local governments seek to protect their citizens and prevent an onslaught of cases in area hospitals, they are issuing various “stay home,” “shelter at home,” and similar orders to force social distancing and to help flatten the curve of the growth in COVID-19 cases. Restaurants nationwide are especially hard hit by these orders, as many of these orders contain size limitations on gatherings, which have required that restaurants and bars limit capacity (as in the March 13th Louisiana order). Other such orders require non-essential businesses to “cease all activities in the County” (as in the Napa County Shelter at Home order). The Napa County order does not exempt restaurants as “essential businesses,” except when providing food for take-out or delivery. Other orders, still, directly address restaurants and require them to cease allowing public consumption of food and beverages (as in the subsequent, March 17th Louisiana order).
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Ms. McDonald may be contacted at mam@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fraud and Construction Contracts- Like Oil and Water?
December 31, 2014 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsWe have discussed the interaction of fraud and breach of contract actions on occasion here at Construction Law Musings. In most cases the two do not mix. Between the economic loss rule and the general desire of Virginia courts to keep contract actions and tort actions separate, most of the time it is impossible to make a fraud action relating to a contract stick in a construction context.
The Virginia Supreme Court recently confirmed this fraud/contract distinction. As discussed in the Virginia Real Estate Land Use & Construction Law blog (Thanks Heidi!), Station No. 2, LLC v. Lynch, et. al. strongly re-states the Virginia courts’ strong reluctance to allow a breach of contract turn into a claim for fraud. Without re-iterating the great discussion of the facts of the case found in the post by Heidi Meizner, suffice it to say that certain contractual promises between and among the parties were not fulfilled much to Station 2, LLC’s detriment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Open & Known Hazards Under the Kinsman Exception to Privette
February 15, 2018 —
Frances Ma & Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Publications & InsightsGonzalez v. Mathis, 2018 WL 718528 confirms the difficulties a defendant will face when trying to overcome the Kinsman exception to the
Privette doctrine on a dispositive motion when dealing with an open and obvious hazard. There, a professional window washer fell off a roof while walking along a parapet wall constructed by the owner of a home.
The window washer filed suit against the homeowner and alleged three dangerous conditions on the roof: (1) the parapet wall forced those who needed to access a skylight to walk along an exposed two-foot ledge that lacked a safety railing; (2) dilapidated and slippery roof shingles; and (3) the lack of tie off points that would allow maintenance workers to secure themselves with ropes or harnesses. The homeowner filed a motion for summary judgment under
Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689 and its progeny which prohibits an independent contractor from suing his or her hirer for workplace injuries (
“Privette doctrine”).
There are two exceptions to the
Privette doctrine. First, a hirer cannot avoid liability when he or she exercises control over the manner and means in which a contractor does his or her work and that control contributes to the injuries sustained – known as the
“Hooker exception” (premised on the holding of
Hooker v. Department of Transportation (2002) 27 Cal.4th 198). Second, a hirer may be found liable if he or she fails to warn the contractor of a concealed hazard on the premises – known as the
“Kinsman exception” (premised on the holding of
Kinsman v. Unocal Corp. (2005)).
Reprinted courtesy of
Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court Grants Petition for Review Regarding Necessary Parties in Lien Foreclosure Actions
August 17, 2017 —
Lindsay K. Taft - Ahlers & Cressman PLLCFor several years, the requirements for which parties must be named in a lien foreclosure action when a release of lien bond is in place have been cloudy. RCW 60.04 et seq., the “mechanics’ lien” or “construction lien” statute, provides protection for a party or person who provides labor, materials, or equipment to a construction project. That person or party, if not paid, can file a lien against the construction project property to secure recovery. As the lien impacts the property by “clouding title” and could potentially result in foreclosure of the property, the statute sets forth strict requirements with respect to timing, notice, and parties. For example, the lien must be recorded within 90 days of the person or party’s last day of work or materials or equipment supplied, and the lien claimant must then give a copy of the claim of lien to the owner or reputed owner within 14 days of the lien recording. RCW 60.04.081.
The statute also allows a property owner or other party to “free” the property from the lien prior to the claim being resolved by issuing a release of lien bond. While the claim is still in dispute, the lien then attaches to the bond and not the property. The same rules about foreclosure, however, still apply but not without some confusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMs. Taft may be contacted at
ltaft@ac-lawyers.com
Settling with Some, But Not All, of the Defendants in a Construction Defect Case
March 28, 2018 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesConstruction defect lawsuits can be complex multi-party disputes, especially when the plaintiff is doing what is necessary to maximize recovery. This means the plaintiff may sue multiple defendants associated with the defects and damage. For example, the owner (e.g., plaintiff) may sue the contractor, subcontractors, design professionals, etc. due to the magnitude of the damages. In many instances, the plaintiff is suing multiple defendants for overlapping damages. The law prohibits a plaintiff from double-recovering for the same damages prohibiting the windfall of a plaintiff recovering twice for the same damages. Perhaps this sentiment is straight common sense, but this sentiment is a very important consideration when it comes to settling with one or more of the defendants, while potentially trying the construction defect case as to remaining defendants.
Analysis and strategy is involved when settling with some but not all of the defendants in a construction defect case (and, really, for any type of case). Time must be devoted to crafting specific language in the settlement agreements to deal with this issue. Otherwise, the settlement(s) could be
set-off from the damage awarded against the remaining defendants.
The recent decision in
Addison Construction Corp. v. Vecellio, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D625(a) (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) details the analysis and strategy required when settling with some but not all of the defendants in a construction defect case, and the concern associated with a trial court setting-off the settlement amount from the damage awarded against the remaining defendants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
U.S. Government Bans Use of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements between Nursing Homes and Residents, Effective November 28, 2016
November 17, 2016 —
Jeffrey M. Daitz & Joseph Vento – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On September 28, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued a new rule that bans federal funding to any nursing home that requires its residents to enter mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements upon admission. The rule prevents nursing homes from forcing residents to submit any disputes concerning care, payment for services, etc., to mandatory binding arbitration rather than to a court.
Mandatory arbitration agreements are frequently used in many types of industries and have been for decades. However, recent eff orts by several consumer advocate groups have sought to curtail the use of mandatory arbitration clauses in industries where the individuals who executed such agreements have little to no bargaining power. According to these groups, nursing home residents are potentially more vulnerable than most to being unwittingly bound by such agreements because of the nature of the admissions process. The new rule is set to take effect on November 28, 2016, and will only apply to agreements entered into after that date.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey M. Daitz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Joseph Vento, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Daitz may be contacted at jdaitz@pecklaw.com
Mr. Vento may be contacted at jvento@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Jersey Strengthens the Structural Integrity of Its Residential Builds
March 11, 2024 —
Matthew D. Stockwell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn response to the June 2021 Champlain Towers collapse in Florida, New Jersey supplemented its State Uniform Construction Code Act by enacting legislation (effective January 8, 2024) to strengthen laws related to the structural integrity of certain residential structures in the State. The legislation applies to condominiums and cooperatives (but not single-family dwellings or primarily rental buildings) with structural components made of steel, reinforced concrete, heavy timber or a combination of such materials. The legislation also supplements the Planned Real Estate Development Full Disclosure Act to ensure that associations created under the Act maintain adequate reserve funds for certain repairs.
The legislation requires structural engineering inspections of any primary load-bearing system (structural components applying force to the building which deliver force to the ground including any connected balconies). Buildings that are constructed after the date the legislation was signed must have their first inspection within 15 years after receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. Buildings that are 15 years or older must be inspected within two years of the legislation. Thereafter, the structural inspector will determine when the next inspection should take place, which will be no more than 10 years after the preceding inspection, except for buildings more than 20 years old which must be inspected every five years. Also, if damage to the primary load-bearing system is otherwise observable, an inspection must be performed within 60 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew D. Stockwell, PillsburyMr. Stockwell may be contacted at
matthew.stockwell@pillsburylaw.com
