Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Give Way or Yield? The Jurisdiction of Your Contract Does Matter! (Law note)

March 05, 2015 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
Have you ever been to England? If so, you’ve likely seen their version of our “Yield” sign– the “Give Way” sign. It is a bit jarring to those from this side of the “big pond”. Similarly, contracts can be worded differently– and, interpreted differently– depending on the state that you are in. This is why it is always a good idea to have your contract or proposal vetted for the state(s) where you provide professional services. When confronted with a “give way” sign you have the general idea of yielding, but might be confused by that whole “left side of the road” thing in some countries, where if you are turning right, you must give way to all vehicles coming towards you including those turning left. Likewise, you might have a good understanding of your construction contract in one state, but not how it would be interpreted in another state. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling

February 01, 2021 — Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems. As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The Prompt Payment Act Obligation is Not Triggered When the Owner Holds Less Retention from the General Contractor

October 27, 2016 — John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC
Most states have laws known as “prompt payment” statutes which govern the timing of payments on public works projects[i] from project owners to general contractors, and from general contractors to subcontractors.[ii] The purpose of these statutes is to ensure that contractors and subcontractors who may have less leverage than the project owners and prime contractors, respectively, are paid for their work on a timely basis. Prompt Payment Act cases are rare, and, since many of the prompt payment statutes are founded on the same principles, when we come across a Prompt Payment Act case, it is “blog worthy.” This dispute arose from the construction of the Exposition Light Rail Line Project connecting downtown Los Angeles with Culver City on which FCI/Fluor/Parsons (“FFP”) was the prime contractor, and Bloise Construction, Inc. (“Bloise”) was the excavation subcontractor to FFP. Under the prime contract, Expo,[iii] the owner, was permitted to withhold ten percent of the payments owed to FFP, and FFP, pursuant to its subcontract with Bloise, was entitled to also withhold ten percent of the payments to Bloise as retention. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman, PLLC
Mr. Ahlers may be contacted at jahlers@ac-lawyers.com

Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Duty to Defend When Case Law is Uncertain

October 12, 2020 — Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and Williams
The Connecticut Supreme Court recently addressed whether an insurer has a duty to defend when faced with legal uncertainty as to whether coverage is owed: for example, when there is no Connecticut case law on point, and courts outside of the state have reached conflicting decisions. The Court suggested that an insurer, in these circumstances, should defend the insured, and should seek a declaratory judgment from a court as to whether coverage is owed. The issue in Nash St., LLC v. Main St. Am. Assurance Co.,[1] arose out of a home collapse in Milford, Connecticut. The owner of the home (Nash) hired a contractor (New Beginnings) to renovate the home. New Beginnings, in turn, retained a subcontractor to lift the house and to do concrete work on the foundation. While the subcontractor was lifting the house, the house shifted off the supporting cribbing and collapsed. Reprinted courtesy of Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and Austin D. Moody, White and Williams Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwiliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

NYC’s Developers Plow Ahead With Ambitious Plans to Reshape City

May 03, 2021 — Patrick Clark & Natalie Wong - Bloomberg
New York City’s builders have had a curious reaction to a pandemic that emptied Manhattan’s office towers, shuttered restaurants and kept tourists home. Over the past year, as scores of businesses closed and many residents beat it out of town, developers doubled-down on visions of steel-and-glass grandeur, hatching plans that could transform the city. Vornado Realty Trust recently said it will demolish the Hotel Pennsylvania and add an office tower taller than 1,200 feet (366 meters) at the site by Madison Square Garden. Near Grand Central Terminal, giant towers are sprouting, including a project to redevelop the Grand Hyatt next to the transit hub. The developers are proposing a 1,600-foot skyscraper that would be among the tallest in the Western Hemisphere. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Clark & Natalie Wong, Bloomberg

California Makes Big Changes to the Discovery Act

March 04, 2024 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Beginning January of 2024, California amended the Civil Discovery Act to mirror the Federal Rules and require that any party appearing in a civil action to provide initial disclosures to any other party demanding the same. In January of 2024, California amended the Civil Discovery Act, specifically C.C.P. section 2016.090, to affirmatively require that any party appearing in a civil action to provide initial disclosures to any other party demanding the same. In an effort to reflect the Federal Rule 26 disclosure requirements, as many other States have adopted, California will now also mandate (upon demand) that a party produce evidence without an arduous and possibly duplicative effort. In other words, this initial disclosure will require a party making initial disclosures of persons or records to additionally disclose persons or records that are relevant to the subject matter of the action and to disclose information and records regarding insurance policies or contracts that would make a person or insurance company liable to satisfy a judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Construction Litigation Roundup: “It’s None of Your Business.”

May 22, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
“It’s none of your business.” So said a construction surety resisting discovery of its underwriting file in the context of the surety’s affirmative $2 million indemnity claim (on a $25M bond), and a Missouri federal court agreed. In response to the surety’s indemnity suit, the defaulted principal contractor and additional corporate indemnitors offered up defenses of “lack of consideration and the doctrine of unclean hands, laches, waiver and/or estoppel, among others.” The indemnitors also issued written discovery to the surety seeking to obtain the surety’s underwriting file – which would reveal the underpinnings of the surety’s decision to issue the bond to the contractor – asserting “that the underwriting and due diligence documents are relevant to the[] lack of consideration defense. [Indemnitors] claim that ‘[t]his defense is based on Defendants' belief that Plaintiff did not conduct any reasonable inquiry into any Defendants' ability to pay or financial resources and therefore Plaintiff did not rely on the financial condition of each Defendant in determining whether to issue the bonds.’" Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Is Ohio’s Buckeye Lake Dam Safe?

March 12, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Columbus Business First, a report by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that “assessed the structural integrity of the Buckeye Lake Dam [located in Ohio] and found serious problems that present significant risks to the public.” Problems arose, allegedly, from “construction of homes [and] pools and patios that have been built into the earthen embankment.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers report stated (according to Columbus Business First) “there was a potential for an eight-foot wave of water, mud and debris that would inundate an area as far as Hebron, more than two miles away.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES