Utah Supreme Court Allows Citizens to Block Real Estate Development Project by Voter Referendum
June 10, 2019 —
Sean M. Mosman & Mark O. Morris - Snell & Wilmer Under ConstructionThe Utah Supreme Court recently decided Baker v. Carlson, 2018 UT 59, which considered a developer’s ongoing effort to build a mixed-use, part-residential and part-commercial development on the site of the long-defunct Cottonwood Mall located in Holladay, Utah. On November 28, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the Third District Court’s ruling that a voter referendum to block the development was valid. This ruling calls into question the certainty of investment-backed real estate decisions in Utah and thus could carry negative implications for the Utah construction and real estate development communities.
The Cottonwood Mall opened in the early 1960s, and for several decades was a popular regional shopping destination. But the mall fell on financial hard times in the mid-1990s, and since 2007 the 57-acre lot has sat vacant. Around that time, the owner of the lot made plans to redevelop it, and asked Holladay City to rezone the site to permit mixed uses. In response, the City rezoned the lot as Regional/Mixed-Use (R/M-U). The City also created a process to control the development of an R/M-U zone, requiring prospective builders to first submit a site development master plan—which sets forth guidelines for the overall development and design of the site—to the City for approval. After the City approves a master plan, the developer must enter into a development agreement with the City, giving the developer certain rights and addressing other development-related issues.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sean M. Mosman, Snell & Wilmer and
Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Mosman may be contacted at smosman@swlaw.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage for Construction Defects Barred by Business Risk Exclusions
September 01, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAlthough the court determined there was an occurrence, coverage was excluded by the business risk exclusions. See Cont’l W. Ins. Co. v. Shay Constr. Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82839 (D. Colo. July 28, 2011).
White was the general contractor on the project. White had three subcontracts with Shay to provide framing, siding, and related work on the project. Shay was insured under a CGL policy issued by Continental Western.
Two of Shay’s subcontractors furnished materials, labor and equipment to Shay. These subcontractors filed suit in state court alleging they had not been compensated for the work and materials. White and Shay were named as defendants. White cross claimed against Shay, alleging Shay had breached its obligations under the subcontracts. Several allegations sounded in contract. Other allegations, however, contended Shay had performed defective work and had damaged the work of other trades in correcting deficiencies in its own performance.
Shay sought coverage under Continental Western’s policy. Continental Western filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve
October 26, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWould you believe me if I told you that this year could have been worse for builders? Had COVID-19 not hit, the Colorado Legislature may have passed bills that would have had a severely negative impact on the home building industry. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature temporarily adjourned in mid-March, 67 days into the 120-day legislative session. After a two-month recess, the Legislature returned for approximately one month to pass critical bills including the state budget, the school finance act and what to do with the money from the federal CARES Act. Of the bills on the calendar when the Legislature temporarily adjourned, legislators focused on those that were “fast, free, and friendly,” and let the others fall by the wayside.
Bills that died included SB 20-138, which would have extended Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims from six plus two years to 10 plus two years. The bill also contained a number of accrual and tolling provisions, which would have made it harder for builders to convince tribunals that claims were untimely. This bill died on the Senate floor, for lack of support. We will see whether plaintiffs’ attorneys will revive this effort next year.
SB 20-093, while not an outright ban on arbitration or a legislative overturning of the Vallagio decision, would have made it harder to administer and more difficult to get cases into arbitration. The bill died under the “fast, free, and friendly” test, i.e., it faced too much opposition. I expect to see this bill again next year, in some form.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Include Contract Clauses for Protection Against Ever-Evolving Construction Challenges
May 30, 2022 —
Michael Henry & Kevin J. Riexinger - Construction ExecutiveThe first quarter of 2022 provided a valuable glimpse into some of the major issues the construction industry can expect to continue impacting jobsites for the rest of the year.
Early in the pandemic, construction was not immune from the shut-downs that swept across market sectors. Workers were staying home to shield themselves and their families from the COVID-19 virus (and variants). This caused delays with construction projects and failures to meet negotiated benchmarks or deadlines. Contractors were left to wonder whether they remained obligated to perform under their contracts, or whether COVID-19 allowed them to invoke force majeure clauses. Over the past two years, there has been much debate about whether force majeure clauses encompass COVID-19 risks.
Traditionally, force majeure is only invoked for significant weather events or natural disasters. Unsurprisingly, outcomes of legal actions regarding COVID-19 and force majeure varied by state and by contract. It didn’t take long for contractors to seek a more predictable and certain solution.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Henry & Kevin J. Riexinger, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Riexinger may be contacted at kriexinger@gllawgroup.com
Mr. Henry may be contacted at MbHenry@tcco.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Liquidated Damages: Too High and It’s a Penalty. Too Low and You’re Out of Luck.
November 21, 2022 —
Christian Fernandez - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogLiquidated damages provisions in commercial and residential real estate contracts play a vital role when a transaction goes south, and should be given careful consideration when negotiating a real estate contract. Liquidated damages may be referred to in a variety of ways, such as “earnest money,” a “good-faith deposit,” or a “non-refundable deposit,” but each typically denote a negotiated amount of money that a seller is entitled to retain should a buyer breach a purchase and sale agreement. The purpose of liquidated damages is to provide the parties with certainty when actual damages arising from a breach of contract may be difficult to calculate. Accordingly, liquidated damages provisions alleviate the need for potentially expensive litigation associated with proving damages.
While parties are free to negotiate the amount of liquidated damages, the amount must approximate the loss anticipated at the time of contracting, or the loss that actually occurs as a result of a breach. Arizona courts have held that where the amount of liquidated damages is unreasonably large when compared to the anticipated loss or actual loss, the liquidated damages provision is unenforceable as a penalty. A breaching party faced with high liquidated damages will often seek to invalidate the provision as a penalty. If a court agrees, the non-breaching party may still recover damages, but must go through the process of proving such damages. Therefore, when negotiating a real estate contract, consideration should be given as to whether a liquidated damages amount is arbitrarily high when compared to an anticipated loss in the event of a breach.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christian Fernandez, Snell & WilmerMr. Fernandez may be contacted at
cfernandez@swlaw.com
Philadelphia Revises Realty Transfer Tax Treatment of Acquired Real Estate Companies
January 05, 2017 —
Nancy Frantz, Kevin Koscil & James Vandermark – White and Williams LLPOn December 8, 2016, the Philadelphia City Council voted unanimously to amend the ordinance governing realty transfer taxes in an effort to increase tax revenue. The current combined realty transfer tax rate in Philadelphia is 4.0% and will increase to 4.1% after December 31, 2016.[1] The amendment significantly impacts how taxes are imposed upon transfers of ownership in so-called “real estate companies” and effectively eliminates deals commonly referred to as 89-11 transactions. The amendment mainly focuses on transfers of real estate companies, rather than direct transfers of real estate, but it also affects certain direct transfers of real estate in exchange for noncash consideration.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP
Nancy Frantz,
Kevin Koscil and
James Vandermark
Ms. Frantz may be contacted at frantzn@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Koscil may be contacted at koscilk@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Vandermark may be contacted at vandermarkj@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gone Fishing: Tenant’s Insurer Casts A Line Seeking To Subrogate Against The Landlord
October 17, 2022 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn J&J Fish on Ctr. Str., Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-644-bhl, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16361, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (District Court) recognized that “[t]here will be no further fish fries on Center Street until someone pays to repair the collapsed floor at J&J Fish on Center Street, Inc. (J&J Fish).” The contenders were: 1) J&J Fish; 2) its’ insurer, Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (Insurer); and 3) J&J Fish’s landlord, Vision Land, LLC (Vision). Recognizing Insurer’s right to subrogate against Vision based on the terms of the parties’ lease, the District Court held Insurer owed J&J Fish coverage for the losses it sustained, but that Insurer could subrogate against Vision for anything it had to pay J&J Fish.
In J&J Fish, Vision and J&J Fish signed a lease (Lease) for a building (the Building) located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Lease required Vision to “purchase and keep in full force and effect on the building(s) . . . insurance against fire and such other risks as may be included in all-risks policies . . .” Vision, however, never obtained any insurance on the Building. Pursuant to the Lease, Vision also agreed to “maintain and repair the structure including the slab floor and exterior walls of the Premises.”
With respect to J&J Fish, the Lease required J&J Fish to maintain “Physical Damage insurance, including but not limited to fire . . . and all other risks of direct physical loss as insured . . . for the full replacement cost of all additions, improvements (including leasehold improvements) and alterations to the Premises.” J&J Fish purchased a commercial property and casualty insurance policy (the Policy) from Insurer. The Policy covered “additions, improvements . . . and alterations” as the Lease required. In addition, it insured the Building itself against “collapse,” subject to certain exceptions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Stadium Intended for the 2010 World Cup Still Not Ready
June 18, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFFour years after the HM Pitje Stadium in Pretoria, South Africa was expected to open, the stadium, which was meant to be used during the 2010 World Cup, remains closed. IOL News reported that upgrades began in 2006, “[b]ut since then there have been delays and problems with construction which may see the stands having to be rebuilt.” One of the defects that prevented the stadium from being used for the World Cup was that the slope of the main pavilion was too steep.
City of Tshwane spokesman Selby Bokaba told IOL News: “Upgrading of the stadium will take approximately two calendar years, with the completion date reliant on the approval and budget availability.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
