Port Authority Approves Subsidies for 2 World Trade Project
December 10, 2015 —
David M. Levitt – BloombergThe Port Authority of New York and New Jersey approved subsidies to help expedite the construction of lower Manhattan’s 2 World Trade Center, where Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox Inc. and News Corp. companies have a tentative deal to move their headquarters from midtown.
Developer Silverstein Properties Inc., which leases the sites for 2 World Trade Center and two other towers from the Port Authority, would receive a rent break that amounts to $9 million over the life of the lease, Authority Director Patrick Foye said, just before the agency board unanimously approved the proposal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. Levitt, Bloomberg
District Court Allows DBE False Claims Act Case to Proceed
February 23, 2017 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental ConditionsLast week, I posted about how whistleblowers continue to receive large settlements related to DBE fraud. A somewhat recent case from the federal court in Maryland shows how whistleblowers are ferreting out DBE fraud on construction projects receiving any form of federal funding.
The Case
The case involves a bridge painting project in Maryland that was let by the Maryland State Highway Administration. The contract required the prime contractor to meet a 15% DBE participation goal. The prime contractor submitted a bid stating it would have 15.12% DBE participation. After it was awarded the contract, the prime contractor – as is typical – submitted additional forms certifying to the MSHA that 15.12% of its contract price would be performed by a DBE firm. The prime contractor indicated that one DBE subcontractor, Northeast Work and Safety Boats, LLC (“NWSB”), would perform the 15.12% of the work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase
October 19, 2017 —
Nick Wood, Adam Lang, Noel Griemsmann, & Brianna Long – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn Pawn 1st v. City of Phoenix, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a Court of Appeals rule that would have unduly restrained alienation of property in Arizona. The Court of Appeals found that the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment acted beyond its authority when it granted an area variance to a pawn shop where the special circumstances causing a need for the variance existed before the pawn shop purchased the property. Under Arizona law, boards of adjustment cannot grant an area variance where the special circumstances requiring the variance are self-imposed. The Court of Appeals adopted a rule that knowledge of special circumstances at the time of purchase made the special circumstances self-imposed, foreclosing the purchaser’s ability to obtain a variance. This rule would have severely restricted property purchasers’ ability to obtain area variances in Arizona and by extension likely strained property transactions.
The underlying case involved a pawn shop that was proposed in southeast Phoenix. After the property purchaser obtained approval for a required use permit (for a pawn shop) and a variance (for a 500 foot residential setback) from the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment, a competing pawn shop filed a special action arguing that the variance was a use variance, not an area variance, beyond the board of adjustment’s authority.
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer attorneys
Nick Wood,
Adam Lang,
Noel Griemsmann and
Brianna Long
Mr. Wood may be contacted at nwood@swlaw.com
Mr. Lang may be contacted at alang@swlaw.com
Mr. Noel may be contacted at ngriemsmann@swlaw.com
Ms. Brianna may be contacted at bllong@swlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Embattled SNC-Lavalin Files Ethics Appeal, Realigns Structure
May 01, 2019 —
Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordEven as Montreal design-build giant SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. faces corporate bribery charges on old Libya contracts, the firm now seeks, in an April 4 federal court appeal, to reverse Canadian prosecutors’ 2018 rejection of a negotiated settlement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, ENRMs. Rubin may be contacted at
rubind@enr.com
Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon
May 01, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j.
Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs.
Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit.
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
Luxury Villa Fraudsters Jailed for Madeira Potato Field Scam
September 25, 2018 —
Franz Wild - BloombergFour men and a woman convicted of conning people to invest in a fraudulent luxury villa construction scheme on a potato field in the Portuguese island of Madeira were sentenced to as long as 5 1/2 years in a U.K. jail.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Franz Wild, Bloomberg
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL
January 24, 2018 —
Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, & BargerRICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ.
GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ.
JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ.
DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ.
The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98.
By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in
Liberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in
McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.
After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred.
The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely
a remedy for construction defects but
the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage.
The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed.
The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard Glucksman,
Glenn Barger,
Jon Turigliatto and
David Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Apprentices on Public Works Projects: Sometimes it’s Not What You Do But Who You Do the Work For That Counts
September 17, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIf you’re a public works contractor in California you’re familiar with prevailing wages. The Prevailing Wage Law, a Depression era law designed to encourage the hiring of local labor, sets a minimum wage that employers must pay to workers on public works projects.
But because the Prevailing Wage Law sets a floor on wages it also limits the opportunity for lesser-skilled workers to gain experience. To address this, the Prevailing Wage Law permits contractors to pay apprentices a lower “apprentice wage” if the apprentice is enrolled in a state-approved apprenticeship program and requires contractors who hire workers in an “apprenticeable craft or trade” to hire a certain number of apprentices.
But are particular apprentices required to be hired depending on the type of work being performed? In Henson v. C. Overaa & Company, Case No A139966 (June 29, 2015), the California Court of Appeals for the First District held that apprentices are required to be hired based on the craft or trade of the journeymen performing work not based on the type of work being performed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
