Chimney Collapses at South African Utility’s Unfinished $13 Billion Power Plant
November 21, 2022 —
Paul Burkhardt - BloombergSouth Africa’s newest coal-fired power plant, which has been under construction since 2008 and will cost an estimated 232 billion rand ($12.7 billion), shut one of its six generating units after a duct collapsed.
The unit at the Kusile plant could remain offline “for a few months” although a clearer estimate will be known over coming weeks, state-owned utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. said in a statement late Wednesday. The outage comes as the country endures record blackouts -- locally known as loadshedding.
The duct appeared to have sheared off from the unit’s main structure, a photo posted on Twitter by Anton Eberhard, a professor at the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business, showed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul Burkhardt, Bloomberg
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
President Trump Issued Two New EOs on Energy Infrastructure and Federal Energy Policy
May 20, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel1. The first EO is very comprehensive, affecting many federal agencies and departments, and is entitled “Promoting Federal Infrastructure and Economic Growth.” The EO emphasizes its concern with the need for infrastructure that “ is capable of safely and efficiently transporting these plentiful resources to end users.” To that end, the EO:
- (A) states the general policy that the U.S. Government is to promote private investment in the Nation’s infrastructure by establishing efficient permitting processes and procedures that avoid duplication and result in increased regulatory certainty;
- (B) reviews and revises existing federal guidance and regulations regarding Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), with particular emphasis on EPA’s guidance document, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and actions will be taken in accordance with a regulatory schedule set forth in the EO which has as its objective a notice of proposed rulemaking on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Section 401 regulations to be published in 12 months, with the final rules to be issued by May 2020;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Eleventh Circuit Finds No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims
November 15, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer on the general contractor's claims for damages due to faulty workmanship. Tricon Dev. of Brevard v. Nautilus Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 27317 (11th Cir. Sept .10, 2021).
Tricon was the general contractor for a condominium project in Florida. Tricon hired a subcontractor to fabricate and install metal railings for the project. The subcontractor was insured by Nautilus under two CGL policies. The policies had endorsements to add Tricon as an additional insured.
The subcontractor fabricated some of the railings, but they had defects and damage. Further they were not installed properly and did not meet the project's specifications. Tricon found another manufacturer to fabricate new railings to satisfy the projects' requirements. Tricon agreed to pay the cost of removing the subcontractor's railings and fabricating and installing new ones. If submitted a claim to Nautilus to cover these costs.
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
Occurrence Definition Trends Analyzed
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn The Legal Intelligencer, Gordon S. Woodward, partner at Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, analyzed the changing definition of occurrence in the insurance industry, and more specifically in Pennsylvania.
Woodward begins by going over “the traditional view of occurrence as it relates to coverage for faulty products or defective work,” in which “the existence of a defect in a product or an event in which a defective product injures only itself does not constitute an occurrence.” However, he stated that “there is a growing trend in favor of finding that an occurrence can include the circumstance where defective work results in damage only to the work or product itself (so long as the damage was neither intended nor expected by the insured).” Woodward also explained Pennsylvania developments and legislative changes (such as a South Carolina statute).
These changes need to be monitored, Woodward stated, “as they have the potential to dramatically alter the coverage landscape from one jurisdiction to the next.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects
October 19, 2017 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.The University of Central Florida (UCF) filed suit over alleged construction defects of their 45,000-seat arena including the claim of “premature wear of the steel,” spokesman Chad Binette stated, according to the Orlando Sentinel.
Bid documents suggest that rust may be an issue. UCF recently sought contractors for “Stadium Emergency Rust Repairs.” The Orlando Sentinel reported that the university stated “the word ‘emergency’ reflects deadlines for the football season instead of safety concerns.” Other documents also claimed ongoing rust remediation.
The UCF stadium had earned the nickname “Bounce House” from the arena “subtly swaying as fans jumped together to the song ‘Kernkraft 400’ by Zombie Nation. UCF spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2008 stiffening the underpinnings of the stadium by bolting additional steel to about 160 beams,” according to the Orlando Sentinel. Officials claim that the stadium was never unsafe.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Utah Becomes First State to Enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act
March 29, 2017 —
David Leta - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOn March 25, Utah became the first state to enact the Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act (“UCRERA”) which was drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (the “Conference”) and adopted by the Conference at its annual meeting in July 2015. The Utah Uniform Commercial Real Estate Receivership Act, (the “Utah Act”) mirrors UCRERA and applies to all commercial real property receiverships that are filed in the Utah District Courts on and after May 9, 2017.
The Utah Act provides both substantive and procedural guidance in an area of law that historically has been marked by inconsistency and uncertainty. This new law not only will provide judges, lenders and other receivership constituents with much needed instruction about their respective rights and responsibilities in commercial receivership proceedings, but it also is likely to reduce the cost and increase the predictability of these receiverships in Utah.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Leta, Snell & WilmerMr. Leta may be contacted at
dleta@swlaw.com
The Firm Hits the 9 Year Mark!
July 22, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIt was 9 years ago today that I announced the formation and start of my solo practice, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. Back then, my children were in elementary and middle school. Now I have two college students, one at Appalachian State University (with a budding photography talent that has provided some photos for this blog (including that on this post)) and the other at West Virginia University, and a rising high school junior. In just the past year I began a tenure on the Section Council Virginia Bar Association Construction and Public Contracts Law section and chair of its Legislative Committee where I assisted in the drafting of the change in the mechanic’s lien form that takes effect today..
I was named to both the Virginia Business Magazine Legal Elite in Construction Law and for a 3rd consecutive year to Virginia Super Lawyers in Construction Litigation. I spoke on how to deal with a DPOR complaint this past November at the 39th Annual Construction Law and Public Contracts seminar (one I highly recommend for any lawyer interested in construction).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
