COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Court Calls Lease-Leaseback Project What it is: A Design-Bid-Build Project

August 19, 2015 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
First there was “Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince.” Then there was “The Artist Formerly Known as Prince (Because he Changed His Name to a Symbol), But Then Realized That No One Could Pronounce the Symbol (and What Good is a Symbol if Everyone Has to Wave Their Hands Wildly at You to Get Your Attention or Scream ‘Hey You!’), and So Changed His Name Back to Prince Again.” Whatever name (or symbol) he was going by, everyone knew him as the guy who told us to party like it was 1999 (when 1999 still seemed like the distant future), who sang about a girl with a “pocket full of horses” (which totally flew past my junior high school brain at the time), and gave us such great metaphors as “if the elevator tries to bring you down, go crazy, punch a higher floor!” Like Prince or his symbol, sometimes it doesn’t matter what label you put on something when everyone knows what that something is. In law, we call it looking at the “substance” rather than its “form.” And, in the next case, Davis v. Fresno Unified School District, the California Court of Appeals for the Fifth District made quick work of a purported “lease-leaseback” project – a project delivery method available to school districts whereby a school district leases property it owns to a developer for a minimum of $1, who in turns builds a school facility on the site and leases the facility and the site back to the school district, who in turn takes ownership of the facility and site at the end of the lease – and called it for what it was: a run-of-the-mill “design-bid-build” project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

Breaking the Impasse by Understanding Blame

January 13, 2020 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
For this week’s Guest Post Friday (on a Thursday) here at Construction Law Musings, Victoria Pynchon (@vickiepynchon) joins us for the 4th time. Victoria is an attorney-mediator with ADR Services, Inc. in Century City; an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association in Los Angeles, California; and, a negotiation consultant and trainer world-wide. Victoria co-founded She Negotiates Training and Consulting in 2010 and writes for ForbesWoman at its She Negotiates blog. She is the author of one of my favorite books on conflict resolution, A is for A*@!#, the Grownups’ ABC’s of Conflict Resolution reviewed at Musings here. First Let’s Talk About Anger Please raise your hand if your clients — corporate clients — are angry about the burdens of litigation. Irritated with the document “demands” and interrogatories. Frustrated about the e-discovery. Ticked off at the way opposing counsel asks them questions as if they’re lying. Hot under the collar about the mounting attorneys’ fees and the distance between the day suit was filed and the probable day on which a trial might eventually be scheduled. Simmering about the time the litigation consumes, time they’d prefer to be spending doing their actual jobs — planning for and implementing business strategies for a profitable future instead of fighting about the unprofitable past. And we’re not even talking about your clients’ anger at the defendant who has stolen their intellectual property or stopped worked at the construction site or refused to release the remaining funds in the construction loan account. And if you believe that powerful people in highly successful and profitable businesses do not fear that litigation might hurt their careers, think again. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court

January 27, 2020 — Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated that the duty to defend broadly requires a liability insurer to defend an entire lawsuit against its insured, even where only some of the allegations are potentially covered. The court further held that the insured has no obligation to apportion defense costs among multiple implicated policies. The decision, Selective Way Insurance Company v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., can be found here. The coverage litigation arose out of a construction defect case against a general contractor. The general contractor tendered the action to its insurer, Nationwide, which, in turn, filed a declaratory judgment action against the various insurers of construction project subcontractors that had named the general contractor as an additional insured. Ultimately, the court granted a summary judgment motion declaring that all of the subcontractors’ insurers had a duty to defend the general contractor “because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit raised claims that potentially arose from the [s]ubcontractors’ work at the [construction site].” All of the subcontractors’ insurers settled with Nationwide except for one, Selective Way; and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on various issues. The jury found for Nationwide on all issues. Selective Way appealed. Selective Way argued on appeal that even if some of the allegations were covered under its policy, it had no obligation to defend the general contractor because its insureds, the subcontractors, could not have been responsible for all of the losses given the nature of their work. Further, Selective Way contended that if it was responsible for defending the general contractor, it was not responsible for the entire defense, and the general contractor was responsible for apportioning the costs among the various subcontractors. The panel disagreed on both points. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Housing to Top Capital Spending in Next U.S. Growth Leg: Economy

September 24, 2014 — Shobhana Chandra – Bloomberg
Bruce Hottle’s $10,000 computer systems upgrade in February at his Pennsylvania concrete plant may be his last investment for another two years. More than 1,100 miles south in suburban Miami, Maggie Cruz-Ledon and her husband have set a 2015 deadline to buy a house, upping their budget in the process. Hottle’s and Cruz-Ledon’s plans represent a sneak peek into the next leg of the expansion. Housing and business capital spending, two areas closely tied to swings in the world’s largest economy, are poised to diverge as home construction gives growth more of a boost in the long run while investment in new plants and equipment shows less promise, according to economists at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shobhana Chandra, Bloomberg
Ms. Chandra may be contacted schandra1@bloomberg.net

---

Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial

April 09, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In a recent hearing regarding the Cleveland, Ohio case Stonebridge Towers Homeowners v K&D Group, Judge John O’Donnell scheduled a trial for May 28th. Lead attorney for the homeowners stated that they would settle for “ten million and change,” according to The Plain Dealer. However, an attorney for K&D Group retorted that “the damaged condos could be fixed for much less money.” “The lawsuit claims negligent design, poor construction and multiple defects resulted from fraud and bribe-paying by the developers,” reported Plain Dealer. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Resolving Subcontractor Disputes with Pass-Through Claims and Liquidation Agreements

May 13, 2024 — Stephanie Cooksey - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Imagine a project where you are unable to reach final completion due to an unresolved subcontractor claim. If the project owner is responsible for the claim, and both the owner and subcontractor are entrenched in their positions, how would you resolve this dispute? The default option is a three-party lawsuit where the subcontractor sues you in your capacity as general contractor. By denying the claim, you bring the owner into the lawsuit as a liable party to the subcontractor’s claim. This option is efficient from the judicial system’s perspective, as it means one lawsuit instead of two. The subcontractor cannot sue the owner since the two have no contract between them. Thus, the subcontractor’s recourse is limited to suing the contractor. In the three-party lawsuit, you argue that if the subcontractor prevails in its claim against you, the owner is liable. If the owner successfully defends against the claim, the subcontractor takes nothing. Putting judicial economy aside, it may not make economic sense for contractors to have a lawyer involved in litigating a case where they have no skin in the game. Fortunately, there is a better option than the three-party lawsuit on multi-party construction projects. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stephanie Cooksey, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Cooksey may be contacted at scooksey@pecklaw.com

---

No Damage for Delay? No Problem: Exceptions to the Enforceability of No Damage for Delay Clauses

October 18, 2021 — Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocs
Introduction: Under a no-damage-for-delay clause, the owner is not liable for any monetary damages resulting from delays on the project. In lieu of monetary recovery, the contractor’s remaining remedy is a non-compensatory time extension. These clauses are common at the contractor-subcontractor interface as well. While no-damage-for-delay clauses are enforced in most jurisdictions, some states, either by statute or case law, have limited the enforceability of no-damage-for-delay clauses. Other states have also limited the enforceability of these clauses on state government contracts, and a select few have outlawed them on all projects regardless if they are publicly or privately owned. Additionally, for subcontractors on federal projects, the Miller Act may provide a way to avoid no-damage-for-delay and recover against the general contractor’s payment bond. This article provides an overview of no-damage-for-delay clauses and the exceptions to enforcement of these clauses. However, due to the consequences of a no-damage-for-delay clause, it is important to know the terms of your contract and the law that governs your project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Chris Broughton, Jones Walker LLP
Mr. Broughton may be contacted at cbroughton@joneswalker.com

---

Extreme Weather Events Show Why the Construction Supply Chain Needs a Risk-Management Transformation

July 24, 2023 — Brad Barth - Construction Executive
A perfect storm of recent extreme weather events has exposed the fragility of North America’s construction supply chains amid an increasingly fluctuating, fast-changing risk landscape. Supply chains that were already reeling from resurgent demand for raw materials coming out of the pandemic have been further disrupted by major storms such as recent tornados in Arkansas and Mississippi. Such events can have a ripple effect across many distinct supply lines as exemplified when the 2021 Texas freeze caused railroad closures and knocked out both petrochemical and semiconductor plants, causing shortages that affected construction and many other industries. The wide-ranging reverberations from these events demonstrate how stakeholders across all stages of capital projects increasingly share common vulnerabilities. Crucially, the way in which disruption from extreme weather events has caused project delays and cost overruns shows how time, cost and scope are increasingly interlinked and equally vulnerable to systemic risks. Traditional project-management methods where risks are not collectively managed and mitigated by all stakeholders are becoming increasingly inadequate, as risks to cost, time and scope are often considered in isolation. The domino effect of supply-chain disruption across capital projects similarly shows the inadequacy of project-management models where suppliers are not afforded a key stake in the project (or sometimes even a seat at the planning table). This traditional model cannot adapt to sudden, systemic risks that disrupt multiple suppliers and ripple out across all stakeholders, deliverables and project-management metrics. Reprinted courtesy of Brad Barth, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---