There’s Still No Amazon for Housing, But Fintech’s Working on It
February 14, 2022 —
Patrick Clark - BloombergIt’s hard to imagine a better scenario for real estate technology than the one that played out in 2021. Low interest rates and pent-up demand ignited the hottest housing market on record, while the pandemic gave buyers and sellers new reasons to conduct business virtually.
And yet the year will be better remembered for the way some of the biggest names in the industry struggled. The highest-profile flop was Zillow Group Inc., the online listings giant that pulled the plug on its nascent instant homebuying operation in the face of mounting losses. Compass Inc., the tech-driven real estate brokerage, saw its shares plummet 50% as part of a broader selloff in property-related technology stocks. Better, an online mortgage company, fired 9% of its staff.
The bumpy year underscored a problem that’s been holding back the adoption of technology in real estate for the past two decades. Each sale of a home involves hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars, and no two properties are exactly alike. Silicon Valley-backed companies have gone a long way in making searching for homes and advertising them simpler and faster. But it’s a difficult process to move fully online and involves a lot of people such as agents, appraisers, brokers, and contractors, as well as entrenched interests. For example, Zillow’s house buying business—billed as a way for customers to get out of their homes quickly and speed the moving process—faltered in part because the company couldn’t find enough contractors to fix up those homes to resell them.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Clark, Bloomberg
American Arbitration Association Revises Construction Industry Rules and Mediation Procedures
April 08, 2024 —
Dennis Cavanaugh & Larry Grijalva - Construction Law ZoneThe American Arbitration Association (AAA), one of the longest-standing and experienced alternative dispute resolution (ADR) administrators, has unveiled a significant update to its Construction Industry Rules and Mediation procedures. This update, last revised in 2015, became effective March 1, 2024. Changes to the AAA Construction Industry Rules are significant as these rules are incorporated by default in American Institute of Architects standard construction forms, which are widely used in the industry.
Advancements in remote access technology drive a substantial number of new changes. Others are designed to streamline the arbitrator appointment process and certain prehearing procedures and to make arbitration more cost-efficient by enhancing the arbitrator’s case management authority. Some of the more notable changes are:
Fast Track
F-1: The limit for cases eligible for AAA’s Fast Track Procedures has been increased from $100,000 to $150,000 so long as no claim or counterclaim exceeds that amount.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dennis Cavanaugh, Robinson & Cole and
Larry Grijalva, Robinson & Cole
Mr. Cavanaugh may be contacted at dcavanaugh@rc.com
Mr. Grijalva may be contacted at lgrijalva@rc.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Generally, What Constitutes A Trade Secret Is A Question of Fact
February 01, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn construction, contractors maintain competitiveness by compiling, combining, utilizing, or developing proprietary and unique systems. The systems can be from a cost standpoint (determining general conditions or general requirement costs and percentages including percentages for insurance) or can be with respect to certain construction assembly or delegated design components. Such proprietary and unique systems are trade secrets to the contractors and efforts are taken to identify such information as confidential when proposing on a project. Contractors would not want such systems disclosed to others because it would dilute and impact what they believe is valuable and makes them competitive in the marketplace.
Florida’s Uniform Trade Secret Act (“FUTSA”) creates a statutory cause of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets. (FUTSA is set forth in Florida Statute s. 688.001 en seq.) FUTSA displaces or “preempts all claims [such as common law claims] based on misappropriation of trade secrets.” Alphamed Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Arriva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 391 F.Supp.2d 1148, 1167 (S.D.Fla. 2005). See also Fla. Stat. s. 688.008.
Florida Statute s. 688.002 (found here) defines the terms “trade secret” and “misappropriation.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Hundreds Celebrated the Grand Opening of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Southern California Riverside Construction Training Center
February 14, 2023 —
Associated Builders and ContractorsRIVERSIDE, Calif., Feb. 10, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Today the Associated Builders and Contractors Southern California Chapter (ABC), hosted hundreds of community members as they cut the "ribbon" of their third training center in Southern California.
"Today is a celebration, but it also represents a continued commitment by ABC and our membership to supply a skilled, trained, and safe construction workforce for Southern California," stated Nick McFayden, ABC SoCal's Board Chair.
Jon Krystafik, Vice Chairman of the Training Trust commented, "Our training facility is unique. You may have toured other facilities but with ours you will see we don't just train one craft. Here Apprentices and Craft trainees are receiving cutting edge training in Electrical, Plumbing, Low Voltage and HVAC/Sheet Metal." Krystafik added, "Our trustees had a dream 10 years ago to train residents in the inland empire. Today it is a reality!"
ABC Southern California Chapter is an association of contractors that believe in the Merit Shop Philosophy. Merit shop encourages open competition and a free enterprise approach that awards contracts and employment based solely on merit, safety, quality, and cost, regardless of labor affiliation. The chapter is one of 68 throughout the country and represents nearly 400 member companies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Finds That SIR Requirements are Not Incorporated into High Level Excess Policies and That Excess Insurers’ Payment of Defense Costs is Not Conditioned on Actual Liability
April 22, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Deere & Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co. (No. A145170, filed 2/25/19), a California appeals court held that the insured was not required to pay additional self-insured retentions (SIRs) in order to trigger higher level excess coverage because the retained limits applicable to the first layer of coverage did not also apply to the higher-layer excess policies.
In Deere, the insured was sued for injuries from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing assemblies used in Deere machines. In a declaratory relief action against its umbrella and excess insurers, the case was tried on: (1) whether the higher-layer excess policies were triggered once the first-layer excess policy limits, which were subject to an SIR paid by Deere, had been exhausted; and (2) whether the insurers’ indemnity obligation extended to Deere’s defense costs incurred in asbestos claims that had been dismissed. The trial court found in favor of the insurers, concluding that the retained limits in the first layer of coverage also applied to the higher-layer excess, which was not triggered until Deere paid additional SIRs. The court also concluded that the insurers were not obligated to pay defense costs when underlying cases were dismissed without payment to a claimant either by judgment or settlement.
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
More Hensel Phelps Ripples in the Statute of Limitations Pond?
February 03, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs is always the case when I attend the Virginia State Bar’s annual construction law seminar, I come away from it with a few posts on recent cases and their implications. The first of these is not a construction case, but has implications relating to the state project related statute of limitations and indemnification issues for construction contracts brought out in stark relief in the now infamous Hensel Phelps case.
In Radiance Capital Receivables Fourteen, LLC v. Foster the Court considered a waiver of the statute of limitations found in a loan contract. The operative facts are that the waiver was found in a Continuing Guaranty contract and that the default happened more than 5 years prior to the date that Radiance filed suit to enforce its rights. When the defendants filed a plea in bar stating that the statute of limitations had run and therefore the claim was barred, Radiance of course argued that the defendants had waived their right to bring such a defense. The defendants responded that the waiver was invalid in that it violated the terms of Va. Code 8.01-232 that states among other things:
an unwritten promise not to plead the statute shall be void, and a written promise not to plead such statute shall be valid when (i) it is made to avoid or defer litigation pending settlement of any case, (ii) it is not made contemporaneously with any other contract, and (iii) it is made for an additional term not longer than the applicable limitations period.
The Circuit Court and ultimately the Supreme Court agreed with the defendants. In doing so, the Virginia Supreme Court rejected arguments of estoppel and an argument that a “waiver” is not a “promise not to plead.”
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
Indemnification Provisions Do Not Create Reciprocal Attorney’s Fees Provisions
November 21, 2018 —
CDJ STAFFIn a good, recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit in International Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Americabe-Moriarity, JV, 2018 WL 5306683 (11th Cir. 2018), held that Florida Statute s. 57.105(7) cannot be used to shift attorney’s fees in a contractual indemnification clause in a dispute between a general contractor and subcontractor’s performance bond surety, when the dispute does not involve an actual indemnification claim stemming from a third-party.
In this case, a prime contractor terminated a subcontractor and looked to the subcontractor’s performance bond surety to pay for the completion work. The subcontractor had a standard AIA A312 performance bond that requires the prime contractor to comply with the terms of the bond, as well as the incorporated subcontract, in order to trigger the surety’s obligations under the bond. The surety filed an action for declaratory relief against the prime contractor arguing that the prime contractor breached the terms of the performance bond through non-compliance thereby discharging the surety’s obligations. The trial court agreed and the surety moved for attorney’s fees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Court Addresses When Duty to Defend Ends
August 24, 2020 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo E. Meta - White and WilliamsThere are certain generally held principles regarding an insurer’s duty to defend. One of these principles is that an insurer has a duty to defend its insured if the complaint states a claim that potentially falls within the policy’s coverage. However, there is a lack of consistency regarding the point at which the insurers’ duty to defend ends. When the only potentially covered claim has been dismissed, must the insurer continue to defend?
Certain jurisdictions, such as Hawaii and Minnesota, have held that an insurer’s duty to defend continues through an appeals process, or until a final judgment has been entered, disposing of the entire case. Commerce & Industry Insurance Company v. Bank of Hawaii, 832 P.2d 733 (Haw. 1992); Meadowbrook, Inc. v. Tower Insurance Company, 559 N.W. 2d 411 (Minn. 1997).
Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania took a different approach to this question in Westminster American Insurance Company v. Spruce 1530, No. 19-539, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106534 (E.D. Pa. June 17, 2020) – holding that the trial court’s dismissal of the only potentially covered claim was sufficient to terminate Westminster’s duty to defend.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Margo E. Meta, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
