California Ranks As Leading State for Green Building in 2022
February 01, 2023 —
The U.S. Green Building CouncilWashington, D.C. (Jan. 17, 2023) – The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) today released its annual ranking of U.S. states leading the way on green building, and California made the top ten at number four. USGBC's ranking is based on LEED-certified gross square footage per capita over the past year. The LEED rating system is the world's most widely used green building program and was created by USGBC as a leadership standard defining best practices for healthy, high-performing green buildings.
"It was a strong year for LEED certifications across the U.S. as companies and governments embrace LEED as a tool for meeting ESG goals and organizational commitments to climate action, occupant wellbeing and resource efficiency," said Peter Templeton, USGBC president and CEO. "In California and beyond, LEED buildings are environmentally friendly, cutting their emissions and waste, and use less energy and water. At the same time, they also help reduce operational and maintenance costs, contributing to the bottom line."
In 2022, California had 386 LEED-certified projects, totaling over 96.4 million square feet or 2.44 square feet per capita. Office buildings, residential apartment buildings, government buildings and schools were among those that were LEED-certified last year.
The states ranking ahead of California were Massachusetts (3.76 LEED-certified square feet per resident), Illinois (3.47 square feet per capita), and New York (3.17 square feet per capita).
Additional information on the 2022 rankings, along with a listing of notable projects, can be found
here.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wait, You Want An HOA?! Restricting Implied Common-Interest Communities
September 17, 2018 —
Neil McConomy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogWhile the butt of many jokes and a thorn in the side of some property owners, homeowners associations (“HOAs”) serve the vital function of collecting and disbursing funds to care for and maintain common areas of residential developments. Without HOAs, neighborhood open spaces, parks, and other amenities risk falling into disrepair through a type of tragedy of the commons, wherein residents use such amenities but refuse to subsidize care and maintenance for these common areas believing someone else will pony-up the funds. HOAs, when properly organized and managed, avoid this problem by ensuring everyone pays their fair shares for the common areas. Colorado’s Common Interest Ownership Act (“CCIOA”), C.R.S. § 38-33.3-101 et seq., sets forth the manner in which such common-interest communities, and their related associations, must be established.
Earlier this summer, the Colorado Supreme Court issued an opinion limiting the application of previous case law that allowed for the establishment of common-interest communities (and their related HOAs) by implication. See McMullin v. Hauer, 420 P.3d 271 (Colo. 2018). Prior to McMullin, Colorado courts had been increasing the number of factual scenarios implying the creation of common-interest communities under CCIOA. See e.g., Evergreen Highlands Assoc. v. West, 73 P.3d 1 (Colo. 2003) (finding an implied obligation of landowners to fund a pre-existing HOA’s obligations); DeJean v. Grosz, 412 P.3d 733 (Colo. App. 2015) (finding an implied right of a homeowner to found an HOA after the developer filed a declaration expressing an intent to form one but ultimately failed to do so); and Hiwan Homeowners Assoc. v. Knotts, 215 P.3d 1271 (Colo. App. 2009) (finding the existence of an HOA despite no common property existing within the development). The McMullin opinion highlights the importance of strict compliance with CCIOA to preserve common areas in a development, ensure the ability to fund maintenance of such areas, and avoid future litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Neil McConomy, Snell & WilmerMr. McConomy may be contacted at
nmcconomy@swlaw.com
They Say Nothing Lasts Forever, but What If Decommissioning Does?
June 10, 2019 —
Stella Pulman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe looming decommissioning liabilities of offshore energy producers have been a focus of the federal government in recent years. One recent case out of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Taylor Energy v. United States, highlights the tension between the federal government’s desire to maintain financial security for decommissioning activities, and that of an operator whose security is tied up indefinitely while the government awaits technological advances to allow for safe decommissioning.
The case relates to a trust agreement between Taylor Energy and the United States, established to secure Taylor’s decommissioning liabilities for 28 wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Taylor completed certain decommissioning work for which it was reimbursed by the trust. However, with over $400 million remaining in the trust, Taylor and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) concluded that the ecological benefits of further decommissioning would be outweighed by the ecological risks. But despite recognizing that the limitations of current technology made the environmental impacts of further decommissioning work unjustifiable, the BSEE declined to release Taylor from its decommissioning obligations and instead decided to await “changes in technology and a better understanding of the undersea environment.” Because Taylor’s decommissioning obligations remained in place, the U.S. refused to release the remaining funds in the trust.
Taylor claimed that the United States should release the remaining funds in the trust because “decommissioning the remaining wells is not ‘currently technologically feasible.’” Taylor asserted that Louisiana law applied to the trust agreement, and that under Louisiana law every contract must be completed within an ascertainable term. By holding the trust funds until decommissioning was complete, Taylor argued that the government was essentially holding the funds in perpetuity given the technological infeasibility of completing decommissioning. Taylor also asserted that the agreement was premised on an impossibility (the full decommissioning of the wells), and/or a mutual mistake of the parties (that the wells could be decommissioned).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stella Pulman, PillsburyMs. Pulman may be contacted at
stella.pulman@pillsburylaw.com
Planned Everglades Reservoir at Center of Spat Between Fla.'s Gov.-Elect, Water Management District
January 02, 2019 —
Miami Herald - Engineering News-RecordDec. 11 -- Florida's incoming governor stopped short of demanding South Florida water managers step down over a contentious land deal with sugar farmers, saying he would instead await a recommendation from his transition team. That doesn't mean their days may not be numbered.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Angela Cooner Receives Prestigious ASA State Advocate Award
April 12, 2021 —
Angela Cooner - Lewis BrisboisPhoenix Partner Angela L. Cooner recently received the American Subcontractors Association, Inc. (ASA) 2020 State Advocate award during ASA’s Virtual Awards Presentation, which took place on February 25. ASA selected Ms. Cooner as the recipient of this honor based upon the significant time that she spent and value she added to subcontractor advocacy in Arizona over the last year.
In nominating Ms. Cooner for this award, ASA of Arizona stated, “Angie’s dedication and track record are second to none. However, it is her leadership in managing the recent merger between the Arizona State Contractors’ Coalition (AZSCC) and Arizonans for Fair Contracting (AFC) where she has distinguished herself most notably.” Moreover, ASA explained that Ms. Cooner’s dedication “has allowed ASA of Arizona to renegotiate a new contract with a government affairs firm that helped secure victory on a critical proportional liability bill and begin the upcoming legislative session on the right foot.” According to ASA, Ms. Cooner has donated the equivalent of $120,000 in billable hours to the organization through her work for AFC and as legal counsel for ASA of Arizona’s Board of Directors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Angela Cooner, Lewis BrisboisMs. Cooner may be contacted at
Angela.Cooner@lewisbrisbois.com
Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?
January 02, 2024 —
Susana Arce - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A majority of insurance policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer. The cooperation clause generally states, “the insured agrees to Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the suit.”
The “cooperation clause” is often an afterthought because once litigation has ensued an insured is focused on other important considerations. However, insureds should not forget that complying with the cooperation clause can make the difference between the insurer covering or denying a claim.
The Cooperation Clause in Action
The Court in
HDI Glob. Specialty SE v. PF Holdings, LLC,1 highlighted the importance of cooperating with an insurance carrier. In the underlying litigation, residents of an apartment complex sued four entities, all insured by the same insurance policy: two were named insureds and two were additional insureds. The primary insurer provided a defense for the named insureds.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Arce may be contacted at
SArce@sdvlaw.com
Mandatory Arbitration Provision Upheld in Construction Defect Case
May 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Superior Court of New Jersey reversed the decision in Frumer v. National Home Insurance Company (NHIC) and the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation (HBW), stating that the mandatory arbitration provision within the Frumer’s home warranty policy was binding.
The Frumers alleged that the construction defects were discovered immediately after moving into their million dollar home. After failing to achieve any results from dealing with the builder, they turned to their home warranty. There was some dispute over claims, and a settlement offer was rejected by the Frumers. The Frumers elected to commence litigation rather than utilize the binding arbitration.
The NHIC and the HBW filed a motion to compel arbitration, however, the motion judge denied the motion: “…the Warranty leaves open the option for [plaintiffs] to commence litigation, which [plaintiffs have] done in this case. The clause also states that ‘the filing of a claim against this limited Warranty shall constitute the election of remedy and shall bar the Homeowner from all other remedies.’ However, the provision does not state that the filing of a claim elects arbitration as the exclusive remedy, and any ambiguity in the language must be inferred against the drafter.”
The NHIC and the HBW appealed the decision. The Superior Court reversed the decision: “Where, such as here, the homeowner files a claim against the warranty for workmanship/systems defects, the warranty clearly and unequivocally establishes binding arbitration as the exclusive remedy. There is, however, no election of remedies for a dispute involving a major structural defect claim. The warranty clearly and unequivocally establishes binding arbitration as the exclusive remedy.”
Charles Curley of Halberstadt Curley in Conshohocken, Pa., the local counsel for National Home and Home Buyers, told the New Jersey Law Journal that “the ruling reaffirms New Jersey’s commitment to enforcing arbitration agreements and requiring people to go to mandatory arbitration when the contracts call for it.”
“At this point, their hope is that the warranty company will do what it's supposed to do — repair covered defects,” Eric McCullough, the Frumer’s lawyer said to the New Jersey Law Journal.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ten Years After Colorado’s Adverse Possession Amendment: a brief look backwards and forwards
September 25, 2018 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn response to national outrage over an infamous adverse possession case in Boulder, Colorado, in which a lawyer and a judge intentionally took their neighbors’ undeveloped land through adverse possession, the Colorado legislature amended the state’s adverse possession statute (C.R.S. § 38-41-101) to make the claim significantly harder to prove. It did this because it believed “there were insufficient ‘obstacles’ to establishing a claim for adverse possession under the existing law.”[1] Effective July 1, 2008, the amendment created a heightened burden of proof, additional element requirements, and the possibility of a losing defendant recovering money from successful plaintiffs for the value of the land they took and the taxes the defendant had paid on that land.
The Boulder case eventually settled, but the resulting statutory amendments have drastically changed the landscape of Colorado’s adverse possession law. Ten years later, this blog post takes a brief look at the amended statute, the impact it has had, and questions that have yet to be resolved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
