Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

OSHA Reinforces COVID Guidelines for the Workplace

March 08, 2021 — Joseph P. Paranac Jr. & Robert M. Pettigrew - White and Williams LLP
On January 29, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) updated its existing guidelines concerning coronavirus protection measures for the workplace. Focusing on the implementation of workplace protection programs, OSHA’s updated advisory guidance seeks to reinforce the benefits of implementing workplace policies along with the critical role employees have in combatting workplace spread. These guidelines are “intended to inform employers and workers in most workplace settings outside of healthcare to help them identify risks of being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 at work and to help them determine appropriate control measures to implement.” OSHA maintains that the implementation of a strong coronavirus protection program is the most effective way to combat virus spread in the workplace. OSHA has identified 16 categories or elements that an effective coronavirus protection program should address, which include appointing a workplace coordinator and conducting a workplace specific hazard assessment. This assessment should begin by identifying risks in the workplace and developing control measures to mitigate them. The guidance stresses that workers are often the most valuable source of information relating to conditions that contribute to the risk of spread. Reprinted courtesy of Joseph P. Paranac Jr., White and Williams LLP and Robert M. Pettigrew, White and Williams LLP Mr. Paranac may be contacted at paranacj@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Pettigrew may be contacted at pettigrewr@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

California Supreme Court McMillin Ruling

January 24, 2018 — Don MacGregor - CDJ STAFF
Reaction to the recent California Supreme Court ruling in McMillin Albany LLC v. The Superior Court of Kern County has been both swift and diverse, with many notable California law firms weighing in on the potential impact this landmark ruling may have on the Construction Industry and construction defect litigation. In our ongoing desire to serve as a meaningful and comprehensive provider of news and information for Construction and Claims Professionals, we have included a selected number of the submissions we have received regarding this very important judicial ruling. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

The “Builder’s Remedy” Looms Over Bay Area Cities

February 20, 2023 — Allan C. Van Vliet, Cara M. MacDonald, Robert G. Howard & Robert C. Herr - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Cities in the San Francisco Bay Area are frantically working to finalize their state-mandated “housing elements” in their General Plans by the January 31, 2023, deadline imposed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). For Bay Area cities like San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose and Berkeley, the plans must be approved by HCD on or before January 31, 2023. California municipalities have extra incentive to get their housing elements approved this year, because the failure to meet the deadline may subject them to a remedy known as the “builder’s remedy.” The failure of cities in California to adopt and implement adequate housing elements as part of their General Plans has contributed to the state’s serious housing affordability crisis. The “builder’s remedy” incentivizes cities to meet housing element deadlines, because failure to do so could cause cities to lose control over certain land use entitlement decisions for projects that include housing under the state’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Reprinted courtesy of Allan C. Van Vliet, Pillsbury, Cara M. MacDonald, Pillsbury, Robert G. Howard, Pillsbury and Robert C. Herr, Pillsbury Mr. Van Vliet may be contacted at allan.vanvliet@pillsburylaw.com Ms. MacDonald may be contacted at cara.macdonald@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Howard may be contacted at robert.howard@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Herr may be contacted at robert.herr@pillsburylaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Defense Victory in Breach of Fiduciary Action

February 26, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Earlier this month, Scott Calkins and Anthony Gaeta of Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli, LLP obtained a defense verdict in a breach of fiduciary duty action involving a high-rise condominium in downtown San Diego, California. The Association asked for excess of over $3 million, however, the jury returned with a 10-2 defense verdict in favor of K. Hovnanian. Cortez Blu Community Association, Inc. v. K. Hovnanian at Cortez Hill, LLC, et al. initially involved construction defect claims against the developer, K. Hovnanian, and the general contractor, Turner Construction, as well as a claim of breach of fiduciary duty. However, the construction defect claims settled prior to trial leaving only the breach of fiduciary claim. “While it is now becoming ever more common for attorneys representing homeowners associations to allege a breach of fiduciary duty by the developer, there has been little actual litigation of the issues surrounding those claims which test the viability of the allegations or the defenses to them,” defense attorney Anthony Gaeta stated. “A breach of a fiduciary duty by a developer, which is demonstrated to damage the viability of an HOA either to perform regularly scheduled maintenance, or replace building components from its reserves, has the potential in economic terms to surpass the damages from purported construction defects. The Plaintiff argued that K. Hovnanian breached its fiduciary duty to the Association by failing to set adequate reserves within the initial Department of Real Estate budget (“DRE”) for painting, caulking, and power washing the exterior of the building, referencing Raven’s Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co., Inc. (1981) 114 Cal. App. 3d 783. In response, K. Hovnanian stated that in part, the initial reserves as set forth in the DRE budget were adequate, good faith estimates and, therefore, there was no liability for breach of fiduciary duty. “Our case was exclusively concerned with the duties of the developer when forming the initial HOA, preliminary budgets, and reserves,” Gaeta said. “We litigated the duties and responsibilities of the initial board and whether a developer may rely on reports prepared by third-parties during the formation of a common interest development. The jury found our client’s actions and reliance on third-parties was reasonable and, thus, no breach of fiduciary duty occurred.” Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli is a general civil litigation firm representing clients throughout California and Arizona. You may learn more about the firm at www.cslawoffices.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

AI-Powered Construction Optioneering Today

April 08, 2024 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In this episode of the AEC Business Podcast, Aarni Heiskanen interviews René Morkos, the founder and CEO of ALICE Technologies. They discuss construction tech, AI, and ALICE Core, the company’s latest product launch. How the Construction Technology Landscape has Changed The construction tech industry has evolved significantly since 2015, as discussed with René. In 2015, there was a lack of understanding and reluctance toward construction tech, with some investors even hesitant to invest in the sector. However, by 2017-2018, there was a noticeable shift as construction tech became a sought-after investment opportunity. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Water Alone is Not Property Damage under a CGL policy in Connecticut

July 22, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
The Connecticut Appellate Court recently provided guidance on what does not constitute property damage under a typical contractor’s Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance policy in Westchester Modular Homes of Fairfield County, Inc. v. Arbella Protection Ins. Co., 224 Conn App. 526 (2024). In this case, the contractor defended construction defect claims brought by an owner and then sued its insurer to recover $500,000 in defense costs for failing to provide a defense under the contractor’s policy. In Connecticut, an insurer is obligated to provide a defense based on what is alleged in a complaint and if it has actual knowledge of any facts establishing a reasonable possibility of coverage. The contractor provided extrinsic evidence for two defects claimed by the owner: (1) windows were installed improperly such that water was collecting and will continue to collect in the window soffit areas and eventually rot the wall, and (2) the vapor barrier was not installed in the second-floor ceiling which will result in water condensation and water damage to the roof structure if not remedied. The insurer relied on typical provisions included in most CGL policies. The insurer has no duty to defend the insured against any suit seeking damages for property damage to which the insurance does not apply. The term “property damage” is defined as “physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property.” Under well-established Connecticut law, the phrase “physical injury” unambiguously connotes damage to tangible property, causing an alteration in appearance, shape, color, or some other material dimension. It is also well-established that claims for property damage caused by defective work are covered under a CGL policy but claims for repair of the defective work itself are not. The insurer denied any duty to defend because no coverage was triggered under the liability policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

Florida Accuses Pool Contractor of Violating Laws

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
One customer said that after his pool was finished, he started having problems with the concrete and tiles. He’s still waiting for the $7,300 he was awarded at arbitration. Others have complained that Nationwide Pools dug up their back yards and didn’t finish the work. Construction defects were not repaired, despite promises. And even after the company stopped doing any work anywhere, they continued to charge their customers “progress payments.” The State of Florida has stepped into this, seeking restitution for homeowners who were charged for partially built or defective pools, and preventing the company officials from ever working in the pool construction industry. According to the suit, customers who complained about delays were told “a series of lies and misrepresentations about ‘supply shortages’ and ‘damaged items’ in order to string them along.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Become Familiar With Your CGL Policy Exclusions to Ensure You Are Covered: Wardcraft v. EMC.

December 31, 2014 — Heather M. Anderson – Colorado Construction Litigation
In a recent case arising out of a denial of coverage for alleged construction defect claims concerning a pre-fabricated home, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado applied the 10th Circuit’s determination of what can constitute an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy. See Wardcraft Homes, Inc. v. Employers Mutual Cas. Co., 2014 WL 4852117 (D. Colo. September 29, 2014). William and Grace Stuhr sued Wardcraft, which manufactured pre-fabricated homes at a facility in Fort Morgan, Colorado, because their home was not completed as scheduled and contained various defects. The Stuhrs filed suit against Wardcraft alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. Wardcraft tendered the Stuhrs’ complaint to Employers Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”), which denied coverage under its policy and denied any duty to defend. According to EMC, the Stuhrs’ alleged construction defects were not property damages and there was no occurrence in connection with faulty workmanship. Approximately two and a half years after they filed their initial complaint, the Stuhrs filed an amended complaint. Wardcraft did not tender this amended complaint to EMC, and first informed EMC about the amended complaint about a year after it was filed. A month prior, Wardcraft settled with the Stuhrs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Heather M. Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at Anderson@hhmrlaw.com

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES