Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Implementation of CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards Delayed

February 25, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
In his California Construction Law blog, Garret Murai published the recent Industry Bulletin released by the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) regarding the delayed implementation of the California Building Energy Standards. CSLB has delayed implementation from January 1st, 2014 to July 1, 2014 due to “unanticipated delays in developing complete performance compliance software for 2013 Public Domain Residential and Nonresidential California Building Energy Code Compliance guidelines, necessitating the CEC action to change the effective date of energy related provisions.” The Industry Bulletin summarized changes regarding various codes including 2013 California Energy Code, Part 6; 2013 California Administrative Code, Chapter 10, Part 1; and, 2013 CALGreen, Part 11. According to the bulletin, as reported by the California Construction Law blog, “Contractors are encouraged to contact their local building enforcement agencies for assistance and/or clarification.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Utilities’ Extreme Plan to Stop Wildfires: Shut Off the Power

October 28, 2024 — Mark Chediak - Bloomberg
A growing number of utilities are resorting to an extreme measure to prevent their equipment from sparking catastrophic wildfires: turning off the power. Electric companies serving about 24 million homes and businesses across the fire-prone US West now have plans to preemptively cut electricity during dangerous fire conditions, according to an analysis of data compiled by researchers at Stanford University. The proactive blackouts, however, run counter to the power companies’ main mission — which is to keep the lights on. And that’s angering customers and officials. Lawsuits — and the billions of dollars of damage claims that come with them — are an increasing concern among utilities, said Michael Wara, who leads the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Mark Chediak, Bloomberg

What If an Irma-Like Hurricane Hit the New York City Metro Area?

September 20, 2017 — Christopher Flavelle & Henry Goldman - Bloomberg
It sounds like a Hollywood disaster movie. A Category 5 hurricane churning in the mid-Atlantic suddenly veers northwest -- and heads straight for New York City. The good news is that, for now, experts agree a Cat 5-sized deluge appears to be a meteorological impossibility in the U.S. Northeast, given today’s sea temperatures and weather patterns. The bad news: A storm doesn’t need to pack the wallop of a Harvey or an Irma to knock out the region. Superstorm Sandy, whose wind speed was a relatively tame 80 miles per hour when it reached New Jersey, did $70 billion of damage in October 2012. Irma made landfall in Puerto Rico at 185 mph. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Flavelle, Bloomberg and Henry Goldman, Bloomberg Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Roof's "Cosmetic" Damage From Hail Storm Covered

August 19, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that cosmetic damage to the insured's roof was covered. Advance Cable Co., LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9805 (7th Cir. June 11, 2015). The insured submitted a claim to its insurer, Cincinnati, for damage to the metal roof of its building caused by a hail storm. The insured inspected the roof with a claims representative for Cincinnati. Dents were spotted, but there was little other evidence of damage. The loss was estimated at $1,894.74. A check for this amount was sent to the insured. Six months later, the insured considered selling the building. A potential buyer inspected the roof and found hail damage. At the request of the insured, Cincinnati conducted another inspection of the roof. Again, dents of approximately 1 inch in diameter were found. The inspector noted that the denting would not affect the performance of the roof panels or detract from their life expectancy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Construction Litigation Roundup: “A Less Than Valiant Effort”

June 21, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A Miller Act claimant in federal court in New Jersey in relation to a VA medical center project found itself on the wrong end of the law and was sent packing by the court. The claimant had supplied products for the project to general contractor Valiant Group, LLC, pursuant to a purchase order from the GC. The general contractor allegedly refused to pay the supplier, leading to the claim against the GC and its payment bond surety in the amount of $126,900. The supplier also sought recovery under the federal Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3901-07. State law claims were asserted as well. Chipping away at the federal law claims – the claims forming the asserted basis for federal court jurisdiction for the case – the court first dispensed with the Prompt Payment Act claim. According to the court, allegations that the general contractor had “wrongfully and improperly withheld remuneration… despite [having] ‘received payment from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’" – whether or not accurate – did not trigger the Act. The court wrote: “The Prompt Payment Act was enacted ‘to provide the federal government with an incentive to pay government contractors on time by requiring agencies to pay penalties . . . on certain overdue bills . . . [and] was later amended to include provisions applicable to subcontractors.’… Absent from the Act, however, are ‘any explicit provisions for subcontractor enforcement if the prime contractor fails to make timely payment.’… This is because the Act ‘merely requires that the prime contractor's contract with the subcontractor include the specified payment clause. [It] does not require the prime contractor to actually make payments to the subcontractor[.]’… The Act, therefore, does not ‘give subcontractors an additional cause of action for an alleged breach by a general contractor of a subcontract.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

A Contractual Liability Exclusion Doesn't Preclude Insurer's Duty to Indemnify

November 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP's blog, "[I]n Crownover v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20737 (5th Cir. October 29, 2014), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling and held that the contractual liability exclusion did not preclude an insurer’s duty to indemnify its insured for an award resulting from the insured’s defective construction." The case involved the Crownovers who were awarded damages for "Arrow's breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction contract." However, Arrow then filed for bankruptcy. Mid-Continent, Arrow's insurer, denied Crownovers' demand for recovery, stating that "the contractual liability exclusion applied because the arbitrator’s award to the Crownovers was based only on Arrow’s breach of paragraph 23.1 of the construction agreement." The court agreed with Mid-Continent. Subsequently, the fifth court of appeals "reversed the district court’s ruling and awarded summary judgment in favor of the Crownovers." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Governor Signs Permit Extension Bill Extending Permit Deadlines to One Year

October 23, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s like that feeling you got when your teacher said you have another week to complete your group project. On September 21, 2018, Governor Brown signed AB 2913, which, for the first time, provides a uniform 12-month period across the state for work to commence before a building permit expires. Previously, the period was six months. In addition to doubling the expiration period, the statute includes a “justifiable cause” provision permitting local building departments to extend the time for one or more additional periods of not more than 180 days per extension upon written demonstration of “justifiable cause for the extension.” 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

Construction Litigation Roundup: “Indeed, You Just Design ‘Em”

April 29, 2024 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
Seeking to be extracted from personal injury litigation initiated by a laborer on a project in New Orleans, an architect sued for negligence filed a motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff had “testified in his deposition that after demolishing most of one of the side walls of the vault and a smaller section of the front wall, he was instructed to stand on top of the vault's concrete ceiling in order to demolish it with a hydraulic jackhammer.” One court noted that: “Shortly after beginning that task, the entire vault structure collapsed.” Claims against the architect included assertions of “failure to monitor and supervise the execution of the plans to ensure safety at the jobsite.” The architect urged in support of its MSJ that it did not owe a duty to oversee, supervise, or maintain the construction site, or have any responsibility for the plaintiff’s safety. Summary judgment was granted to the architect by the trial court, and an appeal ensued, whereupon the appellate court reversed. That intermediate court found that potential intervening knowledge of the architect of a potentially unsafe demolition practice created an issue of material fact. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES