COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Colorado’s New Construction Defect Law Takes Effect in September: What You Need to Know

September 07, 2017 — Jesse Witt - The Witt Law Firm
Colorado’s new construction defect law officially takes effect this month. Although HB 17-1279 was passed in May, the statutory text provides that it only applies “with respect to events and circumstances occurring on or after September 1, 2017.” With that date now upon us, practitioners should be mindful of the law’s new requirements. The law applies to any lawsuit wherein a homeowner association files a construction defect action on behalf of two or more of its members. “Construction defect action” is defined broadly to include any claims against construction professionals relating to deficiencies in design or construction of real property. Before an association may commence such an action, its board must follow several steps. First, the board must deliver notice of the potential construction defect action to all homeowners and the affected construction professionals at their last known addresses. This requirement does not apply to construction professionals identified after the notice has been mailed, or to construction professionals joined in a previously-approved lawsuit. The notice must include a description of the alleged construction defects with reasonable specificity, the relief sought, a good-faith estimate of the benefits and risks involved, and a list of mandatory disclosures concerning assessments, attorney fees, and the marketability of units affected by construction defects. The notice must also call a meeting of all homeowners. The notice should be sent to the construction professionals at least five days before the homeowners. Reprinted courtesy of Jesse Howard Witt, Acerbic Witt Mr. Witt may be contacted at www.witt.law Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Products Liability Law – Application of Economic Loss Rule

April 02, 2024 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When it comes to product liability law, one important doctrine that will always come up is the economic loss rule. The economic loss rule, oftentimes going by its acronym ELR, lives and breathes in the realm of product liability law. Does the economic loss rule extend to a manufacturer’s distributor for a duty to warn when the product is NOT defective? A recent opinion out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, NBIS Construction & Transport Ins. Services v. Liebherr-America, Inc., 2024 WL 861257 (11th Cir. 2024), was confronted with this question, including whether the economic loss rule should even extend to a distributor of a product, and certified the following to Florida’s Supreme Court to answer: “Whether, under Florida law, the economic loss rule applies to negligence claims against a distributor of a product, stipulated to be non-defective, for the failureto alert a product owner of a known danger, when the only damages claimed are to the product itself?” NBIS, supra, at *8. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Design and Construction Defects Not a Breach of Contract

February 14, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The California Court of Appeals tossed out a breach of contract award in Altman v. John Mourier Construction. The decision, which was issued on January 10, 2013, sent the construction defect case back to a lower court to calculate damages based on the conclusions of the appeals court. The case involved both design issues and construction issues. According to the plaintiffs’ expert, the design plans did not make the buildings sufficiently stiff to resist the wind, and that the framing was improperly constructed, further weakening the structures, and leading to the stucco cracking. Additionally, it was alleged that the roofs were improperly installed, leading to water intrusion. The contractor’s expert “agreed the roofs needed repair, but disputed what needed to be done to repair the roofs and the cost.” The jury rejected the plaintiffs’ claims of product liability and breach of warranty, but found in their favor on the claims of breach of contract and negligence. The plaintiffs were awarded differing amounts based on the jury’s conclusions about their particular properties. Both sides sought new trials. JMC, the contractor, claimed that the jury’s verdicts were “inconsistent in that the relieved JMC of liability for strict products liability and breach of warranty, but found JMC liable for breach of contract and negligence.” The plaintiffs “opposed the setoff motion on the ground that the jury heard evidence only of damages not covered by the settlements.” Both motions were denied. After this, the plaintiffs sought and received investigative costs as damages. JMC appealed this amended judgment. The appeals court rejected JMC’s claims that evidence was improperly excluded. JMC sought to introduce evidence concerning errors made by the stucco subcontractor. Earlier in the trial, JMC had insisted that the plaintiffs not be allowed to present evidence concerning the stucco, as that had been separately settled. When they wished to introduce it themselves, they noted that the settlement only precluded the plaintiffs from introducing stucco evidence, but the trial court did not find this persuasive, and the appeals court upheld the actions of the trial court. Nor did the appeals court find grounds for reversal based on claims that the jury saw excluded evidence, as JMC did not establish that the evidence went into the jury room. Further, this did not reach, according to the court, a “miscarriage of justice.” The court rejected two more of JMC’s arguments, concluding that the negligence award did not violate the economic loss rule. The court also noted that JMC failed to prove its contention that the plaintiffs were awarded damages for items that were covered in settlements with the subcontractors. The appeals court did accept JMC’s argument that the award for breach of contract was not supported by evidence. As the ruling notes, “plaintiffs did not submit the contracts into evidence or justify their absence; nor did plaintiffs provide any evidence regarding contract terms allegedly breached.” The court also did not allow the plaintiffs to claim the full amount of the investigative costs. Noting that the trial court had rational grounds for its decision, the appeals court noted that “the jury rejected most of the damages claimed by plaintiffs, and the trial court found that more than $86,000 of the costs itemized in plaintiffs’ invoices ‘appear questionable’ as ‘investigation’ costs/damages and appeared to the trial court to be litigation costs nonrecoverable under section 1033.5.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Limited Number of Insurance-Related Bills Passed by 2014 Hawaii Legislature

June 11, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
Very few insurance-related bills survived the 2014 Hawaii Legislative session, with several consumer-friendly bills failing to make it out of committee. Here is a summary of the bills that passed: SB2365: Limits reimbursement of prescription medications in order to prevent drug prices from becoming an unreasonable cost driver of health care in workers' compensation and motor vehicle insurance claims. SB2470: Appropriates general funds to provide for the sustainability of the Hawaii Health Connector, but provides for greater transparency, stakeholder engagement, and legislative involvement in the activities of the Hawaii Health Connector. 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

---

Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill: Overview of Key Provisions

January 04, 2021 — White and Williams LLP
In a much needed holiday gift for businesses and individuals who continue to be affected by COVID-19, Congress finally approved a $900 billion aid package follow-up to the CARES Act (the Winter Covid-19 Relief Bill), the several trillion dollar stimulus that was enacted early in the pandemic. The bill, part of the larger annual spending bill, will hopefully be signed into law by President Trump in the coming days although the President has indicated his disappointment about the small amount of direct relief to individuals included in the bill. The bill was passed by both houses of Congress by a veto proof majority and is expected to become law whether or not the President chooses to exercise his veto power. White and Williams has and will continue to provide more detailed updates on important components of the legislation, some of which address matters beyond COVID-19-related relief and support, including a new Paycheck Protection Program and tax deductibility of expenses paid for with PPP funds, extension and expansion of the employee retention tax credit, direct payments to individuals, additional unemployment assistance, restrictions on surprise medical billing, rental assistance and extension of the eviction moratorium, education funding, vaccine distribution, testing and tracing, and other healthcare funding. In the meantime, here is a brief overview of several pieces of the legislation: Paycheck Protection Program The Winter COVID-19 Relief Bill provides for $284 billion of funding for a new round of the popular Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which was established by the CARES Act and allowed borrowers to receive forgivable loans to be used to retain employees and cover certain other basic operating expenses. New and existing businesses may participate in the program. However, eligibility for PPP Part II is more restrictive and targeted then the original PPP. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP

---

Fewer NYC Construction Deaths as Safety Law Awaits Governor's Signature

July 25, 2022 — Richard Korman - Engineering News-Record
The hoped-for progress in New York City construction safety is coming too late for laborer Jose Fortina Armenta Hernandez. At 8:37 a.m. on May 27, 2021, while jackhammering a roof section on a Brooklyn building, the section on which Armenta stood gave way and he fell 60 ft. When last year his family sent his body from New York City to Mexico to be buried, they used a GoFundMe page to raise money for the laborer's funeral. Reprinted courtesy of Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Growing Optimism Among Home Builders

June 28, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
For the first time since 2006, the number of home builders who are optimistic about home sales exceed those who are pessimistic, with 52 percent optimistic. Just last month, the builder confidence index was at 44. This eight-point jump was the largest change in more than a decade. Their confidence has increased as economists and others have been seeing signs of an improved economy. There has been an increase in demand for new homes and even though sales are below what economists would like, homebuilders are finding buyers. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Court Confirms Broad Coverage Under “Ongoing Operations” Endorsements

December 01, 2017 — Kevin C. Brantley - Payne & Fears
A California Court of Appeal has confirmed that additional insured endorsements (“AIE”) granting coverage for liability arising out of a named insured’s “ongoing operations,” and in effect during those “ongoing operations,” do not require that the liability arise while the named insured is performing work. McMillin Mgmt. Servs., L.P. v. Financial Pacific Ins. Co., Cal. Ct. App., November 14, 2017, Case No. D069814. In McMillin, a construction defect insurance coverage action, Lexington Insurance Company argued that McMillin had no liability to homeowners until after their homes closed escrow; thus, McMillin did not face liability while the named insureds’ work was ongoing. The Court of Appeal rejected Lexington’s argument, finding that the “ongoing operations” AIEs provide only that McMillin’s liability “be ‘linked’ through a ‘minimal causal connection or incidental relationship’ with [the named insureds’] ongoing operations.” (internal citations omitted). The Court reasoned that Lexington had not established that all of the damage in the underlying action occurred after the named insureds completed their work, thus Lexington had not established as a matter of law that there was no potential for coverage for McMillin under the policies. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin C. Brantley, Payne & Fears
Mr. Brantley may be contacted at kcb@paynefears.com

---