Toll Brothers Named #1 Home Builder on Fortune Magazine's 2023 World's Most Admired Companies® List
February 06, 2023 —
Toll Brothers, Inc.FORT WASHINGTON, Pa., Feb. 01, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Toll Brothers, Inc. (NYSE:TOL) (www.TollBrothers.com), the nation's leading builder of luxury homes, has been named the #1 Most Admired Home Builder in the 2023 Fortune magazine survey of the World's Most Admired Companies, the eighth year the company has achieved this honor.
To determine the best-regarded companies, Fortune and its partner Korn Ferry conducted the 2023 survey with 645 of the world's highest-revenue companies across 52 industries and 27 countries. Executives, directors, and Wall Street analysts were asked to rate companies in their own industries on nine criteria, ranging from investment value, financial soundness and quality of management, to quality of products, innovation, social responsibility and people management.
"We are proud to once again be honored as the #1 Home Builder on the Fortune World's Most Admired Companies list," said Douglas C. Yearley, Jr., chairman and chief executive officer of Toll Brothers. "All of us at Toll Brothers are focused on upholding our reputation for quality, value, and service built over the past 56 years. I would like to thank every Toll Brothers employee for their commitment to excellence and to serving our customers. We appreciate this tremendous recognition within the home building industry and the larger business community."
ABOUT TOLL BROTHERS
Toll Brothers, Inc., a Fortune 500 Company, is the nation's leading builder of luxury homes. The Company was founded 56 years ago in 1967 and became a public company in 1986. Its common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TOL." The Company serves first-time, move-up, empty-nester, active-adult, and second-home buyers, as well as urban and suburban renters. Toll Brothers builds in over 60 markets in 24 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, as well as in the District of Columbia. The Company operates its own architectural, engineering, mortgage, title, land development, golf course development, smart home technology, and landscape subsidiaries. The Company also operates its own lumber distribution, house component assembly, and manufacturing operations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CEB’s Mechanics Liens and Related Remedies – 2014 Update
November 26, 2014 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogI’ve been writing for the CEB – the Continuing Education of the Bar – which publishes legal practice guides for lawyers for some time now.
But I don’t think I’ve been quite as excited to write for the CEB than writing for its publication, California Mechanics Liens and Related Construction Remedies, for the first time this year. Particularly, since it’s one of the first publications I used as a young lawyer to learn about construction law, and still use today.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Fifth Circuit -- Damage to Property Beyond Insured’s Product/Work Not Precluded By ‘Your Product/Your Work Exclusion’
January 24, 2022 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLPOn January 11, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 795 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022), finding that an insurer had a duty to defend its insured in a construction defect case where the underlying complaint alleged damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured.
Siplast, Inc. (Siplast) had contracted with the Archdiocese of New York (the Archdiocese) to install a roof membrane system at a high school in the Bronx, New York. Id. at *1. As part of the contract, Siplast guaranteed that the roof membrane system would remain in a watertight condition for at least twenty years. Id. at *2. If it did not, Siplast would repair the roof membrane system at its own expense. Id.
Several years after the installation, the Archdiocese observed water damage in the ceiling tiles at the high school. Id. The Archdiocese contacted Siplast, who attempted to repair the damage and prevent further leaks; however, leaks and resultant damage continued to occur. Id. Siplast subsequently refused to make any more improvements to the roof. Id.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What You Need to Know About CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel Regulations
May 20, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIn November 2022, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved amendments to . . . wait for it . . . its “In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleet” regulations – that enough hyphens for you – which took effect on January 1, 2024. The purpose of the regulations is to reduce emissions from off-road equipment, many of which are used by construction contractors, such as forklifts, bulldozers, cranes and excavators.
Are these new regulations?
Yes and no. CARB has regulated in-use off-road diesel-fueled vehicles since 2008 and has periodically amended these regulations. The most recent amendments take effect on January 1, 2024.
What vehicles do the regulations apply to?
The regulations apply to two classes of vehicles (1) self-propelled off-road diesel-fueled vehicles of 25 horsepower (hp) or more; and (2) two-engine vehicles other than on-road two-engine sweepers. The regulations apply to both owned as well as rented and leased vehicles. As used in this article, the term “vehicle(s)” refers to these two classes of vehicles.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Seattle’s Audacious Aquarium Throws Builders Swerves, Curves, Twists and Turns
January 08, 2024 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordPatrick Nation describes the reinforcing steel for the main tank of the 50,000-sq-ft Seattle Aquarium Ocean Pavilion as a “monster” job for CMC Rebar. In his mind, it was like bending 496 tons of bars “on a golf ball.” In reality, the operation was more like weaving a giant steel basket. Ironworkers had to painstakingly hand-thread the reinforcing steel for the doubly curved and slanted concrete walls of the 350,000-gallon saltwater exhibit—one bar at a time—to create the dense latticework for the 41-ft-tall basket.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. Post, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Post may be contacted at postn@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA Updates: New Submission Requirements for Injury and Illness Records
October 02, 2023 —
Ashley Meredith Strittmatter & Chelsea N. Hayes - Construction ExecutiveIn a revival of an OSHA recordkeeping rule originally implemented under the Obama administration in 2016 and "rolled back" by the Trump administration in 2019, OSHA issued a final rule on July 21, 2023, requiring certain establishments in high-hazard industries to submit additional injury and illness data electronically to OSHA. The
Final Rule is found at 29 CFR 1904 and goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2024.
What does this mean? On and after Jan. 1, 2024, OSHA will require employers with 100 or more workers in certain high-hazard industries to provide annual information from their
Forms 300 and 301, in addition to the already-required electronic submission of Form 300A. Form 300 is the Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses, including the specific injuries or illnesses and the employee names, while Form 301 is the corresponding Injury and Illness Incident Report, which includes additional details on each item listed on the 300 Log. Form300A is the corresponding Annual Summary showing the injury and illness totals for the year, including the number of cases, number of lost workdays, the injury and illness types, the average number of employees and the total hours employees worked. This Form 300A Annual Summary must be routinely submitted by employers with more than 250 employees on or before March 2 of each year for the prior year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley Meredith Strittmatter and Chelsea N. Hayes, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Ms. Strittmatter may be contacted at astrittmatter@bakerdonelson.com
Ms. Hayes may be contacted at cnhayes@bakerdonelson.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
MBIA Seeks Data in $1 Billion Credit Suisse Mortgage Suit
June 26, 2014 —
Chris Dolmetsch and Jody Shenn – BloombergMBIA Inc. (MBI) asked a judge to order Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN) to turn over internal records that the bond insurer says bolster its contention the bank lied about how it processed loans packaged into mortgage-backed securities.
MBIA said in a court filing today that Credit Suisse has withheld evidence about how the bank’s actual practices diverged from its representations -- including documents identified as exhibits in other lawsuits based on the same allegations.
The bond insurer asked Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan to force the bank to search documents and e-mails on its policies and practices including those related to loan underwriting and origination, due diligence and post-acquisition quality-control review.
Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net; Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch and Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
