Alexander Moore Promoted to Managing Partner of Kahana Feld’s Oakland Office
May 08, 2023 —
Alexander R. Moore - Kahana FeldKahana Feld is pleased to announce that Alexander R. Moore, Esq., has been promoted to Managing Partner of our Oakland office. Mr. Moore has been at Kahana Feld since 2021 and is a member of the construction defect and general liability practice groups.
Mr. Moore has over 23 years of experience representing individual and commercial clients in complex disputes arising out of construction contracts, construction defect allegations, premises liability matters, landlord-tenant disputes, and contractual disputes arising out of various business relationships involving financial services companies, technology companies, telecommunications companies, real estate brokerages, non-profits, and a range of small businesses. When not focused on litigation, Mr. Moore enjoys consulting on transactional matters including the development of construction and business contracts. He has extensive experience evaluating rights and obligations under construction contracts and related insurance programs. He also assists clients in the implementation of pre-litigation risk management strategies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alexander R. Moore, Kahana FeldMr. Moore may be contacted at
amoore@kahanafeld.com
Unions Win Prevailing Wage Challenge Brought By Charter Cities: Next Stop The Supreme Court?
April 06, 2016 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Sarah A. Marsey – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn City Of El Centro v. David Lanier (State Building And Construction Trades Council Of California, AFL-CIO), the 4th appellate district upheld by a 2-1 majority the constitutionality of Labor Code section 1782, which prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for a public construction project if the city has a charter provision or ordinance that authorizes a contractor to not comply with the state prevailing wage laws.
As we wrote on this topic back in 2012 (See alert here), charter cities are governed by a municipal constitution and may make and enforce its own ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs (i.e., the ‘home rule’ doctrine), as opposed to general law cities, which must comply with the state laws such as the Public Wage Rate Act (requiring municipalities to pay prevailing wages).
The California Supreme Court previously held in State Building and Construction Trade Council of California, AFL-CIO v. City of Vista that the ‘home rule’ rule permits charter cities not to pay prevailing wages to its contract workers on locally funded public works because such determination is a municipal affair and not a statewide concern.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Sarah A. Marsey, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Marsey may be contacted at smarsey@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natural Disasters’ Impact on Construction in the United States
December 14, 2020 —
Robert S. Peckar & Crystal T. Dang - Construction ExecutiveIn these times of easy and instant access to news from around the globe, the effects of major earthquakes in Indonesia and Mexico, cyclones in Southeast Asia, Tsunamis around the world, volcanoes in Europe in unexpected places and, of course, raging forest fires and hurricanes in the United States are frequently in the news. Accompanying each of these disasters are immediate threats to construction projects, both physical and those affecting the safety and health of personnel.
However, after the dust settles or the waters recede, myriad issues will become obstacles to the road to recovery for a contractor to navigate. In 2020 alone, the volume of strong storms and forest fires have focused so much attention on the impact of disasters. The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines in anticipation of disasters, for reviewing the impact of a disaster as it is happening, and developing a mitigation plan to limit losses.
Anticipating Disasters
The best time to prepare for a disaster on a project is before the project starts. Reviewing contract rights, insurance policies and company disaster response protocols while a category 3 hurricane is a day away is not a best practice. To avoid falling into that situation, a contractor should follow the following guidelines. Doing so facilitates proper action during the actual disaster itself and in the aftermath.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert S. Peckar & Crystal T. Dang, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Peckar may be contacted at rpeckar@pecklaw.com
Ms. Dang may be contacted at cdang@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When Do Hard-Nosed Negotiations Become Coercion? Or, When Should You Feel Unlucky?
October 21, 2019 —
Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLP - ConsensusDocsConflict in a negotiation is to be expected and is arguably healthy for the process. Owners and contractors are constantly engaged in negotiations; whether it be negotiating changes to the work, changes to the schedule, or changes to the contractual terms. But at what point does taking a strong position in a negotiation cross the line and become coercion or bad faith?
A recent decision from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals touched on this very issue. While this is a government contract case, the issues discussed in this case (namely negotiating a change) are routinely encountered in just about every construction project. This decision is instructive because it adds to a trending line of cases that limit an owner’s and contractor’s negotiation tactics.
On August 5, 2019, the board issued an opinion in the appeal of Sand Point Services, LLC vs. NASA, ASBCA Nos. 6189. In Sand Point Services, the contractor was hired by the owner to repair the Wallops Flight Facility’s aircraft parking apron. During its work, the contractor hit a differing site condition, namely unsuitable soils. The contractor sought additional time and money for this differing site condition. The owner ultimately responded with a show cause letter to the contractor claiming, among other breaches, that the contractor was significantly behind schedule. This was generally viewed by all parties as the start of default proceedings against the contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stan Millan, Jones Walker, LLPMr. Millan may be contacted at
smillan@joneswalker.com
Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance
October 01, 2024 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogEarlier this month, an Illinois federal district court held that a liability insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a property management company or its owner in lawsuits that included allegations of intentional conduct. The suits accused the owner of concealing financial information from and engaging in a scheme to increase tax liability and decrease profit distributions to a minority owner. This case reinforces the importance of maintaining D&O insurance as part of a comprehensive liability insurance program to protect against potential gaps in coverage that could result from allegations of intentional or knowing acts.
Background
The court in Old Guard Insurance Company v. Riverway Property Management, LLC et al., No. 1:23-cv-01098 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2024) was asked to determine whether Old Guard Insurance Co. was required to defend or indemnify Riverway Property Management LLC or its owner under two commercial general liability policies in relation to state court lawsuits. The lawsuits alleged that Riverway’s owner intentionally and improperly misappropriated funds and that the property management company knowingly and substantially assisted with this wrongful scheme.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies
July 20, 2020 —
Scott P. DeVries & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews KurthOn May 26, 2020, a California Court of Appeals (4th District) issued its decision in Mosley et al. v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. The case arose in the context of a marijuana-growing tenant who rerouted a home’s electrical system and caused an electrical fire. The issue was whether the homeowner’s policy covered the loss. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and, in a divided decision, the Court of Appeals reversed in part.
The policy excluded losses “resulting from any manufacturing, production or operation, engaged in … the growing of plants.” The parties agreed that the fire resulted from the rewiring of the electrical system, but disagreed on “whether that means the damage” “result[ed] from” “the growing of plants.” The Court held that “resulting from” “broadly links a factual situation with the event creating liability, and connotes only a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship.” In doing so, it equated the terms “results from” and “arising from.” Concluding that a “common sense” approach was to be used, it found a “minimal causal connection” to be present. This expansive standard could be beneficial to policyholders in arguing the causal connection between COVID-19 and ensuing business interruption losses; specifically, that the pandemic, a covered event, is the underlying and proximate cause of the insureds’ physical loss and/or damage and the insured’s resulting business interruption loss, and that intervening events, whether they be orders of civil authority, prevention of ingress/egress or otherwise, would not sever the chain of causation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Top Five General Tips for All Construction Contracts
October 26, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Musings we welcome Spencer Wiegard. Spencer is a Partner with Gentry Locke Rakes & Moore, LLP. He is a member of the firm’s Construction Law and Commercial Litigation practice groups. Spencer focuses his practice in the areas of construction law and construction litigation. Spencer is a member of the Board of Governors for the Virginia State Bar Construction Law and Public Contracts Section, and a member of the Legislative Committee of the Associated General Contractors of Virginia and the Executive Committee for the Roanoke/SW Virginia District of the Associated General Contractors of Virginia.
I would like to thank Chris for inviting me to author today’s guest post. Over the past few days, I have found myself wading through the terms and conditions of a lengthy and complicated construction contract, while at the same time aggressively negotiating for Houston house leveling cost readjustments. As I slogged through the legalese, I was reminded of a presentation that I gave earlier this year to the Roanoke District of the Virginia Associated General Contractors. The district’s executive committee asked me to speak to its members concerning the broad topic of “Construction Contracts 101.” At the beginning of my presentation, I passed along my top five general tips for all construction contracts. Although some of these tips may sound like common sense, I often encounter situations where these basic rules are violated by experienced contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and design professionals. My top five general tips for all construction contracts are:
- Reduce the terms of the agreement to writing.
- The written agreement should include all important and relevant information and terms. If it was important enough to discuss prior to signing the contract, it is important enough to include in the written contract;
- At a minimum, include who, what, when, where, how, and how much;
- Both parties should sign the written agreement; and
- Don’t ignore handwritten changes to the contract, as these changes may either mean that you don’t have a deal, or they may become part of the contract when you sign it.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer
November 02, 2020 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
The economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer.
In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:
The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.
2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (internal citations omitted).
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
