MDL for Claims Against Manufacturers and Distributors of PFAS-Containing AFFFs Focuses Attention on Key Issues
July 05, 2021 —
Gregory S. Capps & Lynndon K. Groff - White and Williams LLPClaims against manufacturers and distributors of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) are hurtling forward. Two important developments in this opening salvo of PFAS-related claims against numerous defendants could have important ramifications not only on future PFAS litigation, but on insurance coverage for potential PFAS liabilities as well. First, ten bellwether cases are progressing closer to trial. Second, the key “government contractor defense” has been slated for briefing.
In December 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation established a multi-district litigation (MDL 2873) for AFFF PFAS claims in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. Unlike previous PFAS lawsuits (primarily against DuPont and/or 3M), the lawsuits in MDL 2873 target dozens of defendants who manufactured and distributed AFFF and its constituent chemicals. MDL 2873 now houses approximately 1,200 member cases, which include the following categories of claims: (i) claims for property damage asserted by water providers, (ii) claims for property damage asserted by property owners, (iii) bodily injury claims, and (iv) claims for medical monitoring for potential future injury.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and
Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit
December 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.
Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.
Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.
The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”
The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.
The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Portion of Washington State’s Prevailing Wage Statute Struck Down … Again
July 04, 2023 —
Brett Hill & Mason Fletcher - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn 2018, the Washington Legislature amended its prevailing wages statute adopting S.S.B 5493 and codified as RCW 39.12.015(3). RCW 39.12.015(3) changed how the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ industrial statistician set the prevailing wages for employees on public works projects, from a county-by-county basis to a “geographic jurisdiction” basis established in collective bargaining agreements (“CBA”) or if multiple CBAs, the CBA with the higher wage would prevail. This change proved problematic for contractors since it allowed a minority of employees to determine the prevailing wage through side agreements and limited meaningful wage negotiations by industry trade groups. Contrary to the previous rule wherein wages were set by the average or majority wage rate in a certain county (which was normally the collectively bargained wage) and provided some flexibility to the industrial statistician in determining the prevailing wage, now, RCW 39.12.015(3)(a) directs the industrial statistician to “establish the prevailing rate of wage by adopting the hourly wage … paid for the geographic jurisdiction established in [CBAs],” removing flexibility, and requiring the inclusion of CBA (which could encompass multiple counties) wage rates as a part of the prevailing wage formula.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brett Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight and
Mason Fletcher, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Mr. Hill may be contacted at brett.hill@acslawyers.com
Mr. Fletcher may be contacted at mason.fletcher@acslawyers.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Condo Collapse Shows Town’s Rich, Middle-Class Divide
August 04, 2021 —
The Associated Press (Terry Spencer & Freida Frisaro) - BloombergThe condo tower collapse in Surfside could exacerbate the division that already exists between the tiny Florida town’s new luxury buildings built for the global elite and those constructed decades ago for the middle class. It is already creating headaches for some small businesses.
The town has seen the construction of numerous new condos in recent years, where large oceanfront units exceeding 3,000 square feet (280 square meters) with modern amenities can fetch $10 million and up. Meanwhile, small units of 800 square feet (75 square meters) in neighboring condo buildings constructed decades ago can be had for $400,000.
Ana Bozovic, a South Florida real estate broker, said the June 24 collapse of the 40-year-old, middle-class Champlain Towers South will exacerbate this division. At least 46 people were killed and more than 90 remain missing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage
August 07, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere is an affirmative claim known as promissory estoppel. (Whereas equitable estoppel is used an affirmative defense, promissory estoppel is used as an affirmative claim.)
To prove promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must plead and prove the following three elements: “(1) a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; (2) a reasonable reliance on that representation; and (3) a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel caused by the representation and reliance thereon.” Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So.2d 643, 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated differently: “A party will be estopped from denying liability under the principle of promissory estoppel when the party makes ‘[a] promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance…[and] injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.’” Criterion Leasing Group v. Gulf Coast Plastering & Drywall, 582 So.2d 799, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Minnesota Addresses How Its Construction Statute of Repose Applies to Condominiums
April 27, 2020 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistCourts often struggle with the question of when the statute of repose starts to run for construction projects that involve multiple buildings or phases. In Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls Ass’n v. Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC, 937 N.W.2d 430 (Minn. 2020) (Village Lofts), the Supreme Court of Minnesota addressed how Minnesota’s 10-year statute of repose, Minn. Stat. § 541.051, applies to claims arising from the construction of a condominium complex. The court held that the statute of repose begins to run at different times for: a) statutory residential warranty claims brought pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 327A.01 to 327A.08, et. seq.; and b) common law claims arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of the condominium buildings.
As stated in Village Lofts, Housing Partners III-Lofts, LLC (Housing Partners) developed the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls, a condominium complex consisting of Building A and Building B. Housing Partners retained Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (Kraus-Anderson) as the general contractor for Building A. Kraus-Anderson retained Elness Sweeney Graham Architects, Inc. (ESG), Doody Mechanical, Inc. (Doody) and Kenneth S. Kendle, P.E. (Kendle) to work on Building A. In September 2002, the City of Minneapolis (City) issued a partial certificate of occupancy (CO) for Building A, including the building’s public spaces. On October 4, 2002, Housing Partners filed the declaration creating the Village Lofts at St. Anthony Falls condominium, to be operated by Village Lofts at St. Anthony Association (Village Lofts Association). On October 10, 2002, Housing Partners sold the first unit in Building A and in November of 2003, the City issued a CO for the entire building, excluding two units.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
2023’s Bank Failures: What Contractors, Material Suppliers and Equipment Lessors Can Do to Protect Themselves
May 15, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt has been a tumultuous year for the banking industry. Since the beginning of this year the industry has seen the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, the shotgun marriage between failing Credit Suisse and USB, and, most recently, the collapse of First Republic Bank this past week and its purchase by JP Morgan Chase. Indeed, according to the New York Times, these three bank failures cum bailouts alone were bigger than the 25 banks that collapsed during the financial crises of 2008 and some are concerned that it is just the beginning.
This, of course, has impacted the stock market, with Forbes reporting that the banking industry lost more than $300 billion in market value as of the end of March. However, it also raises concerns regarding liquidity on construction projects.
While the failing banks have either been bought out by other banks or shored up by the federal government, which, in the case of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, involved the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve stepping into to protect depositors by
guaranteeing deposits in excess of the current FDIC limit of $250,000, there continues to be concerns over access to cash. This can impact construction projects in several ways.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
No Coverage for Additional Insured After Completion of Operations
March 26, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit held there was no duty to defend an additional insured for alleged negligence after completion of the project. Woodward v. Acceptance Indemn. Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2569 (5th Cir. Feb. 11, 2014).
Pass Marianne, L.L.C. contracted for the construction of condominiums. The general contractor was Woodward. DCM Corporation, L.L.C. was a subcontractor for the concrete work. DCM worked on the project from January to October 2006. The entire project was completed in August 2007. Pass Marianne sold the condominiums to Lemon Drop Properties in October 2007.
Lemon Drop sued Pass Marianne and Woodward a year after purchasing the condominium. Pass Marianne filed a cross-claim against Woodward alleging faulty construction and damage arising out of the construction. The claims were arbitrated. A significant issue in the arbitration was the fault of the concrete subcontractor, DCM.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
