Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

High-Rise Condominium Construction Design Defects, A Maryland Construction Lawyer’s Perspective

July 15, 2015 — Nicholas D. Cowie – Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law Blog
The increased migration from suburbs to metropolitan areas has accompanied an increase in high-rise construction, including the development of high-rise condominium buildings. The resulting metamorphosis of urban skylines, such as seen from Maryland’s Baltimore harbor, has also brought with it many complex construction law and construction litigation issues. Our law firm’s Maryland condominium construction law practice is increasingly called upon to resolve disputes involving high-rise condominium construction design defects between condominium associations, developers, contractors, builders, and design professionals arising out of the construction of high-rise buildings. A condominium building is typically considered to be a high-rise when it is approximately seven or more stories above grade according to the National Fire Protection Association Life Safety Code, which defines a high-rise as being 75 feet (23 meters) measured from the lowest level accessible to fire department vehicles up to the floor level of the highest occupiable story. High-rise buildings may be residential (e.g., condominiums or multifamily apartment buildings), commercial (e.g., commercial office or retail space), or mixed-use structures. A mixed-use high-rise development might contain retail space, office space, a parking garage, apartments, and condominiums, each owned or maintained by separate entities and each sharing common expenses for the building. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.
Mr. Cowie may be contacted at ndc@cowiemott.com

Payment Bond Claim Notice Requires More than Mailing

August 04, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
It’s been a while since I posted something new relating to Virginia’s “Little Miller Act” and its various notice requirements for a subcontractor to make a payment bond claim. I have posted on the basics of a Virginia payment bond claim previously here at Musings. One of these basics is the 90 day notice requirement for suppliers or second tier subcontractors with no direct contractual relationship to the general contractor. A recent case from the Norfolk, Virginia Circuit Court examined when notice is “given” under the Little Miller Act. In R T Atkinson Building Corp v Archer Western Construction, LLC the Court looked at the question of whether mailing of the notice of claim is enough to constitute notice being “given” in a manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. In that case, the supplier mailed the notice within the 90 day window, but the defendant argued on summary judgment that it did not receive the notice until 2 days after the 90 day window had closed. In support of this contention, the defendant provided tracking information showing delivery by the USPS on the non-compliant date. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Denied

June 29, 2020 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court found there was no coverage for the insureds' alleged negligent failure to construct a building. Evanston Ins. Co. v. DCM Contracting, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63977 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 28, 2020). Turning Point Church sued DCM Contracting for faulty workmanship on a construction project. Turning Point sent a demand letter to DCM on August 18, 2017 and filed suit in December. Evanston did not receive notice of Turning Point's claims and the lawsuit until May 15, 2018. Evanston filed suit for a declaratory judgment and moved for summary judgment. The court first considered the late notice. The policy required notice "as soon as practicable" DCM was also required to provide copies of demands, notices, or legal papers to Evanston. Here, DCM did not give notice to Evanston until nine months after receipt of Turning Point's demand. A phone communication with DCM's agent between August 2017 and May 2018 was insufficient. DCM provided no documents, including the summons and complaint, to the agent. DCM waited five months to forward the underlying lawsuit. This was a breach of the policy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Los Angeles Tower Halted Over Earthquake and other Concerns

December 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Plans to build the Millennium Hollywood project have been halted over lawsuits alleging that the Hollywood fault line runs under the site and would render it unsafe. Additional claims are that the buildings would block views of the Hollywood sign. But Robert Silverstein alleges in his suit that the buildings would endanger lives. The Millennium claims that the project would create about 3,000 construction jobs, and that after the building were complete, they would create 1,000 jobs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Whose Lease Is It Anyway: Physical Occupancy Not Required in Landlord-Tenant Dispute

February 07, 2018 — Afua Akoto – SDV Case Alert
In September 2017, a Texas Federal district judge ruled that that Personal and Advertising Injury coverage in a CGL policy did not require physical occupancy in a landlord-tenant dispute. In the underlying lawsuit, restaurant owner Ziggy Gruber alleged that John Dunn, the landlord of a Houston shopping center, wrongfully interfered with his right of occupancy at the shopping center by failing to complete the negotiation of a lease and preventing his occupancy of the space. Gruber further alleged that he had acquired a direct interest in the premises and became a rightful tenant but as a result of Dunn’s interference, he was never able to open his restaurant. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Afua Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

Defect Claims Called “Witch Hunt”

November 20, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Saying that “it was blatantly obvious that LAWA’s airport maintenance has culpability in this matter,” Tutor-Saliba Corp is claiming that the recent lawsuit from Los Angeles World Airports, the operators of LAX, is “an apparent witch hunt.” The airport has claimed that Tutor-Saliba’s work in building the runway was defective. The firm notes in response that their warranty against defects expired in 2009 and claims that some of the areas with problems are areas they did work. Instead of defective workmanship, Tutor-Saliba has suggested that the problems with the runway are due to poor maintenance. Their suggestion is that LAX review its maintenance procedures. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

A Trivial Case

November 07, 2022 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Construction defect cases leading to physical injury are rarely trivial, at least in the eyes of the injured party, but alas sometimes they are as the next case, Nunez v. City of Redondo Beach, 81 Cal.App.5th 749 (2022), demonstrates. The Nunez Case Monica Nunez, Vice President of Finance and Accounting at a restaurant chain and a part-time fitness instructor at a gym, tripped and fell on a public sidewalk in Redondo Beach. Ms. Nunez, who was in her forties, tripped following a group run when her back foot hit a sidewalk slab that was elevated at its highest point approximately 11/16 inches. Ms. Nunez landed on her left knee and right arm and in the process fractured her kneecap and elbow. Ms. Nunez sued the City of Redondo Beach for her injuries alleging causes of action for dangerous conditions on public property under Government Code section 835, nuisance under Government Code section 815.2, and failure to perform a mandatory duty under Government Code section 815.6. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

The Fair Share Act Impacts the Strategic Planning of a Jury Trial

May 10, 2017 — Andrew Ralston, Jr. - White and Williams LLP
Complex questions surrounding the application of the Fair Share Act, which modified Pennsylvania’s common law “joint and several” liability law, are being taken up by courts in the Commonwealth with increasing frequency. Given the practical consequences of the differences in application between the Act and “joint and several” liability, additional litigation over the application of the Fair Share Act to real world factual situations will undoubtedly arise. Recent Caselaw Currently, in Roverano v. PECO Energy, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is considering the question of whether, under the Fair Share Act, the jury, or else the trial judge, is responsible for the task of apportioning liability to multiple defendants in a strict liability case. In Roverano – an asbestos case -- a jury awarded the plaintiff $6.3 million. On the verdict sheet were eight joint tortfeasor co-defendants. The judge did not allow the jury to apportion liability to each defendant and, as a result, no guidance was provided by the jury about how much each defendant was to contribute to the award. Instead, the judge merely divided the jury’s award by eight (the number of defendants in the case) and apportioned to each defendant one-eighth of the verdict amount. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Ralston, Jr., White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ralston may be contacted at ralstona@whiteandwilliams.com

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES