COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Settlement Conference May Not Be the End in Construction Defect Case

February 21, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The builder has been sentenced to jail for theft. The building has been condemned over construction defects. And the settlement conference probably won’t bring an end to the case. The building in question is a condominium complex, located at 770 Sandy Street in Norristown, Pennsylvania. Bruce Fazio took out a $2.5 million construction loan to build it. And when it was done, there were inspections over construction defects, the building was condemned, and then the court ordered repair work. The city of Norristown has sued Fazio to recover the more than $1.5 million it took to repair the building and allow at least some condominium owners to move back in. The suit alleges that Norristown officials failed to properly inspect the construction work, and that inspectors were not properly certified. Further, it is alleged that secretaries and clerks signed off on inspection reports and certificates of occupancy. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Litigation Roundup: “That’s Not How I Read It”

June 05, 2023 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
A general contractor seeking to litigate with its subcontractor concerning a construction project in Indiana found itself fighting in court against assertions by the sub that arbitration of the dispute was required. The GC was already in litigation in federal court with the project owner. The GC filed a third-party demand against the sub, which was met with a motion to stay and to compel arbitration. At the crux of the sub’s argument was this clause in its subcontract: “Subcontractor agrees that the dispute resolution provisions of the Prime Contract between [GC] and Owner, if any, are incorporated by reference as part of this Subcontract so as to be binding as to disputes between Subcontractor and [GC] that involve, in whole or in part, questions of fact and/or law that are common to any dispute between [GC] and Owner or others similarly bound to such dispute resolution procedures... ." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

---

Court Makes an Unsettling Inference to Find that the Statute of Limitations Bars Claims Arising from a 1997 Northridge Earthquake Settlement

April 15, 2015 — David W. Evans and Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Britton v. Girardi (No. B249232 – Filed 4/1/2015), the Second Appellate District upheld the trial court’s dismissal due to the statute of limitations based on an inference it drew from a letter attached to the complaint, while reaffirming its prior application of the limitations period in Probate Code section 16460 for fraud claims in the related case of Prakashpalan v. Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack (2/27/2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1105. In Britton, just as in Prakashpalan, the plaintiffs sued the attorneys who had represented them in connection with claims against their insurer arising out of the Northridge earthquake. In 1997, the attorneys had settled that litigation for more than $100 million. The plaintiffs allege that the attorneys breached their fiduciary duty by (1) failing to provide an accounting for the settlement, (2) failing to obtain their informed consent to the settlement, and (3) concealing their misappropriation of the settlement funds. They claim that they did not discover this wrongdoing until nearly fifteen years later, in 2012, when the Prakashpalans contacted them about their settlement. Significantly, the plaintiffs attached as an exhibit to the complaint a page of the November 3, 1997 letter to the Prakashpalans (rather than the plaintiffs), which stated that a retired judge who presided over the settlement had determined the allocations and the attorneys could not distribute the proceeds until the plaintiffs signed the “Master Settlement Agreement” by which the plaintiffs agreed to its terms and to give up all claims against the insurer. Reprinted courtesy of David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

The National Labor Relations Board Joint Employer Standard is Vacated by the Eastern District of Texas

April 22, 2024 — Andrew G. Vicknair - The Dispute Resolver
Many employment laws use the concept of joint employer to make more than one business entity responsible for complying with employment law obligations towards employees who to varying degrees work for, or under the direction of entities who are not technically the employees primary employer. Nowhere is that issue more prevalent than in contractor subcontractor relationships. Over the years the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has developed various tests for determining joint employer status. Unless a business entity is an employer of individuals, the NLRB has no jurisdiction over a dispute between the workers and a business entity for whom they work. It is important for contractors to understand the importance of being an employer and the obligations that flow from such status. Likewise, it is also important to understand when a contractor may be classified as a “joint employer” over certain individuals. Depending on the specific laws involved, such a finding of joint-employer status can happen under the “joint employer doctrine” which often exists in subcontractor and temporary employment arrangements. The “joint-employer doctrine” may render a contractor responsible for another company’s employment liabilities. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew G. Vicknair, D'Arcy Vicknair, LLC
Mr. Vicknair may be contacted at agv@darcyvicknair.com

---

City of Pawtucket Considering Forensic Investigation of Tower

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Pawtucket, Rhode Island’s mayor, Donald Grebien, has asked their city council to approve “a forensic investigation of the Pawtucket City Hall tower to determine whether the city should sue the contractor that repaired it eight years ago,” the Valley Breeze reported. Back in 2011, “city officials had been unable to locate a signed contract for the tower project as they sought to hold NER responsible for continued leaking into the structure just five years after the company's $3 million renovation project was complete,” according to the Valley Breeze. “The costs of that project grew to $4.6 million once interest was factored in.” Documents have recently been discovered that Grebien believes may open the possibility to sue NER. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief

April 15, 2015 — Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick, and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property. In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control. The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.” Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick and Colin T. Murphy Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com. Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Condominium Exclusion Bars Coverage for Construction Defect

August 17, 2011 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii

Coverage was denied under the policy’s condominium exclusion in California Traditions, Inc. v. Claremont Liability Ins. Co.,2011 Cal. App.LEXIS912 (Cal. Ct. App., ordered published July 11, 2011).



California Traditions was the developer and general contractor for a housing development. California Traditions subcontracted with Ja-Con to perform the rough framing work for 30 residential units. The project had 146 separate residences that were freestanding with no shared walls, roof, halls, or plumbing or electrical lines. To allow a higher density development, the project was developed, marketed and sold as condominiums.



The purchaser of one of the units filed a complaint against California Traditions alleging property damage from the defective construction. California Traditions cross-complained against Ja-Con.

Read the full story…



Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Haight’s Stevie Baris Selected for Super Lawyers’ 2021 Northern California Rising Stars

July 19, 2021 — Stevie B. Baris - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Congratulations to Stevie Baris who was selected to the Super Lawyers 2021 Northern California Rising Stars list. Each year, no more than 2.5% of the lawyers in the state are selected by the research team at Super Lawyers to receive this honor. Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Stevie B. Baris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Baris may be contacted at sbaris@hbblaw.com

---