Arctic Roads and Runways Face the Prospect of Rapid Decline
July 19, 2021 —
Tony Frangie Mawad - BloombergMelting permafrost across Arctic regions has already caused highways to buckle and homes to sink. A new study conducted in the north of Alaska helps explain why rising temperatures are hitting roads, airports and other infrastructure particularly hard.
Researchers who monitored temperatures and melting near Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope documented how the thawing of frozen ground beneath a highway tended to spread laterally to the side of the road, with the melting process accelerated by snow accumulations and puddling. Those interactions led to more rapid thawing than in areas of undisturbed permafrost.
Researchers also found that melting in their test area, alongside a highway that runs atop permafrost, followed a two-phase process — a gradual initial thaw, followed by an accelerated process once warming exceeded a critical point.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Frangie Mawad, Bloomberg
Record Home Sales in Sydney Add to Bubble Fear
March 05, 2015 —
Michael Heath – BloombergSydneysiders wanting to sell their homes have never had it easier.
The proportion of successful house auctions in Australia's largest city was above 80% at the weekend for the fourth week in a row. That is the longest stretch on record and highlights the potential consequences of a projected interest-rate cut.
Governor Glenn Stevens's effort to revive business investment with cheap finance is adding fuel to the country's biggest property market. Home sellers may get a further boost, with 18 of 29 economists forecasting a 25-basis-point cash rate reduction on Tuesday.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Heath, Bloomberg
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Tear Down This Wall!”
September 06, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyIf you enter a contract to do that in Louisiana, you had better have Louisiana contractor’s license!
It is now axiomatic in Louisiana that when a Louisiana contractor’s license is required, the contract for work performed by an unlicensed contractor is an “absolute nullity,” such that the contract is deemed never to have existed. While Louisiana does not prohibit (as would be the case in certain other states) that contractor from quantum meruit/unjust enrichment recovery, who wants to rely on those noncontractual bases for recovery?
After any hurricane in Louisiana, out-of-state contractors swoop in. In the case of a water mitigation company from Texas working on a property that was water damaged by Hurricane Ida, the customer refused to pay for services rendered and then defended against payment by urging that work performed by the mitigation firm required a Louisiana contractor’s license – which the mitigation firm lacked.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Business and Professions Code Section 7031, Demurrers, and Just How Much You Can Dance
February 14, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogFights between owners and contractors under Business and Professions Code section 7031 can get nasty and detailed. An owner’s remedy under Section 7031, as courts have stated, can be “harsh[ ],” “draconian” and even “unjust” and damages can be significant. Panterra GP, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2022 WL 289216 (2022), a case decided this past month, is no different. It even involved a disagreement between the very justices deciding the case.
The Panterra GP Case
Panterra GP, Inc. was a licensed general contractor. Rosedale Bakersfield Retail VI, LLC and Movie Grill Concepts XX, LLC intended to hire Panterra GP to perform renovation work at the Studio Movie Grill in Bakersfield, California, but drafted a construction contract mistakenly listing Panterra Development Ltd., LLP as the contractor on the project. Panterra GP was the general partner of Panterra Development.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete
November 07, 2012 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiIf ever in need of a concise, well-reasoned opinion on “occurrence,” “property damage” and applicability of the business risk exclusions, turn to Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Construction, Inc., 2012 Wis Ct. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012).
A contractor was hired to install concrete during construction of seven gas stations. Red-D-Mix provided the concrete. The contractor and Red-D-Mix were eventually sued by the gas stations, based upon allegations that the concrete was defectively manufactured and installed. The gas stations alleged that Red-D-Mix supplied concrete that was defective and resulted in damages, including the need to repair nearby asphalt.
Red-D-Mix tendered to its insurers, who denied coverage. Suit was filed and the insurers moved for summary judgment. The trial court determined there were no allegations of either “property damage” or an “occurrence.” Therefore, there was no duty to defend or indemnify Red-D-Mix.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Employee Handbooks—Your First Line of Defense
April 15, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThis spring has been busy with questions about employee handbooks. Perhaps it is because the NLRB just issued a directive on the legality of various clauses usually contained in handbooks. Or perhaps it’s because employers, including construction companies, are realizing the importance that handbooks play in defending against claims of harassment.
Employee Handbooks Are Important
Employee handbooks are an employer’s first line of defense in claims of harassment. A key provision to any employee handbook is an anti-harassment provision that includes:
- A definition of harassment;
- The process to complain about harassment;
- A commitment to investigate all claims of harassment; and
- An assurance that no one will be retaliated against for reporting harassment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Guarantor’s Liability on Partially Secured Debts – The Impacts of Pay Down Provisions in Serpanok Construction Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC et al.
October 24, 2021 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & SleightIn
Serpanok Construction, Inc. v. Point Ruston, LLC, Division Two of the Washington Court of Appeals decided an issue of first impression in Washington—whether a guarantor of a partially secured debt remains liable until the last dollar of the entire debt is paid off. After examining cases from other jurisdictions, the court held that that a guarantor is liable until the underlying debt is paid in full unless the agreement contains an express pay down provision. A pay down provision sets forth the guarantor’s right to reduce its obligation to the extent of any payment toward the debt, and it establishes that the guaranty applies only until an amount equivalent to the guaranteed amount is paid off.
The Serpanok decision addressed several other issues, but the published portion of this part-published case focused on whether an entity involved in a real estate development, Point Ruston LLC, was discharged from its guaranty obligation following a foreclosure sale where the proceeds did not cover the entire debt owed to a subcontractor. Point Ruston LLC, Point Ruston Phase II LLC (“Phase II”), and Century Condominiums (“Century”) were affiliated entities (collectively “Point Ruston parties”) that constructed retail and residential structures on a site in Point Ruston. Serpanok Construction Inc. (“Serpanok”) entered into subcontract agreements with Phase II and Century to perform concrete and steel work on a parking garage and movie theater for the project. Point Ruston LLC was not a party to either subcontract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
