History of Defects Leads to Punitive Damages for Bankrupt Developer
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe South Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that evidence of construction defects at a developer’s other projects were admissible in a construction defect lawsuit. They issued their ruling on Magnolia North Property Owners’ Association v. Heritage Communities, Inc. on February 15, 2012.
Magnolia North is a condominium complex in South Carolina. The initial builder, Heritage Communities, had not completed construction when they filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The remaining four buildings were completed by another contractor. The Property Owners’ Association subsequently sued Heritage Communities, Inc. (HCI) alleging defects. The POA also sued Heritage Magnolia North, and the general contractor, BuildStar.
The trial court ruled that all three entities were in fact one. On appeal, the defendants claimed that the trial court improperly amalgamated the defendants. The appeals court noted, however, that “all these corporations share officers, directors, office space, and a phone number with HCI.” Until Heritage Communities turned over control of the POA to the actual homeowners, all of the POA’s officers were officers of HCI. The appeals court concluded that “the trial court’s ruling that Appellants’ entities were amalgamated is supported by the law and the evidence.”
Heritage also claimed that the trial court should not have allowed the plaintiffs to produce evidence of construction defects at other Heritage properties. Heritage argued that the evidence was a violation of the South Carolina Rules of Evidence. The court cited a South Carolina Supreme Court case which made an exception for “facts showing the other acts were substantially similar to the event at issue.” The court noted that the defects introduced by the plaintiffs were “virtually identical across all developments.” This included identical use of the same products from project to project. Further, these were used to demonstrate that “HCI was aware of water issues in the other projects as early as 1998, before construction on Magnolia North had begun.”
The trial case ended with a directed verdict. Heritage charged that the jury should have determined whether the alleged defects existed. The appeals court noted that there was “overwhelming evidence” that Heritage failed “to meet the industry standard of care.” Heritage did not dispute the existence of the damages during the trial, they “merely contested the extent.”
Further, Heritage claimed in its appeal that the case should have been rejected due to the three-year statute of limitations. They note that the first meeting of the POA was on March 8, 2000, yet the suit was not filed until May 28, 2003, just over three years. The court noted that here the statute of limitation must be tolled, as Heritage controlled the POA until September 9, 2002. The owner-controlled POA filed suit “approximately eight months after assuming control.”
The court also applied equitable estoppel to the statute of limitations. During the time in which Heritage controlled the board, Heritage “assured the unit owners the construction defects would be repaired, and, as a result, the owners were justified in relying on those assurances.” Since “a reasonable owner could have believed that it would be counter-productive to file suit,” the court found that also prevented Heritage from invoking the statute of limitations. In the end, the appeals court concluded that the even apart from equitable tolling and equitable estoppel, the statute of limitations could not have started until the unit owners took control of the board in September, 2002.
Heritage also contested the jury’s awarding of damages, asserting that “the POA failed to establish its damages as to any of its claims.” Noting that damages are determined “with reasonable certainty or accuracy,” and that “proof with mathematical certainty of the amount of loss or damage is not required,” the appeals court found a “sufficiently reasonable basis of computation of damages to support the trial court’s submission of damages to the jury.” Heritage also claimed that the POA did not show that the damage existed at the time of the transfer of control. The court rejected this claim as well.
Finally, Heritage argued that punitive damages were improperly applied for two reasons: that “the award of punitive damages has no deterrent effect because Appellants went out of business prior to the commencement of the litigation” and that Heritages has “no ability to pay punitive damages.” The punitive damages were upheld, as the relevant earlier decision includes “defendant’s degree of culpability,” “defendants awareness or concealment,” “existence of similar past conduct,” and “likelihood of deterring the defendant or others from similar conduct.”
The appeals court rejected all of the claims made by Heritage, fully upholding the decision of the trial court.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Inspectors Hurry to Make Sure Welds Are Right before Bay Bridge Opening
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFEach of the 20 welds at the base of the tower of the Bay Bridge took more than four hours to complete, with the lengthy welds forming at one-and-a-half inches per minute. They’ve been finished for two years now, but inspectors are just now checking the welds for defects.
Any defects found will have to be removed and repaired. Mazen Wahbeh, an engineer on the project, assumes that less than 5 percent of the total welded area will have to be repaired. According to Wahbeh, the bridge can open before the welds are thoroughly checked and repaired, and so “the contractor is prioritizing the remaining work.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Future of Airport Infrastructure in a Post-Pandemic World
March 21, 2022 —
Cait Horner & Adam J. Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many service industries are reevaluating their physical footprint, and the aviation industry is no exception. Opportunities abound for developers, designers, and contractors to update and expand airport terminals to accommodate traditional needs while also meeting the growing demand for more open space (including larger outdoor areas in terminals and larger cargo facilities to meet the needs of Amazon, FedEx and UPS).
The Future of Passenger Terminals
In nearly every service industry, safety and hygiene policies are being overhauled, with a specific emphasis on the desire for more space across the board. Even before the pandemic caused a seismic shift in the way individuals interact with each other, airports and airlines had started reducing the number of unnecessary interactions between travelers and employees by introducing self-service check-in kiosks and contactless ordering at restaurants. The automation inside the airport will only continue to advance.
Reprinted courtesy of
Cait Horner, Pillsbury and
Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury
Ms. Horner may be contacted at cait.horner@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fatal Boston Garage Demolition Leaves Long Road to Recovery
April 04, 2022 —
Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-RecordMassachusetts' officials are bracing for a lengthy recovery process following the March 26 fatal collapse during demolition of a section of a hulking Brutalist-era parking garage in Boston. JDC Demolition was razing the Government Center structure to make way for a 410,000-sq-ft life-sciences complex, when a multistory portion near the top failed, killing 51-year-old operating engineer Peter Monsini.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Win for Policyholders: Court Finds Flood Exclusion Inapplicable to Plumbing Leaks Caused by Hurricane Rainfall
October 21, 2024 —
Kelly A. Johnson & Damian S. Barquin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. A recent decision by a federal court helps clear the path to coverage for property owners this hurricane season. The Court deemed one property policy’s flood exclusion inapplicable to bar coverage for water damage from backed-up drainage and overflow caused by excessive rainfall. The case, styled G.E.M.S. Partners LLC v. AmGUARD Ins. Co., — F.Supp. 3d —, No. CV 22-1664, 2024 WL 3568932 (D.N.J. July 29, 2024)), involved a familiar dispute between the insured and insurer following damage to covered property after a named storm’s heavy rainfall.
Here, G.E.M.S. Partners LLC (“Insured”) obtained a commercial property policy from AmGUARD Insurance Company (“AmGUARD”) to cover three neighboring buildings in Union, New Jersey. In September 2021, intense rainfall from Hurricane Ida overwhelmed the local infrastructure and sewer system, leading to water leakage from plumbing fixtures at the insured property. To secure coverage under its AmGUARD policy, the Insured wisely relied on its “Water Back-Up and Sump Overflow Endorsement” (“Back-Up/Overflow Endorsement”). Under this endorsement, AmGUARD promised to “pay for ... damage ... caused by ... water ... which backs up through or overflows or is otherwise discharged from a sewer.”1 Indeed, a plumber that inspected the buildings following Hurricane Ida described the root cause of the water damage as a “back up” of “sewer ... water.”2
Reprinted courtesy of
Kelly A. Johnson, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Damian S. Barquin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Johnson may be contacted at KJohnson@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Barquin may be contacted at DBarquin@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Summary Judgment for Insurer Reversed Based on Expert Opinion
May 30, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter the trial court discounted the insured's expert witness and granted summary judgment to the insurer, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed. Morales v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 1831 (Fla. Ct. App. March 15, 2022).
The insureds' property was allegedly damaged by Hurricane Irma in 2017. They filed a claim with Citizens. Citizens sent its adjuster and eventually denied the claim because the policy did not cover damages caused by wear and tear. Further, there was no coverage for loss caused by "rain . . . unless a covered peril first damages the building causing an opening in a roof or wall and the rain . . . enters through this opening."
The insureds sued and Citizens moved for summary judgment. At the hearing, Citizens' expert, a civil engineer, concluded that there were no storm-created openings in the roof. The insureds engaged a licensed contractor, Steven Delgado, who stated that he found significant damage to the roofing system and water intrusion through the roof. He observed loose shingles which were most likely damaged during Hurricane Irma, allowing for high winds and airborne debris to create small openings permitting water intrusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Woodbridge II and the Nuanced Meaning of “Adverse Use” in Hostile Property Rights Cases in Colorado
November 23, 2020 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogEarlier this year, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion addressing at length “whether the requirement that the use be ‘adverse’ in the adverse possession context is coextensive with adverse use in the prescriptive easement context.” See Woodbridge Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC, 2020 COA 34 (Woodbridge II), ¶ 2, cert. granted, No. 20SC292, 2020 WL 5405376 (Colo. Sept. 8, 2020). As detailed below, the Woodbridge II court concluded that the meanings of “adverse” in these two contexts are not coextensive—while “hostility” in the adverse possession context requires a claim of exclusive ownership of the property, a party claiming a prescriptive easement is only required to “show a nonpermissive or otherwise unauthorized use of property that interfered with the owner’s property interests.” Thus, the Woodbridge II court reasoned a claimants’ acknowledgement or recognition of an owner’s title alone is insufficient to defeat “adverse use” in the prescriptive easement context.
This significant ruling is at odds with a prior division’s broad statement, while considering a prescriptive easement claim, that “[i]n general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant’s claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use.” See Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo. App. 2006). Perhaps for that reason, Woodbridge II is currently pending certiorari review before the Colorado Supreme Court in a case that should provide some much-needed clarity on what constitutes “adverse use” in the context of a prescriptive easement. As we await the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision, I thought it worthwhile to provide a brief analysis of the Woodbridge II court’s deep dive into the nuances of “adverse use” in this field of Colorado law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Know Whether Your Course of Business Operations Are Covered Or Excluded By Your Insurance
December 27, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIt is a good idea to know what your insurance covers and does not cover. This way, if your course of business has you performing a certain (risky) operation, you know whether that operation is covered or excluded under your policy. If you are not sure, discuss with your insurance broker — this is important. There is little value performing an operation that is NOT covered by your insurance policy, as you are now performing a risk that is not covered by insurance. If you know it is not covered by insurance you may elect to change your operations or see if there is insurance to cover the risk. Below is a case study of this occurrence dealing with a commercial automobile liability policy where an insured’s operations using a crane mounted to a super duty truck was not covered under their automobile liability policy.
In People’s Trust Ins. Co. v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D262a (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), homeowners hired a company to install a shed. The company hired another company to deliver and install the shed using a crane; the company used a crane mounted to a Ford F-750 super duty truck. This company improperly operated the crane resulting in the shed falling and damaging the homeowner’s roof. The homeowners submitted a claim to their property insurer and their property insurer subrogated to their rights and sued. The company operating the crane’s commercial automobile liability insurer denied coverage, and thus, denied the duty to defend. As a result, a
Coblentz-type agreement was entered into where the company operating the crane consented to a judgment in favor of the property insurer (subrogee) and assigned its rights under its commercial automobile liability policy to the property insurer. The property insurer then sued the automobile liability carrier for coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the automobile liability insurer finding there was no coverage and this was affirmed on appeal. Why?
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
