Pennsylvania Considers Changes to Construction Code Review
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFPennsylvania may soon change how it adopts changes to its implementation of the Uniform Construction Code, but it’s not clear which method will be adopted, as the Pennsylvania House and Senate have competing bills. In the Senate bill (SB1023), the only change would be that any changes to the Uniform Building Code made by the International Code Council would automatically become part of the Pennsylvania building code, unless rejected by a two-thirds vote of the Pennsylvania UCC Review and Advisory Council. Under current Pennsylvania law, changes are adopted only with a two-thirds approval of the RAC.
The House bill (HB1209), separates the commercial code from the residential code. Under the House proposal, the RAC would reject changes to the commercial building code on a two-thirds vote, otherwise they would be adopted, but in the residential building code, changes would be rejected unless the RAC approved them by a two-thirds vote.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Palo Alto Proposes Time Limits on Building Permits
October 01, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFPalo Alto, California has a problem. Too many construction or renovation projects have languished without any sign of completion. The city council has a solution: time limits. Under current rules, projects only have to complete enough work so that there’s something to inspect every six months.
Under the proposed rules, builders would have a set time to finish the project, with larger projects getting more time in which to finish. Projects that ran over that time would get fines.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action
March 26, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result.
Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda.
At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coronavirus, Force Majeure, and Delay and Time-Impact Claims
March 30, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s scary, uncertain times as the world grasps with how to deal with the coronavirus pandemic that has now spread to every continent on the globe with the exception of Antarctica. Although this is a global crisis, it has, and for the immediately future will continue to have, a direct impact on us individually as well our industry.
While the impact of the coronavirus on the construction industry is uncertain, what is certain, is that it will have an impact, whether on the construction labor market, on construction supply chains, on the ability of contractors to deliver projects on time and within budget, and on decisions by owners whether to move forward with projects altogether.
According to Ken Simonson, chief economist with the Associated General Contractors of America, during an interview at the ConExpo conference this past week in Las Vegas, while the coronavirus crises “is a story evolving by the hour . . . the impacts on construction are going to happen, but it’s hard to say how extensive, how long they’ll last, [and] how soon they’ll show up.”
From a legal perspective, the coronavirus, and really any natural disaster, from the “Campfire Fire” in Northern California in 2018 to the “Big One” which can happen anytime, has the potential to adversely impact a construction project or shut it down completely. This in turn raises two different, but interrelated legal concepts: (1) force majeure; and (2) delay and time-impact claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence
July 13, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesSometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown.
An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:
In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.
U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).
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
Construction Defects Lead to Demolition of Seattle’s 25-story McGuire Apartments Building
March 16, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFAccording to a story published last Thursday in Seattle PI: " The 25-story McGuire Apartments, at Second Avenue and Wall Street, would cost more to fix than the building is worth, according to its owners. Its most serious defect involves steel cables that are corroding inside of concrete slabs because the ends weren’t properly treated with a rust-proof coating and a pocket in the edge of the concrete that wasn’t properly sealed"
The report by Aubrey Cohen outlines the demolition plans which are expected to take between 12 and 18 months, and will utilize robotic Brokk Machines. The demolition plan calls for one story at a time to be demolished, with the debris to be trucked offsite. Demolition plans aim to minimize disruption to residents and businesses in the area by Limiting work 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturdays with "impact and percussive activities" limited to 8 a.m to 5 p.m weekdays.
Read More...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders FirstSource to Buy ProBuild for $1.63 Billion
April 15, 2015 —
Prashant Gopal – BloombergBuilders FirstSource Inc., a Dallas-based maker of materials for new homes, rose the most on record after saying it agreed to buy competitor ProBuild Holdings LLC for $1.63 billion.
ProBuild, based in Denver, operates about 400 lumber and building product distribution, manufacturing and assembly centers serving 40 U.S. states, according to a statement Monday. The companies had 2014 combined revenue of $6.1 billion.
Builders FirstSource surged 68 percent to $11.57. It was the biggest one-day gain ever for the shares, which began trading in June 2005.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal, Bloomberg
Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Recovery Practice, Andrea DeField and Cary D. Steklof, Recognized as Legal Elite
August 16, 2021 —
Casey L. Coffey - Hunton Andrews KurthWe are proud to share that Hunton Andrews Kurth insurance coverage Partner
Andrea (Andi) DeField and Counsel
Cary D. Steklof were recently recognized as 2021 Legal Elite Up & Comers in Florida Trend magazine. Florida Trend invited all in-state members of the Florida Bar to name attorneys whom they highly regard or would recommend to others. Only the top 111 attorneys were recognized for their leadership in the legal field and in the community. Andi and Cary are both well deserving of this honor and the award reflects their dedication to providing excellent legal services.Andi finds risk management, risk transfer, and insurance recovery solutions for public and private companies. She represents policyholders in a variety of insurance coverage disputes including those arising out of data breaches, ransomware attacks, construction defect and wrongful death suits, hurricanes, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory investigations, class actions, shareholder derivative suits, and COVID-19.
Cary represents individual, corporate and municipal policyholders in all types of first- and third-party insurance coverage and bad faith disputes. With experience in the areas of insurance litigation, insurer bad faith and unfair insurance practices, he concentrates his practice on advising policyholders in connection with director and officer, error and omission, cyber, commercial general liability, and commercial property insurance policies.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Casey L. Coffey, Hunton Andrews KurthMs. Coffey may be contacted at
ccoffey@HuntonAK.com
