Water Damage: Construction’s Often Unnoticed Threat
November 02, 2020 —
Yaron Dycian - Construction ExecutiveFire damage to commercial buildings might get headlines, but water damage, whether to projects under construction or completed buildings, delivers massive financial blows to owners, developers and contractors. The impact is massive, reaching many billions of dollars per year. One water leak on the 19th floor at a construction site of a high-end apartment building in New York City resulted in $30 million in property damage and millions in delayed delivery penalties.
Imagine this all-too-typical scenario: A 20-story building has thousands of pipe connections and many tens of thousands throughout the entire building. It only takes one of those joints failing, perhaps due to human oversight. Early on a Saturday morning when no one is onsite, one of the connections inside a wall begins to leak, slowly at first. In a couple hours the connection fails completely, sending a cascade of water into the building. The site is located next to a highway, so the security guards don’t hear the water flowing.
The leak goes undetected until crews come back onsite on Monday morning. By that point, lower levels of the building have been inundated with thousands of gallons of water that has destroyed construction material, carpeting and electrical switchgear. It’s flowed into the elevator pits and mechanical room.
Reprinted courtesy of
Yaron Dycian, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Dycian may be contacted at
yaron@wint.ai
Lower Manhattan Condos Rival Midtown’s Luxury Skyscrapers
April 09, 2014 —
Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergManhattan developer Bill Rudin hadn’t planned to start selling apartments at his Greenwich Village project until the end of this year. He began rethinking that strategy after getting cornered at a cocktail party.
“People came up to me and said, ‘We want to buy, we want to buy. When can we buy?’” Rudin said in an interview.
He opened a sales office in October for the Greenwich Lane, a complex under construction at the site of the shuttered St. Vincent’s Hospital, after an online sign-up list of would-be buyers for the 200 condominiums drew 1,100 names. More than half of the units at the development, still largely a field of dirt and skeletal towers, have sold at prices averaging $3,500 a square foot, in line with other projects downtown and a new luxury benchmark for the area.
While Midtown skyscrapers fringing Central Park are setting sales records and attracting international investors, downtown Manhattan’s new condos are breaking their own price barriers with a focus on local buyers. From the cobblestone streets of Tribeca to the low-rise landmarks of Greenwich Village, builders are accelerating projects with features and costs that rival high-end offerings farther north.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, BloombergMs. Carmiel may be contacted at
ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net
M&A Representation and Warranty Insurance Considerations in the Wake of the Coronavirus Pandemic
April 06, 2020 —
Lori Smith & Patrick Devine - White and Williams Taking Care of Business BlogIncreasingly, M&A transactions are using representation and warranty insurance (RWI) to bridge the gap between a buyer’s desire for adequate recourse to recover damages arising out of breach of representations in the purchase agreement and a seller’s desire to minimize post-closing risk and holdbacks or purchase price escrows traditionally used as the means to satisfy such obligations. When it works, RWI provides a significant benefit to both parties: it mitigates the buyer’s risk in the event that the seller’s representations and warranties prove untrue, and it permits the seller to reduce the portion of the purchase price that it would otherwise have to leave in escrow to cover future claims for breach of those representations and warranties. However, as the coronavirus pandemic ravages the global economy, insurers are now expressly adding COVID-19 exclusions to their RWI policies. If RWI insurers decline coverage for these losses, the allocation of risk in the representations and warranties (and related indemnity provisions) will be more critical than the parties contemplated when they negotiated the transaction documents.
Unlike in the case of a natural disaster, insurers cannot quantify the economic fallout that may result from the coronavirus pandemic. This uncertainty breeds systemic concern about the number of insurance claims that covered parties of all varieties will bring, which in turn creates an industry-wide reluctance to cover the claims. Based on discussions with market participants, we understand that, at the present time, 70% to 80% of RWI insurers are broadly excluding losses resulting from COVID-19 and similar viruses, epidemics, and pandemics (including government actions in response thereto), 5% to 10% are narrowly excluding specific coronavirus-related losses that are more likely to be implicated in a particular transaction (e.g., losses caused by business interruption), and 10% to 15% may be willing to narrow their exclusions upon completion of the underwriting process, depending on their comfort level after conducting rigorous and heightened diligence. Insurers’ concerns are wide-ranging, but the representations and warranties causing the greatest distress appear to be those regarding customer retention, supply chain matters, undisclosed liabilities, and the absence of changes between the date of the seller’s most recent financial statements and the transaction closing date.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Smith, White and Williams and
Patrick Devine, White and Williams
Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at devinep@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Breaking with Tradition, The Current NLRB is on a Rulemaking Tear: Election Procedures, Recognition Bar, and 9(a) Collective Bargaining Relationships
September 09, 2019 —
Keahn Morris, John Bolesta & James Hays - Construction and Infrastructure Law BlogIn its 84-year history, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB, Board or Agency) has promulgated a very small number of rules pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, relying, instead, on individualized adjudications to establish the Board’s legislative policies. However, breaking with that long tradition, the current Board now appears to be on the verge of a formal rulemaking jag for on May 22, the Board released its “Unified Agenda” of anticipated regulatory actions which, in addition to proceeding with rulemaking regarding joint employer standards, announced the Board’s intention to consider formal rulemaking in a number of critical areas. Consistent with that wide-ranging Agenda, on August 12, the Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) over the objection of Democratic appointee, Lauren McFerran, that would amend the Agency’s rules and regulations governing the filing and processing of election petitions in three very important ways. This NPRM, therefore, deserves attention.
The first possible amendment will modify the Board’s administrative election blocking charge practice by establishing a regulation-based vote and impound procedure to be used when a party, typically a union facing possible decertification, files an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge and, based thereon, seeks to block the holding of an election.
The second possible amendment will modify the Board’s current recognition bar case law by codifying prior Board case doctrine and creating a regulation-based requirement of notice of voluntary recognition to affected employees and a 45-day open period within which affected employees may call for an election before that voluntary recognition will be allowed to operate as a bar to employees raising later questions concerning the union’s representative status (QCR).
Reprinted courtesy of Sheppard Mullin attorneys
Keahn Morris,
John Bolesta and
James Hays
Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com
Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com
Mr. Hays may be contacted at jhays@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Proving Impacts to Critical Path to Defeat Liquidated Damages Assessment
December 16, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen a contractor is staring down the barrel of an owner’s assessment of liquidated damages, the burden will fall on the contractor to establish that the delay was attributable to the owner and the owner’s agents. The contractor will want to do this not only to defeat the assessment of liquidated damages, but because it will want to establish that the delay caused it to incur extended field overhead (general conditions) for which the owner is responsible. A contractor supports its burden by proving the impacts to its critical path. “In general, proving an allegation of government-caused delays without a means of showing the critical path is a steep prospect.” James Talcott Construction v. U.S., 2019 WL 1040383, *8 (Fed. Cl. 2019) (unreported opinion) (finding that because contractor did NOT present a critical path analysis it could not support its claim for delay caused by the government).
Avoiding the assessment of liquidated damages means the contractor needs to support that it encountered excusable delay and it is/was entitled to an extension of time to complete the project.
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
Mass-Timber Furnished Apartments Fare Well in Fire Tests
August 24, 2017 —
Nadine M. Post - Engineering News-RecordAdvocates for a code change that would allow taller heavy-timber frames are buoyed by the good performance of mass-timber structures in the first U.S. fire tests on full-scale furnished apartments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadine M. PostMs. Post may be contacted at
postn@enr.com
Supreme Court Holds Arbitrator can Fully Decide Threshold Arbitrability Issue
March 18, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe United States Supreme Court recently decided parties to a contract can agree, under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator, rather than a court, can fully resolve the initial arbitrability question. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 2019 WL 122164 (2019). The arbitrability question is whether the dispute itself is subject to arbitration under an arbitration provision. Parties that do not want to arbitrate try to circumvent this process by filing a lawsuit and asking the court to determine the threshold arbitrability question.
In Henry Schein, Inc., the contract at-issue provided:
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. Any dispute arising under or related to this Agreement (except for actions seeking injunctive relief and disputes related to trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules of the American Arbitration Association. The place of arbitration shall be in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The plaintiff in this case asserted a claim for injunctive relief (among other claims) and argued that, therefore, the dispute is not subject to arbitration based on the exception in the provision. The initial, threshold issue became whether the dispute was subject to arbitration and, importantly, who decides this issue. The Court further looked at whether a trial court can resolve this issue under the “wholly groundless” exception, i.e.,the court can decide the issue if the argument for arbitration is wholly groundless.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
No Duty to Defend Suit That Is Threatened Under Strict Liability Statute
July 09, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Washington Court of Appeals found there was no duty to defend the insured under a strict liability statute for alleged contamination when no action was threatened by the agency. Gull Indus., Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1338 (Wa. Ct. App. June 2, 2014).
Gull leased a gas station to the Johnsons from 1972 to 1980. In 2005, Gull notified the Department of Ecology (DOE) that there had be a release of petroleum product at the station. DOE sent a letter acknowledging Gull's notice of suspected contamination. In 2009, Gull tendered its defense to its insurer, Transamerica Insurance Group. Gull also tendered its claims as an additional insured to the Johnson's insurer, State Farm. Neither insurer accepted the tenders.
Gull then sued the insurers, arguing they had a duty to defend. Gull contended that because the state statute imposed strict liability, the duty to defend arose whether or not an agency had sent any communications about the statute or cleanup obligations. The insurers moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
