BWB&O’s Los Angeles Office Obtains Major Victory in Arbitration!
July 25, 2022 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara Partner Patrick Au and Senior Associate Theresa Mallen recently achieved a major victory in binding Arbitration.
The subject action involved a construction project in the backyard of homeowner’s residence. Homeowner maintained that BWB&O’s contractor client abandoned the project. Furthermore, homeowner alleged that the work performed by BWB&O’s client was deficient. The primary construction defect claim is that the pool deck is not properly sloped which is preventing surface water from running off the top of the retaining wall as designed.
The Arbitrator ultimately sided with BWB&O’s client finding that BWB&O’s client did not abandon the project, but rather was terminated by homeowner. Additionally, BWB&O successfully proved that despite the fact that the three pertinent elevations that determine the slope of the concrete pool slab were pre-established before BWB&O’s client even got on the project, that BWB&O’s client properly installed the concrete pool slab and would have established the necessary slope of the pool deck had it not been terminated from the project. Homeowner asserted many other secondary construction defect claims and the Arbitrator found in BWB&O’s client’s favor on each and every issue.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
WSHB Expands to Philadelphia
July 28, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFWood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) announced “the opening of its newest regional office at One Liberty Place, 1650 Market Street, 36th Floor, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103,” according to a press release. Elizabeth Chalik will be the managing partner at the new location. Chalik is “a highly regarded litigator with close to 15 years of trial experience” and her practice has focused on products liability, casualty, toxic tort and transportation litigation. Furthermore, Chalik is admitted to practice law in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
“It is fitting that as we celebrate WSHB’s 19th year, we are opening our 19th office,” said Daniel Berman, Firm Chairman and Co-founder. “With this expansion, we continue our pattern of strategic long term growth. That, coupled with Liz’s proven track record and many years in Philadelphia, further expands our ability to better serve our clients in the Northeast.”
Chalik has been recognized on the Super Lawyers List of Rising Stars for three years running.
“I am thrilled to be joining Wood Smith Henning & Berman. WSHB’s long-standing reputation and dedication to their clients drew me to them and I knew that this would be the right place for me,” said Chalik. “I could not be more excited about the opportunity to manage WSHB’s new Philadelphia office!”
WSHB also has offices located in Connecticut, Denver, Fresno, Glendale, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, New Jersey, New York, Northern California, Orange County, Phoenix, Portland, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Seattle and Tampa.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Additional Insured for Construction Defect Claim
July 02, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurers, finding there was no coverage for the additional insured on a construction defect claim. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co. v. Walsh Construction. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10285 (7th Cir. April 29, 2024).
The City of Chicago hired Walsh Construction Company as general contractor for the Facade and Circulation Enhancement (FACE) project at O'Hare International Airport. The FACE project involved building and installing a new canopy for Terminals 1, 2 and 3. The project also called for the construction of a steel and glass curtain wall that would be integrated with the curtain wall at Terminals 2 and 3. Walsh contracted with Carlo Steel Corporation to manufacture the steel and curtain wall. Carlo, in turn, subcontracted with LB Steel, LLC to manufacture and install the steel elements of the wall, which included steel columns, hammer heads and box girders. The subcontract between Carlo and LB Steel included an indemnity provision that required LB Steel to indemnify Carlo and Walsh for any property damage resulting from LB Steel's negligent performance.
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
How to Mitigate Lien Release Bond Premiums with Disappearing Lien Claimants
May 20, 2019 —
Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIt is one of those dreaded business situations that plagues the construction industry, especially in times of economic downturn—what to do when a lower-tier entity files a lien against a property then disappears. It has happened to countless owners, general contractors, subcontractors, and even some particularly unlucky sub-tier subcontractors and suppliers. Here is how it arises: a project is moving along, then performance or payment issues arise, and a company that is over extended or unwilling to continue work stops performance, walks off the job, and files a lien against the property for whatever amounts were allegedly unpaid. Often, the allegedly unpaid sums were legitimately withheld due to a good faith dispute over payment/performance, and it is not unusual for the defaulting entity to not be entitled to any of the sums claimed in the lien. Regardless, the lien stays on the property, and pressure is applied from the “upstream” entities to the party who contracted with the defaulting entity to “deal” with the lien.
Oftentimes, a contract will require the parties to “deal” with a lien by obtaining a lien release bond (“release bond”). For those lucky enough to not have encountered this issue, a release bond is a nifty statutory device whereby a surety agrees to record a release bond for the full claimed amount of the lien, with the release bond substituting in for the liened property, effectively discharging the property from liability under the lien. In other words, the lien is released from the property and attaches to the release bond. If the lien claimant recovers on its lien, it is technically satisfied by the surety providing the release bond (or the party who agrees to indemnify and defend the release bond). In exchange for delivering the release bond, the surety demands yearly premiums be paid on the release bond amount
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. MacDonald may be contacted at
scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com
The Ghosts of Tariffs Past May Help Us in the Future
January 07, 2025 —
Kellie Ros - ConsensusDocsThe havoc material tariffs have caused the construction industry is nothing new. President-Elect Donald Trump imposed heavy tariffs on steel and aluminum in his first administration in 2016. While the tariffs themselves were not wholly unexpected, the ripple effect of those tariffs (coupled with the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic) caused unexpected challenges for the construction industry. Those included allocating the risk of the additional costs caused by tariffs, supply and demand issues, grappling with escalation clauses, and navigating fixed price projects. The industry must now utilize the lessons learned from the rear-view mirror to strategically prepare for what was promised to be a second round of tariffs come January 2025.
Tariffs’ Impacts on Material Prices Everywhere
New or increased tariffs have the potential to raise prices for a wide range of construction inputs. Based on simple supply and demand principles, this includes inputs produced domestically that compete with foreign imports. For example, if a 20% tariff is imposed on Chinese steel, contractors may look to procure Brazil or U.S. steel in an effort to cut their costs. Such a rush to those less-costly alternatives may result in a supply shortage or an increase in prices in the marketplace across the globe. This occurred in 2016 when material prices indirectly related to the inputs on which the tariffs were imposed even increased. Contractors may be well served to get ahead of anticipated price increases and purchase materials now or take other actions in negotiating contracts to protect themselves.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kellie Ros, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Ms. Ros may be contacted at
kros@pecklaw.com
General Indemnity Agreement Can Come Back to Bite You
October 21, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI talk about payment bonds often here at Construction Law Musings. I talk a bit less about performance bonds and even less about the General Indemnity Agreements (GIA) that are signed by companies and their principals as part of the agreement between a construction company and its bonding company for the provision of these bonds. However, this does not mean that these GIA’s are not important. In fact, these are the agreements that allow a bonding provider to recoup any money paid out pursuant to either a payment or performance bond.
A 2018 case illustrates their importance. In Allegheny Cas. Co. v. River City Roofing, LLC, the Court considered a claim by Allegheny seeking both specific performance of the collateral agreement and reimbursement of certain expenses and investigative costs expended by Allegheny pursuant to its performance bond. Allegheny sought to be reimbursed for certain payments for siding work, investigative costs, and costs spent enforcing the GIA. Allegheny further sought to force the defendants to post sufficient collateral. To do so, Allegheny sued in the Eastern District of Virginia and then moved for summary judgment stating that the GAI uneuivocally required such a result due to the good faith payment for the siding work and the plain language of the GIA.
In response, the Defendants, River City Roofing and its principals that had personally guaranteed the indemnity, argued that the GIA did not apply to the siding work because only the roofing contract was subject to the performance bond and that any bond claims for which collateral was demanded were inchoate and therefore not proper for specific performance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Hong Kong Buyers Queue for New Homes After Prices Plunge
July 09, 2014 —
Michelle Yun – BloombergOn a Saturday morning in mid-June, thousands wait, crammed into Hong Kong’s Fortune Metropolis mall, across Victoria Harbor from the main business district, their eyes locked on large elevated screens. Cheers erupt when numbers flash, indicating the lucky ticket holders in the crowd.
They have paid HK$150,000 ($19,354) to enter a lottery that prioritizes buyers of apartments at City Point, a seven-tower development that billionaire Li Ka-shing’s Cheung Kong Holdings Ltd. (1) is building. More than 5,000 homebuyer-hopefuls are vying for 442 units, or about 11 for every home that went on sale the weekend of June 14.
Housing sales in Hong Kong are rising after government efforts to cool soaring prices led transactions to plunge last year to the lowest since at least 2002. A drop in mortgage rates and discounts from builders are luring back buyers of new homes after their price fell as much as 20 percent since October.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Yun, BloombergMs. Yun may be contacted at
myun11@bloomberg.net
Overruling Henkel, California Supreme Court Validates Assignment of Policies
October 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiIn a major ruling, the California Supreme Court applied a statutory provision to overrule its prior decision in Henkel Corp. v. Hartford Accident & Indemn. Co., 29 Cal. 4th 934 (2003) and ruled that liability policies can be assigned despite non-assignment provisions. See Fluor Corp. v. Superior Court, 2015 Cal. LEXIS 5631 (Cal. Aug. 20, 2015). The Hawaii Supreme Court relied on Henkel when it also found anti-consent provisions valid. See Del Monte Fresh Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 117 Haw. 357, 183 P.3d 734 (2007) [see posts here and here].
For decades, Fluor Corporation performed engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) operations through various corporate entities and subsidiaries. Beginning in 1971, Hartford issued up to 11 CGL policies to Fluor from 1971 to 1986. Each policy contained a consent-to-assignment clause reading: "Assignment of interest under the policy shall not bind the Company until its consent is endorsed hereon."
Beginning in the mid-1980s, Fluor Corporation was sued in numerous lawsuits claiming personal injury from asbestos exposure. Fluor Corporation tendered the early lawsuits to Hartford, which accepted the defense. Fluor Corporation subsequently went through a reverse spinoff under which a newly formed subsidiary, Fluor 2, took over the continuation of the company's EPC businesses. The original Fluor transferred all of its EPC-related assets and liabilities to Fluor-2, making Fluor-2 the parent of the EPC subsidiaries. The transaction did not except any insurance rights from the transfer of "any and all" assets.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
