CA Supreme Court Set to Rule on Important Occurrence Issue Certified by Ninth Circuit
March 22, 2018 —
William S. Bennett – SDV BlogThe California Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments over whether an insurer is required to cover allegations that a builder negligently failed to supervise an employee who sexually assaulted a middle school student while working at the student’s school. The question was originally certified to the California Supreme Court by the Ninth Circuit in 2016, but nothing happened until the court heard arguments on March 6, 2018.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
Golf Resorts Offering Yoga, Hovercraft Rides to the Green
June 18, 2014 —
Nadja Brandt – BloombergFlorida’s Woodmont Country Club, which once boasted 1,200 members, has been hit hard in the past decade as hurricanes and then the recession kept golfers away. Now the club’s owner is adding conference space, stores, restaurants, a spa and a hotel as part of a planned revival.
About $100 million will be spent on the revamp of the property in Tamarac, about 14 miles (23 kilometers) northwest of Fort Lauderdale, owner Mark Schmidt said. After years of negotiations with local authorities, he expects to receive approval this month for the planned Woodmont improvements.
While tennis courts and swimming pools have long had a place at golf clubs, a growing number of course owners are embracing mixed-use real estate, a concept more often used in urban developments to hedge risk and diversify returns. Property investors are adding everything from medical facilities to amphitheaters and hovercraft operations to increase revenue.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadja Brandt, BloombergMs. Brandt may be contacted at
nbrandt@bloomberg.net
Seattle’s Tallest Tower Said Readying to Go On the Market
March 12, 2015 —
Hui-yong Yu – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Seattle’s Columbia Center, the curved black office tower that’s the city’s tallest building, is poised to go on the market as its owners seek to tap into robust demand for U.S. real estate.
Beacon Capital Partners, a Boston-based private-equity real estate company, is working with Eastdil Secured LLC on the sale of the 76-story Columbia Center, the second-tallest U.S. building west of Chicago, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Formal marketing is likely to begin in coming months, said the person, who asked not to be identified because the process is private.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hui-yong Yu, BloombergMs. Yu may be contacted at
hyu@bloomberg.net
Testimony from Insureds' Expert Limited By Motion In Limine
October 21, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court considered the scope of testimony to be offered by the insureds' expert regarding a policy written for sanitation districts. Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Bd. v. Am. Alternative Ins. Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112210 (N.D. N.Y. Aug. 25, 2015).
The city of Binghamton and the city's Sewage Board sued American Alternative Insurance Corporation (AAIC) for coverage for a collapsed wall. AAIC sought the limit to testimony of the insureds' expert, Paul B. Nielander, through a motion in limine.
AAIC argued that Nielander was not qualified as an expert in interpreting insurance policies. His knowledge and experience was limited to insurance practices in other states and the words contained in policies other than AAIC policies. He had no experience with (i) negotiating, drafting, or performing under an AAIC policy, (ii) handling claims or interpreting policies written in New York State, or (iii) drafting policies or otherwise participating in what he conceded was a "niche market" of providing insurance to sanitation districts. Further, Neilander was not qualified to offer expert analysis of when the structural failure of the wall occurred because he had no training or experience as an engineer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Part II: Key Provisions of School Facility Construction & Design Contracts
July 21, 2018 —
David R. Cook - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPIn
Part I of this article, published in late April, we discussed the performance risk and time risk involved with construction and design contracts, and in Part II, we will cover cost risk and political risk.
Cost Risk
School budgets are limited for many reasons, and the construction budget is no exception. As a result, contracts should guard against unwarranted cost increases and claims. In the absence of a written change order signed by the appropriate officer, the contract should absolutely prohibit additional compensation for changes in the work. It should forbid claims for all events except those within the school authority’s sole control. Even for permitted claims, the contractor must provide written notice so that the authority might alleviate the problem and control its costs. To encourage the contractor to limit costs and claims, the contract could include a shared-savings clause, which grants an incentive payment for completion within the budget.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
Developer’s Fraudulent Statements Are His Responsibility Alone in Construction Defect Case
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals ruled on December 21 in the case of Helm v Kingston, a construction defect case. After purchasing what was described as “an extremely well-built” two-bedroom townhouse, Mr. Kingston made complaints of construction defects. Greenway Development did not repair the defects to Kingston’s satisfaction, and he filed notice of suit. In his suit, he claimed that GDI and its president, John Helm, had committed fraud and negligent misrepresentation. Kingston claimed that Helm “fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of workmanship was atrocious.” Helms brought a counterclaim that Kingston’s suit was frivolous.
About four years after Kingston purchased the townhome, the suit proceeded to trial. The trial court determined that Helm was not “liable in his individual capacity,” but this was reversed at appeal.
A second trial was held ten years later on the question of whether Kingston’s unit was a townhome or an apartment. A jury found that Helm “engaged in a false, misleading or deceptive act or practice that Kingston relied on to his detriment.” Kingston was awarded $75,862.29 and an additional $95,000 in attorney fees by the jury. Helms made an unsuccessful appeal to the Appeals Court, after which Kingston was awarded an additional $10,000. Helms then made an unsuccessful appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, which lead to an additional $3,000 for Kingston. There was also a verdict of $48,770.09 in pre-judgment interest and “five percent post-judgment interest accruing from the date of the judgment until the time the judgment is paid. Helm appealed.
In his appeal, Helm raised seven issues, which the court reorganized into five Kingston raised one issue on cross-appeal.
Helms’ first claim was that Kingston “failed to satisfy the requirement of” Texas’s Residential Construction Liability Act and that by not filing under the RCLA, Kingston’s fraud and misrepresentation claims were preempted. Further Helms claimed that the RCLA limited Kingston’s damages. The court rejected this, as the RCLA deals with complaints made to a contractor and not only did Helm fail to “conclusively establish” his “status as a ‘contractor’ under the statutory definition,” Helm testified that he was “not a contactor” at the pre-trial hearing.
Helms’s second claim was that Kingston’s later claim of a misconstructed firewall should be barred, claiming that Kingston “‘had knowledge of a defect in the firewall’ as early as 1997 but did not assert them until 2007.” The court rejected this because Kingston’s claim was that “Helm ‘fraudulently induced Kingston to believe that the townhouse evidenced the highest quality of workmanship when in fact the quality of the workmanship was atrocious.’”
Helms also challenged whether his statements that the residence was of “good quality” constituted fraud and misrepresentation under Texas’s Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The court concluded that Helm was in a position to make knowledgeable statements and further that “residential housing units are not artistic works for which quality is inherently a matter of subjective judgment.” Helm also claimed that Kingston could have avoided certain repair expenses through the “exercise of reasonable care.” Helms argued that the repairs could have been made for $6,400. The court disagreed, as these claims were cited only to invoke the DTPA, and that later petitions established additional defects.
Helms’s next claim was that he was not allowed to designate responsible third parties. The court rejected this because there GDI represented matters concerning the residence only through Helm’s statements. The court noted that “Helm is correct that?third parties may be liable for fraud if they ‘participated in the fraudulent transactions and reaped the benefits,’” but they note that “Helm never specifically alleged that GDI or CREIC participated in Helm’s alleged fraudulent transactions.
The final issue in the decision was about court costs, and here the court denied claims on both sides. Helm argued that the award of legal fees were excessive, as they exceeded the actual damages. The court noted that they “may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury,” and also that “the ratio between the actual damages awarded and the attorney’s fees is not a factor that determines the reasonableness of the fees.” But the court also rejected Kingston’s claim for post-judgment interest on $10,312.30 that Helm had deposited in the trial court’s registry. The court noted that the monies were to be paid out upon final judgment, but the mandate did not include any reference to interest.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Law Alert: Appellate Court Rules General Contractors Can Contractually Subordinate Mechanics Lien Rights
November 26, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, & Colin T. Murphy - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Moorefield Construction, Inc. v. Intervest-Mortgage Investment Co., 230 Cal. App. 4th 146 (4th Dist. 2014), a California appellate court upheld an agreement executed by a general contractor which subordinated its mechanic’s lien to a construction lender’s deed of trust.
In 2006, developer DBN Parkside LLC ("DBN") purchased land in San Jacinto, California (the "property") to build a medical complex (the "project"). DBN hired Moorefield Construction, Inc. (“Moorefield”) to act as general contractor and sought funding for the project from Intervest-Mortgage Investment Company (“Intervest”). Prior to the recordation of the construction loan, and unbeknownst to Intervest, Moorefield cleared and grubbed the project site. Pursuant to the construction loan agreement, Intervest required DBN to assign its rights and remedies under the construction contract to Intervest. Under its construction contract, Moorefield agreed to subordinate its lien rights to the construction loan.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Steven M. Cvitanovic,
Jessica M. Lassere Ryland and
Colin T. Murphy
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Lassere Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com; and Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Not So Universal Design Fails (guest post)
April 28, 2016 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaToday we have a guest post from Carla Williams, who works in customer service for the
Williams Brothers Corporation of America. Carla humorously brings light to a serious problem– the intent behind ADA and Universal Design is very often not met with poorly-thought out applications in the real world. Enjoy, and feel free to leave a comment for Carla below.
Universal design is the idea that architecture should be inherently accessible to everyone. The growing number of architects adopting universal design is great news for people with accessibility needs. Instead of having separate entrances and walkways to make a building accessible, universal design allows people of all abilities to move together.
Unfortunately, many buildings are stuck back in 1990 right after the Americans with Disabilities Act was made law. These buildings may be technically “accessible,” but they aren’t spaces people with accessibility needs can maneuver very easily. Until all building designers come to understand and implement the beauty and functionality of universal design, the world is left with less than ideal accessibility. “Less than ideal” is a bit of an understatement. Many times full-on “accessibility fails” take place.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
