Recovering Attorney’s Fees and Treble Damages in Washington DC Condominium Construction Defect Cases
April 03, 2023 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Cowie Law GroupDC Condominium Association’s Can Recover Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Costs and Treble Damages in Construction Defect Cases Involving Misrepresentation
The District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“CPPA”) § 28-3905(k)(1)(A) creates a private legal claim (a/k/a “cause of action”) which can be asserted by a condominium unit owners association (“condominium association”) on behalf of two or more of its unit owner members who are misled by a condominium developer regarding the condition or quality of a newly constructed or newly converted condominium. Under the DC CPPA, a successful claimant is entitled to recover “treble damages” (i.e., three times the amount of damages it proves), plus recovery of “reasonable attorney’s fees” incurred in prosecuting the construction defect claim and “[a]ny other relief the court determines proper,” including non-attorney fee litigation expenses. DC CPPA § 28-3905(k)(2)(A), (B) and (F).
The CPPA Creates the Legal Claim that Allows a Condominium Associations to Recover Attorney’s Fees, Litigation Costs and Treble Damages
The DC CPPA is a consumer-oriented statute designed to protect Washington DC consumers misled in connection with the purchase of consumer “real estate,” including transactions involving the purchase of a condominium unit and interest in the condominium common elements. Typically, these cases involve the sale of a newly constructed or newly converted condominium, which, contrary to developer representations, contains latent construction defects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie Law GroupMr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowielawgroup.com
London's Walkie Talkie Tower Voted Britain's Worst New Building
September 03, 2015 —
Neil Callanan – BloombergThe skyscraper at 20 Fenchurch Street in the City of London, nicknamed the Walkie Talkie, is the worst new building in Britain, according to a panel assembled by Building Design magazine.
The 37-story tower, designed by Rafael Vinoly, was made famous two years ago when a beam of light reflected from the building melted parts of a Jaguar sports car. The problem has since been remedied by developers Land Securities Group Plc and Canary Wharf Group Plc.
It is a challenge finding anyone who has something positive to say about this building,” Thomas Lane, editor of the magazine for architects, said in a statement on Thursday. “Londoners now have to suffer views of this bloated carbuncle crashing into London’s historic skyline like an unwelcome guest at a party from miles away.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Neil Callanan, Bloomberg
Multisensory Marvel: Exploring the Innovative MSG Sphere
August 14, 2023 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe U.S. entertainment industry keeps amazing me. The first Disneyland opened in 1955, and ever since the industry has created experiences that amazingly combine architecture and technology.
The latest example is the
MSG Sphere which will open its doors in Las Vegas, Nevada, on September 29, 2023. It is a large-scale immersive entertainment space hosting various events, concerts, competitions, and residencies from the world’s biggest artists.
The world’s largest spherical structure
The MSG Sphere was initially a partnership between the Madison Square Garden Company (MSG) and Las Vegas Sands Corporation, which Apollo Global Management later replaced. The project’s final construction costs were $2.3 billion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Sanctions of $1.6 Million Plus Imposed on Contractor for Fabricating Evidence
March 16, 2017 —
Paul R. Cressman, Jr.King County Superior Court issued sanctions of $1,641,721 in favor of Gefco and against Cascade Drilling, Inc. and its President, Bruce Niermeyer, composed of $1,394,435 in attorneys’ fees and $247,286 in expert fees. [i]
Cascade Drilling is a contractor. Gefco manufactures and sells large drilling machinery. The dispute centered around a project that began in 2008. Cascade was hired to drill a water well at a housing development in Wheeler Canyon, California. Cascade used a 50K drilling rig purchased from Gefco. The pump drive shafts on the drilling rig failed four times. After each failure, Cascade ordered a replacement pump drive shaft from Gefco.
In September 2008, Cascade ordered drilling equipment for an unrelated drilling rig from Gefco, but did not pay Gefco. Gefco then sued to collect. Cascade admitted not paying, but asserted counterclaims alleging that Gefco was indebted to Cascade for non-conforming and defective goods, including the replacement pump drive shafts purchased from Gefco for the Wheeler Canyon project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul R. Cressman, Jr., Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Cressman may be contacted at
pcressman@ah-lawyers.com
Tarriffs, a Pandemic and War: Construction Contracts Must Withstand the Unforeseeable
May 16, 2022 —
Brett Moritz, Adrian Bastianelli III & Adam Handfinger - Construction ExecutiveSince the tariffs on steel and the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the construction industry has been reeling from the impact of material shortages and price increases, labor shortages, breakdowns in the supply chain and the inflationary effect of these issues. Unfortunately, the war in Ukraine has only exacerbated the situation.
International conflicts can constrain supply, resulting in delays and price increases for contractors, subcontractors and suppliers. The disruption caused by the war is expected to be particularly acute due to the role that Russia and Ukraine play in the world economy and the effect of the economic sanctions that have been imposed on Russia by the United States and other countries. Russia controls approximately 10% of the global copper reserves and is estimated to produce about 10% of the world’s nickel supply. It also provides at least 30% of Europe’s oil and natural gas. Ukraine is a significant source of raw materials, such as iron. Thus, the war will cause significant shortages and price increases to the global construction industry. There are already reports of delays and cost increases for commodities such as nickel, aluminum, copper and—most importantly—steel, which have resulted in impacts to construction costs and schedules. Suppliers are especially sensitive to the volatile markets caused by these conditions. Some are insisting on automatic price increases in their purchase orders.
All of this, not to mention the anticipation of what may come next, points to the necessity for a new paradigm to achieve a successful project. It is more important today than ever that owners, contractors, subcontractors and suppliers reasonably address the economic and time impacts of these unforeseeable events in preparing contracts for future work and in administering existing contracts. Otherwise, the risk of a default on more than one level may put projects in jeopardy, to no one’s benefit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 Response: Environmental Compliance Worries in the Time of Coronavirus
April 20, 2020 —
Karen Bennett, Jane Luxton, William Walsh & Amanda Tharpe - Lewis BrisboisEarlier this week, a rumor made the rounds that a forthcoming Presidential Executive Order would impose a nationwide mandate that all employees work remotely. While the rumor proved baseless, it raised questions about manufacturers’ abilities to comply with environmental permit obligations in the event of a COVID-19 precipitated operational shutdown due to federal or state mandates or workforce depletion resulting from widespread illness. Previous emergencies offer some insights on what to expect as companies and their counsel assess environmental business risk.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, several bills were introduced in Congress that would have allowed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to waive or modify requirements, issue emergency permits, or expedite permits as needed to respond to disaster and recovery needs. In the end, no new legislation was enacted, because existing emergency powers under environmental statutes proved sufficient to allow for waiver of regulatory requirements or exercise of enforcement discretion. Key provisions include the following:
- The Clean Water Act’s (CWA) affirmative defense for “upset” conditions. This provision excuses non-compliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations due to factors outside the permittee’s control. Criteria for establishing the defense include: 1) the upset occurred and the permittee can identify the cause, 2) the permitted facility was at the time being properly operated, 3) the permittee submitted notice of the upset (24 hour notice), and 4) the permittee complied with any remedial measures required under 40 C.F.R. §122.41(d).
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith attorneys
Karen Bennett,
Jane Luxton,
William Walsh and
Amanda Tharpe
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. William may be contacted at William.Walsh@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Amanda may be contacted at Amanda.Tharpe@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
More Money Down Adds to U.S. First-Time Buyer Blues: Economy
August 20, 2014 —
Michelle Jamrisko and Alexis Leondis – BloombergThe challenges facing prospective buyers of the least expensive homes in the U.S. are getting harder to overcome.
Already beset by stagnant wages, growing student debt and competition from investors who are snapping up listings, those looking to purchase moderately priced houses must also provide more cash up front. The median down payment for the cheapest 25 percent of properties sold in 2013 was $9,480 compared with $6,037 in 2007, the last year of the previous economic expansion, according to data from 25 of the largest metro areas compiled by brokerage firm Redfin Corp.
The higher bar is a symptom of still-tight credit that is crowding out first-time buyers even as interest rates remain near historical lows. Younger adults, who would normally be making initial forays into real estate, are among those most affected, weakening the foundations of the housing market and limiting its contribution to economic growth.
Ms. Jamrisko may be contacted at mjamrisko@bloomberg.net; Ms. Leondis may be contacted at aleondis@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Jamrisko and Alexis Leondis, Bloomberg
