Around the State
March 27, 2019 —
Richard Glucksman & Chelsea Zwart – Construction Claims MagazineIn late 2018, Governor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings. These bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to have been caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists—the repairs of which were deferred by the property manager despite indications of water damage.
In addition, 2018 saw the passage of California’s updated 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The new standards, which take effect in 2020, require, in part, the installation of solar systems on certain homes. The goal of the standards is to significantly decrease the energy usage in new homes while contributing to California’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction plans. Relatedly, new legislation, effective in 2019, aims to increase consumer protections for homeowners purchasing solar energy systems.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger and
Chelsea Zwart, Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Ms. Zwart may be contacted at czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A New Hope - You Now May Have Coverage for Punitive Damages in Connecticut
February 15, 2018 —
Stella Szantova Giordano – SDV BlogOn December 19, 2017, the Connecticut Supreme Court released its decision in Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. Pasiak. The decision is significant for two reasons: 1) it clarifies the amount of proof an insurer needs to determine whether an exclusion to coverage applies; and 2) it found that where an insurance policy expressly provides coverage for an intentional act such as false imprisonment, common-law punitive damages are also covered.
Underlying action
The underlying action proves that real life is often stranger than fiction. Ms. S worked as an office help for a construction company owned by Mr. P, which operated out of his home. Ms. S was working alone in the home office, when an armed, masked intruder entered the office, tied her hands, gagged and blindfolded her and, pointing a gun to her head, threatened to kill her family if she did not give him the combination to a safe in the home. As this was happening, Mr. P entered the office, unmasked the intruder, and discovered it was his lifelong friend. After Ms. S was untied, she asked to leave, but Mr. P told her to stay. She was not allowed to leave for several hours as Mr. P made her accompany him to an errand. Ms. S sued Mr. P for false imprisonment, among other things. The trial court awarded her compensatory and punitive damages. Insurance coverage for the underlying judgment is at the heart of the Pasiak case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Szantova Giordano may be contacted at
ssg@sdvlaw.com
South Carolina Clarifies the Accrual Date for Its Statute of Repose
March 18, 2019 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn Lawrence v. General Panel Corp., 2019 S.C. LEXIS 1, No. 27856 (S.C. Jan. 1, 2019), the Supreme Court of South Carolina answered a certified question related to South Carolina’s statute of repose, S.C. Code § 15-3-640,[1] to wit, whether the date of “substantial completion of the improvement” is always measured from the date on which the certificate of occupancy is issued. The court held that a 2005 amendment to § 15-3-640 did not change South Carolina law with respect to the date of substantial completion. Thus, under the revised version of § 15-3-640, “the statute of repose begins to run at the latest on the date of the certificate of occupancy, even if there is ongoing work on any particular part of the project.” A brief review of prior case law may assist with understanding the court’s ruling in Lawrence.
In Ocean Winds Corp. of Johns Island v. Lane, 556 S.E.2d 377 (S.C. 2001), the Supreme Court of South Carolina addressed the question of whether § 15-3-640 ran from substantial completion of the installation of the windows at issue or on substantial completion of the building as a whole. Citing § 15-3-630(b),[2] the court found that the windows “were ‘a specified area or portion’ of the larger condominium project” and, upon their incorporation into the larger project they could be used for the purpose for which they were intended. Thus, the court held that “the statute of repose began running when installation of the windows was complete.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and WilliamsMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Measures Landlords and Property Managers Can Take in Response to a Reported COVID-19 Infection
May 18, 2020 —
Kyle Janecek & Jason Morris - Newmeyer DillionMost landlords and property managers are now familiar with steps they should be taking to reduce the spread of COVID-19. But what if a tenant or employee has tested positive with COVID-19? Unfortunately, many landlords and property managers are grappling with this very question. While there’s some clarity as it pertains to evictions in the landlord-tenant context, other considerations like disinfection, required notices, and maintenance, are evolving or unclear. Here are steps landlords and property managers can take in response to an employee or tenant testing positive with COVID-19.
Measures Landlords Can Take for Employees
For workplaces, there is a large variety of guidelines and procedures that are generally available to review. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has valuable guidance available online here and here. The Occupational and Safety Health Administration (OSHA) has valuable guidance available online here. In short, if there is an incident where one employee may have exposed others to COVID-19, here are five steps employers should take:
- Send the affected employee home and instruct them not to return to work until the criteria to discontinue home isolation are met in consultation with healthcare providers, and state and local health departments. Make sure to maintain all information about employee illnesses as a confidential medical record.
- Ask the affected employee whether they have had close contact with any other workers.
Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion and
Jason L. Morris, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at jason.morris@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court of Appeal Opens Pandora’s Box on Definition of “Contractor” for Forum Selection Clauses
October 02, 2015 —
David A. Harris & Abigail E. Lighthart – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Vita Planning and Landscape Architecture, Inc. v. HKS Architects, Inc. (“Vita Planning”), the First Appellate District held California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 410.42 (“Section 410.42”) which prohibits an out-of-state contractor from requiring a California subcontractor to litigate disputes in a state other than California, applies not only to traditional “contractors” and “subcontractors” but also to design professionals and architects.
In Vita Planning, a dispute arose when HKS, a Texas based architectural firm, refused to pay Vita Planning and Architecture (“Vita”), a landscape design firm, for work on a luxury hotel in Mammoth Lakes, California (“Project”). HKS contended it was not required to pay Vita until it was paid by the owner of the Project, and any claims regarding the work needed to be filed in Texas pursuant to a forum selection clause contained in a Prime Contract between HKS and the Owner. The forum clause was “incorporated by reference” into an unsigned “standard form” agreement between HKS and Vita. Despite the forum clause, Vita filed a Complaint against HKS in Marin County Superior Court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Abigail E. Lighthart, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Ms. Lighthart may be contacted at alighthart@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Monitoring Building Moisture with RFID – Interview with Jarmo Tuppurainen
February 22, 2018 —
Aarni Heiskanen – aec businessI met Jarmo, the Technology Manager at Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, at the leading event for housing markets in Helsinki (
Asuntomarkkinat). He and his team had set up an impressive display of devices and structures in the KIRA-digi showroom.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, aec businessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
LEED Certified Courthouse Square Negotiating With Insurers, Mulling Over Demolition
June 06, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser, Builders Council BlogApparently, Courthouse Square is still unresolved. The County hasnow hired an attorney to handle its insurance claim against Affiliated FM. Is there a lawsuit coming?
Right now, no lawsuit is expected. According to officials, the insurer has been acting in good faith. But, its been quite a while since Salem officials learned that the Courthouse Square building had significant concrete issues that would result in probable demolition of the LEED certified building.
If you have yet to hear about Courthouse Square, let me fill you in briefly. The Salem building was substantially completed in 2000 and LEED certified by the US Green Building Council in 2002. The project cost more than $30 Million to complete and the building was revered for its innovation as a crowning achievement for city leaders.
But, structural problems in the building’s core were discovered as early as 2002, writes Chris Cheatham of Green Building Law Update. Final tests earlier in the year, determined that the building had to be vacated. The building has been clear since July 2010.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
