Colorado Senate Revives Construction Defects Reform Bill
March 01, 2017 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA re-booted construction defects reform bill recently passed its first Senate committee, according to the Denver Business Journal. Next, Senate Bill 156, sponsored by Sen. Owen Hill, R-Colorado Springs, heads to the Senate floor for debate.
SB 156 “would require that condominium owners alleging construction defects take their disputes to arbitration or mediation if requested by builders,” the Denver Business Journal reported. “It also would require that homeowners be informed of the consequences of filing legal actions over purported disputes and that a majority of all owners in a condominium complex vote to proceed with legal action, rather than just a majority of homeowners association board members.”
However, it is almost identical to the failed measures that were introduced in 2014 and 2015.
Homeowners association group members and owners of defective condominiums argued against the measure, stating “that the effort would not improve the quality of building in the state, but simply would block aggrieved Coloradans from taking their complaints before a jury of their peers.”
Proponent of the bill, Tom Clark, CEO of Metro Denver Economic Development Corp., said “that Denver’s housing costs have risen since the first bill was introduced in 2013 to the sixth-most-expensive in the country – and are tops for any metro area not on a coast.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Palm Beach Billionaires’ Fix for Sinking Megamansions: Build Bigger
June 14, 2021 —
Prashant Gopal & Amanda L. Gordon - BloombergThomas Peterffy became one of the world’s richest people by mastering risk on Wall Street. Building his Mediterranean-style mansion seven years ago on a vulnerable stretch of Florida’s Palm Beach Island was a matter of seeing the odds clearly once again. The consequences of climate change will play out over decades, and Peterffy is 76 years old.
“I don’t have a care about it at all,” he said over lunch at Mar-a-Lago earlier this year, just down the street from his home. The founder of Interactive Brokers Group has a fortune of more than $21 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
“If something needs to be done to save it,” he added, “it’s not going to be my problem.”
The town of Palm Beach is busy adapting to the risks of a warming planet, even if there appear to be fewer worriers among the buyers and speculative builders on the island. Some of the lowest-lying properties in the U.S. are seeing the highest-flying prices. The real estate website Zillow estimates the value of Peterffy’s home at $52 million. This year a new nine-bedroom mansion with toes-in-the-sand views sold to financier Scott Shleifer for a record-breaking price in excess of $122 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Prashant Gopal & Amanda L. Gordon, Bloomberg
Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory
May 13, 2019 —
Meredith Thielbahr - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogFor those contractors in the government arena, read on.
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) was enacted to deter knowingly fraudulent actions by contractors which resulted in a loss of property to the Government. Intent to defraud with resulting financial hardship was required. Contrary to popular misconception, the statute was not designed to punish all false submissions to the Government simply because those submissions, or claims, are later found to be false. The statute’s inclusion of the requisite element of knowledge is consistent with this notion:
- A defendant must submit a claim for payment to the Government;
- the claim must be false or fraudulent;
- the defendant must have known the claim was fraudulent when it was submitted (also known as scienter); and
- the claim must have caused the Government to pay out money.
See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a).
Despite these explicit elements (in addition to common law elements of fraud), over the last two decades, contractors have seen ever-expanding theories of FCA recovery presented by qui tam plaintiffs and the Government. For example, under the FCA, the false “claim” evolved over time: the claim no longer needs to be an express false claim (i.e. the truthfulness of the claim is a direct condition of payment); the claim can be “implied” misrepresentation or “half-truth”.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Thielbahr may be contacted at
mthielbahr@grsm.com
Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage
November 26, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court determined that coverage was properly denied under the pollution exclusion of the policies. Headwaters Resources, Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20060 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2014).
Over 400 residents of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed two lawsuits against the insured, Headwaters, alleged property damage and bodily injury due to pollution generated in connection with the development of a golf course. The complaints alleged that between 2002 and 2007, the defendants used 1.5 million tons of toxic fly ash during construction of a golf course. The insured allegedly transported the fly ash to an open pit adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The chemicals from the fly ash leached into the ground water, damaging the private wells. The fly ash pit also released airborne contaminants that produced a strong smell of ammonia. As a result of the alleged contamination, the property values of plaintiffs' homes depreciated and members of the community faced increased risk of serious bodily injuries caused by exposure to the fly ash.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Can a Non-Union Company Be Compelled to Arbitrate?
August 02, 2017 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsSome of the most viewed topics on this blog are those concerning double breasted company. That is a two separate firms, commonly owned, one that is a signatory to a union and the other that is merit shop.
An issue frequently encountered with double breasted construction companies is an union arbitrator’s jurisdiction over the non-signatory firm. The issue usually goes something like this. A signatory employer’s collective bargaining agreement contains language prohibiting double breasting (which could be invalid). The collective bargaining agreement also contains an arbitration provision requiring all disputes concerning a breach of the agreement (a grievance) be decided by an arbitrator in private arbitration. The union files a demand for arbitration claiming that the union signatory has breached the collective bargaining agreement’s anti-dual shop provision. The union names the non-union firm as a party to the arbitration based on its status as an alleged “single employer.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Justin Bieber’s Unpaid Construction Bill Stalls House Sale
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Toronto Sun reported that Justin Bieber’s Calabasas, California house sale to Khloe Kardashian has been stalled due to a an unpaid construction bill. Bieber sold the home for $7.2 million, but allegedly owes $85,000 to a construction company for home repairs.
Bieber moved out of his mansion in Calabasas “to Atlanta, Georgia after numerous encounters with the police regarding alleged loud parties, speeding in the gated community and 'egging' a [neighbor’s] house,” according to the Toronto Sun.
Bieber has a week to pay the lien, or the house sale does not go through.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines
November 15, 2017 —
Jeff Dennis & Ivo Daniele – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPThe European Union (“EU”) has enacted a strict, comprehensive framework of security regulations aimed to protect its citizens. These regulations, known as the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), provide a blueprint for a combination of required legal, technological and work habits within an organization. Although this is an EU regulation, the new laws will apply to any organization within or outside the EU that collects or processes data of EU citizens. Therefore, U.S. companies must analyze their data and processes to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary. A quickly-approaching deadline of May 25, 2018 must be met to avoid massive fines.
What is the GDPR?
In order to address the creation of social networking sites, cloud computing, and location-based services, the EU set in motion a process to implement a vigorous set of rules to ensure the right to personal data protection for all European citizens. In April 2016 the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission adopted a new GDPR, which will take affect on May 25, 2018.
This GDPR will streamline cooperation between the data protection authorities on personal data issues allowing companies to deal with one authority - not each of the 28 EU member states. This will allow for quicker decisions by the data protection authorities and greatly reduce the red tape in both compliance and enforcement under the GDPR. This will also create a level playing field by forcing non-EU companies to comply with the same strict regulations - regardless of whether or not the company is established in the EU.
Territorial scope of the GDPR
The GDPR applies directly to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the EU - regardless of whether the processing takes place in the EU. Additionally, there are specific provisions under the GDPR that apply to non-EU companies if their processing activities relate to (a) the offering of goods or services (irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required) or (b) monitoring the behavior of individuals within the EU. Therefore, all companies must determine whether they process or monitor information of EU citizens. If a company falls within one of these categories, compliance with the GDPR is mandatory.
What happens if a company fails to comply with the GDPR?
Failure to comply with the GDPR could subject a company to crushing administrative fines.
The supervisory authority has the power to impose administrative fines under the GDPR. The following violations and breaches would subject a company to administrative fines:
- Not adhering to the core principles of processing personal data,
- Breach of notification to EU citizens by controllers and processors,
- Wrongful transfer of personal data to non-EU countries,
- Breach of obligations regarding certification,
- Ignoring the mandates asserted by the supervisory authority,
- Breach by those responsible for impact assessment, and
- Wrongful processing of employee data.
The extent of the violation and type of personal data involved will dictate the severity of the administrative fines imposed on a company. For example, under the GDPR, a company could be subject to administrative fines up to 20,000,000 EUR, or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual revenue of the preceding financial year. Obviously, these fines would be financially crippling to any company.
Preparing for May 25, 2018
The May 25, 2018 deadline is fast approaching and preparing for full compliance with the GDPR is paramount. Simple steps should be taken to ensure compliance including to:
(1) Review and analyze data repositories for sensitive data,
(2) Perform an analysis/accounting of procedure for data collection, and
(3) Create an oversite committee dedicated to data activities and compliance.
Most importantly, however, is to determine whether compliance with the GDPR is necessary, and strictly follow the requirements of the GDPR to protect from potentially massive fines.
Jeffrey M. Dennis currently serves as Newmeyer & Dillion’s Managing Partner and as a business leader, advises his clients on cybersecurity related issues, introducing contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. You can reach Jeff at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
Ivo Daniele is a seasoned associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. His practice includes representing private and public companies with both their transactional and litigation needs. You can reach Ivo at ivo.daniele@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Does Your U.S. Company Pull Data From European Citizens? Fall In Line With GDPR by May 2018 or Suffer Substantial Fines
Insurer's Attempt to Strike Experts in Collapse Case Fails
February 03, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's efforts to exclude two of the insured's experts in a collapse case were unsuccessful. Hudon Specialty Ins. Co. v. Talex Enterprises, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150148 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 4, 2019).
The insureds' building collapsed. The remaining portions of the building required immediate stabilization. The insureds hired Mr. Laird, an engineer, to prevent further property destruction. The insured designated Mr. Laird as a non-retained expert for trial. Mr. Laird's report claimed that the collapse was caused because the building had been re-roofed many times without removal of the degraded underlying roofing materials, thereby adding additional weight to the roof structure.
The insureds also designated Steve Cox as a non-retained expert. Mr. Cox was an architect who owned property neighboring the building that collapsed. He opined that the building collapsed because of the condition of very old mortar and not because of water standing on the building roof or because of roof repairs.
Hudson sought to strike these two experts because their opinions were inconsistent with the admitted facts. A document produced by the insureds stated that a large amount of rainwater had collected on the roof and the weight of the rainfall was the proximate cause of the collapse. Hudson claimed that this statement qualified as a judicial admission, removing the question of causation from contention. The court disagreed that the statement was a judicial admission because it did not form any part of the pleadings. The statement may have been an evidentiary admission that could be controverted or explained by the parties.
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
