COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

COVID-19 Likely No Longer Covered Under Force Majeure

February 01, 2023 — Rachel E. Pelovitz - Construction Executive
A recent decision by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has shaken up construction contracts. While companies could claim “force majeure” to exempt themselves from contractual obligations during much of the pandemic, this decision challenges ongoing validity of those claims. The decision was based on the Army Corps of Engineers deeming a bid from Boulder, Colorado–based American Mine Services (AMS) as nonresponsive because it included a COVID-19 force majeure clause. In reviewing the Corps’ decision, GAO—referencing the Federal Acquisition Regulation—found that “epidemics” and “quarantine restrictions” were already included in the contract between the Corps and AMS. Although AMS claimed that “COVID-19 is considered a force majeure event along with any other similar disease, epidemic or pandemic event,” the GAO concluded that this interpretation limited the rights of the government too much. Reprinted courtesy of Rachel E. Pelovitz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Pelovitz may be contacted at pelovitz@abc.org

---

KY Mining Accident Not a Covered Occurrence Under Commercial General Liability Policy

December 04, 2018 — Phillip A. Perez - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
In Am. Mining Ins. Co. v. Peters Farms, LLC,1 the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a mining error was not a covered accident under a commercial general liability insurance policy. The central issue was whether an insured mining company’s unauthorized removal of minerals from a neighboring property was an “occurrence” that unintentionally caused “property damage” as defined by the mining company’s commercial general liability policy (“CGL Policy”). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Phillip A. Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Perez may be contacted at pap@sdvlaw.com

---

Real Estate & Construction News Roundup (8/21/24) – REITs Show Their Strength, Energy Prices Increase Construction Costs and CRE Struggles to Keep Pace

October 01, 2024 — Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
In our latest roundup, UBS to liquidate $2 billion real estate fund, hotel workers in San Francisco vote to strike, housing market to change after blockbuster settlement, and more!

• When it comes to buying and selling homes, new rules are about to be put in play, five months after the National Association of Realtors agreed to a settlement over how its 1.5 million agents across the U.S. are paid commissions. (Kate Gibson, CBS)
• Project abandonments tumbled in July in one of the largest monthly declines ever due to the anticipated interest rate cut. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)
• Increases in energy prices drove most of the total rise in construction input costs over the past month. (Sebastian Obando, Construction Dive)

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team

---

One Word Makes All The Difference – The Distinction Between “Pay If Paid” and “Pay When Paid” Clauses

April 06, 2016 — David A. Harris – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Payment clauses in California construction contracts are often complex and multi-layered. This is especially true in contracts between general contractors and their subcontractors. The general does not want to pay the subs until it receives funding from the owners. The subs, of course, want their progress and final payments as soon as possible. Up until 1997, two different payment provisions were used in California contracts to manage payments by a general to its subcontractors. The first was called a “pay if paid” clause, and provided a contractor did not have to pay its subcontractors for work performed unless the subcontractor was first paid by the owner of the project. The second was the “pay when paid clause.” It required subcontractors to be paid for their work after the general was paid by the owner, or within “a reasonable time” after the subcontractors finished their work if the owner did not pay the general. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com

---

Daily Construction Reports: Don’t Leave the Job Without Them

January 11, 2022 — Patrick Barthet - Construction Executive
Trying to remember exactly what was done at a job site last week, last month or last quarter along with knowing who worked at the site is nearly impossible without a written, video or electronic record for reference. That’s why daily construction reports are so important. Yet many contractors fail to create these reports. And those that do create them, may do it only at the beginning of a project or sporadically throughout the progress of a job, and generally only when they are reminded to do so. Daily reports only become truly effective when they are, in fact, done daily. Whether it is to help resolve a pending delay issue or clarify a job site access claim, or any number of other matters where what happened at the time is so critical, those daily construction reports should be completed daily. Be Timely The reason that daily reports are admissible in court (with corroborating testimony) is that they are interpreted as being recorded at or about the time the events in question occurred. Field managers should, therefore, write up these reports daily while the work is occurring or very soon thereafter to capture as accurate an account as possible. If these reports are not created until the end of the week or month, the information will not be as accurate and may not be as helpful in supporting a particular position. Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Barthet, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Barthet may be contacted at pbarthet@barthet.com

---

The Five-Step Protocol to Reopening a Business

August 03, 2020 — Amy R. Patton & Rana Ayazi - Payne & Fears
Over the past few months, guidance on how to create a safer, low-risk workplace has frequently changed. Fortunately, the state of California has finally reached a point where comprehensive and concrete advice is now available. On June 24, 2020, the California Statewide Industry Guidance to Reduce Risk website was updated. In addition to providing industry-specific guidance and opening checklists for approximately 40 different industries, the website now unambiguously requires all businesses—regardless of which “phase” they reopen—to follow a five-step protocol (as described in greater detail throughout this article):

• Perform a detailed risk assessment and create a site-specific protection plan.
• Train employees on how to limit the spread of COVID-19. This includes how to screen themselves for symptoms and when to stay home.
• Set up individual control measures and screenings.
• Put disinfection protocols in place.
• Establish physical distancing guidelines

Reprinted courtesy of Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

California Supreme Court Declares that Exclusionary Rule for Failing to Comply with Expert Witness Disclosures Applies at the Summary Judgment Stage

March 01, 2017 — Bruce Cleeland & Michael J. Worth - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC, 2017 No. S233096, the California Supreme Court held that when a trial court determines an expert opinion is inadmissible because expert disclosure requirements were not met, the opinion must be excluded from consideration at summary judgment if an objection is raised. Plaintiff Mr. Perry sued defendants Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC and JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, alleging personal injuries after plaintiff fell at a property owned by Bakewell and leased by Chase. Defendant Chase served plaintiff with a demand for the exchange of expert witness information. Plaintiff made no disclosure. Thereafter, the trial date was continued. Defendant Bakewell subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment. In opposition, plaintiff submitted declarations of two experts opining that the stairs on which plaintiff fell were in disrepair and failed to comply with building codes and industry standards. Reprinted courtesy of Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Michael J. Worth, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com Mr. Worth may be contacted at mworth@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pennsylvania: When Should Pennsylvania’s New Strict Products Liability Law Apply?

February 05, 2015 — Robert Caplan and Timothy Carroll – White and Williams LLP
Pennsylvania has maintained its own peculiar brand of strict products liability law ever since the Supreme Court decided Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.[1] in 1978. Maligned by many as “absurd and unworkable,”[2] if “excessively” orientated towards plaintiffs,[3] Azzarello’s unique approach to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (1965)[4] has recently been judicially consigned to the dustbin of history. In Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc.,[5] decided on November 19, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court expressly overruled Azzarello leaving in its place a new alternative standards approach to proving a Section 402A claim. An injured worker or subrogated insurer[6] must still prove that the seller, whether a manufacturer or a distributor, placed the product on the market in a “defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the consumer.”[7] But now, under Tincher, a plaintiff must use either a “consumer expectation test” or a “risk-utility test” to establish that criterion.[8] Reprinted courtesy of Robert Caplan, White and Williams LLP and Timothy Carroll, White and Williams LLP Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---