BHA has a Nice Swing: Firm Supports CDCCF Charity at 2014 WCC Seminar
April 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFStop by the Bert L. Howe & Associates (BHA) booth at the 2014 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar at the Disneyland Hotel on May 15th and 16th, and Sink A Putt For Charity!
This year, seminar attendees and would-be duffers who try their hand at the golf putting game at the Bert L. Howe & Associates booth will not only have the chance to win a free gift card, they’ll also have the opportunity to help raise funds for a very important cause, the Construction Defect Community Charitable Foundation (CDCCF).
Throughout this year’s seminar, with every hole-in-one made at their booth, BHA will make a $25.00 cash donation in the golfer’s name to the CDCCF.
Bert L. Howe & Associates strongly supports the goals and principles of the CDCCF, and is honored to assist the foundation in fulfilling its mandate of assisting those in the construction defect community who are in need.
Read how the CDCCF assists the construction defect community...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mandatory Energy Benchmarking is On Its Way
April 22, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWe have discussed the issue of benchmarking and energy reporting on several occasions here at Musings. As the January 18, 2010 issue of ENR Magazine discusses, now cities and states are getting on board in a big way.
Washington, D.C. began requiring building owners to use the EPA Energy Star Portfolio Manager tool on January 1, 2010 and New York City passed a similar measure in December. The D.C. law is the first to require mandatory public disclosure of energy performance. Such disclosure will create a public database of energy performance data.
While I understand that this data and its reporting will create energy accountability in a way that non-disclosure of this data would not, the possibilities for misuse or uses that impact the construction world abound. This energy reporting is a step beyond that of the LEED program in that the data is not just reported to the USGBC, but to a public database. As such, the ease of access will impact contracts and contractors in an even bigger way than the USGBC requirements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
GAO Sustains Unsupported Past Performance Evaluation and Unequal Discussion Bid Protest
November 23, 2016 —
Lindsay K. Taft – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Construction Law BlogRotech Healthcare, Inc., a healthcare contractor, recently successfully protested the award of a home oxygen and durable medical equipment contract by the Department of Veterans Affairs to Lincare, Inc. based on an unsupported past performance evaluation and allegations of an unequal discussion. See GAO Protest File Number: File: B-413024 (August 17, 2016). The Request for Proposals (“RFP”) provided that award would be made on a “best value” basis to the offeror whose proposal was most favorable to the government[…]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lindsay K. Taft, Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Construction Law BlogMs. Taft may be contacted at
ltaft@ac-lawyers.com
First Circuit: No Coverage, No Duty to Investigate Alleged Loss Prior to Policy Period
May 18, 2020 —
Eric B. Hermanson & Austin D. Moody - White and WilliamsOn April 1, 2020, the First Circuit, applying Massachusetts law, issued a potentially useful decision addressing the Montrose “known loss” language in ISO Form CGL policies. In Clarendon National Insurance Company v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,[1] the court applied this language to allow denial of defense for claims of recurring water infiltration that began before the insurer’s policy period, and it found an insurer had no duty to investigate whether the course of property damage might have been interrupted, or whether other property damage might have occurred during the policy period, so as to trigger coverage during a later policy.
In the underlying dispute, a condominium owner (Doherty) asserted negligence claims against her association’s property management company (Lundgren) stemming from alleged water infiltration into her condominium. The complaint said leaks developed in 2004 in the roof above Doherty’s unit, and repairs were not made in a timely or appropriate manner. The following year, the complaint said, a Lundgren employee notified Doherty that the threshold leading to her condominium's deck was rotting. In February 2006, Doherty discovered a mushroom and water infiltration on the threshold and notified Lundgren. At that time, Lundgren asked its maintenance and repair contractor (CBD) to replace the rotting threshold. According to the complaint, CBD did not do this repair in a timely manner and left debris exposed in Doherty’s bedroom.
In March 2006, the complaint said, a mold testing company hired by Lundgren found hazardous mold in Doherty's unit, caused by water intrusions and chronic dampness. Lundgren’s attempts at remediation were ineffectual. In September 2008, Doherty's doctor ordered her to leave the condominium and not to return until the leaks were repaired and mold was eliminated.
Reprinted courtesy of
Eric B. Hermanson, White and Williams and
Austin D. Moody, White and Williams
Mr. Hermanson may be contacted at hermansone@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Moody may be contacted at moodya@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
WA Supreme Court Allows Property Owner to Sue Engineering Firm for Lost Profits
February 25, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn the Daily Journal of Commerce, Scott A. Smith and James H. Wendell discussed the recent Washington Supreme Court decision in Donatelli v D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers. The court’s ruling casts “doubt on a company's ability to limit its liability for economic losses arising out of a contract dispute.”
The Donatellis hired D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers to develop vacant land in King County, however, the “project did not go according to plan and the real estate market collapsed before the project was completed,” according to the Daily Journal of Commerce. The “Donatellis lost their property through foreclosure” and then “sued the engineering firm for more than $1.5 million in lost profits.”
D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers asked for the negligence claims to be dismissed “because the parties' contract contained a provision limiting the engineering firm's liability to the amount of its fee for ‘any injury or loss on account of any error, omission, or other professional negligence.’” However, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that “the case could proceed in the trial court on a theory that the engineers could be liable if they made negligent misrepresentations that induced the Donatellis to enter into the contract in the first place.”
Smith and Wendell stated that because of “this decision, engineering, architectural, construction, and other professional service companies may now face damage claims they thought they were contractually protected against.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court Declines to Address CDC Eviction Moratorium
August 04, 2021 —
Zachary Kessler, Amanda G. Halter & Adam Weaver - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn a closely watched 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court sided against the challengers to the eviction moratorium issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), keeping a stay in place that leaves the eviction ban in effect through July 31. The CDC has indicated it will not renew the eviction moratorium when it expires at the end of the month.
The CDC’s eviction moratorium was first adopted at the expiration of the CARES Act’s limited eviction protection for federally funded rental properties. The more broadly applicable order, extended under both the Trump and Biden administrations, prohibited landlords from evicting tenants unable to pay due to the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the tenant confirmed in writing that they had done their best to make any partial payment, were at risk of becoming homeless or having to move into unsafe group housing, and earn below a set income limit. The CDC extended the order most recently on June 24. In announcing that one-month extension, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky indicated that it would be the order’s final extension.
Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, Pillsbury,
Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury and
Adam Weaver, Pillsbury
Mr. Kessler may be contacted at zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
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
“Bee” Careful: Unique Considerations When Negotiating a Bee Storage Lease Agreement
March 27, 2019 —
Colton Addy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogAs demand for commercial bees used to pollinate crops (such as almond trees) has grown, so has the demand for facilities to store bees. Entering a lease agreement for the storage of live bees presents some unique issues the parties need to consider when negotiating the lease agreement.
Don’t Bee Short-Sighted: Bees are often transported to different areas depending on the time of year, which means bees are not stored in the same facility all year. The lease agreement will often only provide for the storage of bees during the season when the bees are used for pollination in that particular area, but that does not mean the parties must limit the term of the lease agreement to a single season. The parties may consider entering into a lease agreement for multiple years that only applies during the pollination season each year.
Bee Mindful of the Rent: Whereas the parties usually base rent in a typical commercial lease agreement off of the square footage of space the tenant uses in the premises, it often makes more sense for both parties negotiating a lease for the storage of bees to base the rent on the number of beehives or bee colony boxes stored at the facility. Basing the rent on the number of beehives or bee colony boxes provides the landlord with flexibility in storing the bees of multiple tenants in the same facility, and it can give the tenant flexibility with the number of bees it may need stored at the facility in any given season. With such a rental arrangement, a landlord should consider asking for a commitment from the tenant to deliver at least a certain number of beehives or colonies for storage, and the tenant should consider asking for a commitment from the landlord to reserve space in the facility for at least that same number of beehives or colonies as the tenant is giving a commitment for. Additionally, the parties will need to determine when rent will be paid. In a general commercial lease agreement, rent is usually paid monthly. With a bee storage lease agreement, however, a landlord may want to require the tenant to pay all of the rent for the season upon delivery of the bees, and the landlord may also want the tenant to pay a percentage of the rent to reserve space in the facility prior to delivery of the bees. This allows the landlord to get an early indication of what space in the facility it will have available in the facility for other tenants given the somewhat flexible rental arrangement of the parties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colton Addy, Snell & WilmerMr. Addy may be contacted at
caddy@swlaw.com
