Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply
March 05, 2015 —
Svenja O’Donnell – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to double the number of homes built for first-time buyers by the end of the next parliamentary term in a bid to tackle Britain’s housing shortage.
In a speech in Colchester, Essex, on Monday setting out the final part of his Tory party’s six-point campaign platform for the May 7 election, Cameron said 200,000 properties will be built by 2020 under his starter-homes plan. Prices of the homes, only available to first-time buyers under the age of 40, will be capped at 450,000 pounds ($692,000) in London and 250,000 pounds outside the capital. Reduced planning constraints will make it easier for developers to cut building costs, allowing the homes to be sold at a 20 percent discount.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Svenja O’Donnell, BloombergMs. O’Donnell may be contacted at
sodonnell@bloomberg.net
LA Metro To Pay Kiewit $297.8M Settlement on Freeway Job
December 08, 2016 —
Greg Aragon – Engineering News-RecordThe Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) has reached an agreement with Kiewit Corp. and will pay the contractor $297.8 million for project change orders on the Interstate 405-Sepulveda Pass Widening Project, in Los Angeles.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Greg Aragon, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
“But I didn’t know what I was signing….”
May 30, 2018 —
Bobby Kethcart - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIn real estate cases—which frequently involve long purchase agreements, loan documents, personal guarantees, deeds of trust, etc.—we’ve likely all had a client or opposing party who trots out the line that they didn’t know what they were signing, or they didn’t read or understand what they were signing, so the document shouldn’t be enforced according to its terms.
Most of us instinctively believe the claim is a loser: You signed the document, you’re bound by it.
But is this actually right?
Well, we did some digging. Here is the Arizona law on the subject:
Nationwide Resources Corp. v. Massabni, 134 Ariz. 557, 658 P.2d 210 (App. 1982):
“A mistake of only one of the parties to a contract in the expression of his agreement or as to the subject matter does not affect its binding force and ordinarily affords no ground for its avoidance, or for relief, even in equity.”
“A manifestation of acceptance to the offeror or his agent forms a contract regardless of the intent of the acceptor.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bobby Kethcart, Snell & WilmerMr. Kethcart may be contacted at
rkethcart@swlaw.com
Contingent Business Interruption Claim Denied
April 08, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insured's claim for contingent business interruption ("CBI") coverage was denied in Millennium Inorganic Chemicals Ltd. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh Pa., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 3096 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2014).
Millenium processed titanium dioxide, a compound used for its white pigmentation, at its plant in Western Australia. Millennium purchased natural gas to process the titanium dioxide from Alinta Sales Pty Ltd., a natural gas supplier. Alinta purchased gas from Apache Corporation. Once Apache processed the natural gas, it was injected into a pipeline. The gas from Apache's facility was commingled with that obtained from other producers, resulting in a mix of gas in a single pipeline.
Alinta had sole ownership of the gas once it entered the pipeline. Under Alinta's contract with Millennium, title to the gas passed to Millenium only at the time of delivery, i.e., when the gas left the pipeline and was delivered to Millennium's facility through a separate delivery line. Millennium had no contract or business relationship with Apache, and the contract it had with Alinta made no reference to Apache.
An explosion occurred at Apache's facility causing its natural gas production to cease. As a result, Millennium's gas supply was curtailed, and it was force to shut down its operations for a number of months.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
SB800 Is Now Optional to the Homeowner?
August 30, 2013 —
James Ganion - Ulich & Terry, LLPThe following communication republished courtesy of James Ganion, Ulich & Terry, LLP
Dear Builders, Colleagues, and Interested Parties:
I attach for your review a copy of this week’s opinion of the California Court of Appeal in our case of Liberty Mutual v. Brookfield. This opinion represents a significant change to the right of California builders to repair homes under SB800, California’s Right to Repair Act.
In a nutshell, the Court determined that SB800 was not intended to replace prior applicable law, but merely be supplemental to prior law. Thus, a homeowner, or in this case the homeowner’s insurer, can pick and choose among SB800 and prior law, or even allege both in the alternative. In so deciding, the Court of Appeal reversed the holding of the trial court which had held, as so many trial courts have since 2003, that SB800 was intended to be the new exclusive remedy for construction defect claims.
While we of course take issue with most of what the Court of Appeal has to say, the real life net effect is that SB800 is now optional to the homeowner, meaning the “right” to repair now lies in the hands of the homeowner who can elect to simply bypass that law and proceed with the filing of a lawsuit under prior law. Hardly what any of us believe the legislature intended.
ULICH & TERRY LLP as counsel for Brookfield in this case will be filing a petition for rehearing with the Court of Appeal by September 6, 2013. Anyone interested in supporting the petition may file a letter with the Court of Appeal, preferably by September 13, 2013. Thereafter, assuming the Court of Appeal does not grant rehearing, we will be filing a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.
Our firm, as appellate counsel, has established a website
libertymutualvbrookfieldcrystalcove.com and through it will be providing information regarding the case, including copies of pleadings, orders, deadlines, and information on how to provide support for this case, which is of interest to the home building industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Ganion James Ganion can be contacted at
jganion@ut-law.com
Additional Insured Status Survives Summary Judgment Stage
August 26, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in seeking a determination that a hotel was not the additional insured under its elevator repair company's policy. Aspen Spec. Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Indem. Inc., 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2413 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 7, 2015).
Michael Patalano was an elevator repairman employed by Transel Elevator Inc. Transel had a contract to maintain the elevators at Alphonse Hotel. The contract required Transel to name Alphonse as an additional insured on Transel's CGL policy.
Patalano was injured while working at the hotel. He sued Alphonse, alleging that while performing work for the hotel, the stairs he was on which he was descending collapsed, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. Alphonse tendered to Ironshore, Transel's CGL carrier.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Nevada’s Home Building Industry can Breathe Easier: No Action on SB250 Leaves Current Attorney’s Fees Provision Intact
June 21, 2017 —
Aaron Lovaas – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPConstruction and design professionals in Nevada’s home building industry breathed a collective sigh of relief on June 5, 2017 when the 79th Session of the Nevada Legislature adjourned without entertaining Senate Bill 250, which sought to reinstate homeowner plaintiffs’ nearly automatic right to recover attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation when bringing suit for alleged constructional defects.
Until 2015, homeowners’ recovery of such damages was the reality of the construction defect landscape in Nevada. While Chapter 40 of the Nevada Revised Statutes specifically allowed for recovery of “reasonable” attorneys’ fees, expert costs, and costs of investigation, the trend in Nevada was that plaintiffs were all but guaranteed awards of all such sums. Of course, this environment incentivized plaintiffs’ lawyers to bring claims of questionable or little repair value in cases where the attorney’s fees and expert costs often far exceeded the costs of repair.
HOW AB125 CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE
Such was the reality in Nevada until 2015 and the passage of Assembly Bill 125, which eliminated the nearly automatic award of attorneys’ fees and expert costs and overhauled Chapter 40 in many other respects. AB125 made over portions of Chapter 40 by:
- Placing awards of attorneys’ fees into the framework of offers of judgment, utilized extensively in other fields of civil litigation and available equally to homeowner plaintiffs as well as construction industry defendants; and
- Reworking expert costs and costs of investigation to allow for the award of those items only in the case of proven defects and only as to those costs directly related to the investigation and proof of those defects.
INTRODUCING SB250
The 2017 Legislative Session saw efforts to return Chapter 40 to its pre-2015 version through the introduction of SB250. Fortunately for construction and design professionals in the home building industry in Nevada, the State Senate Judiciary Committee did not act upon the bill and the effort died having never made it to a floor vote. Considering that Nevada’s Legislature meets biannually, the current framework of Chapter 40 is intact until at least 2019. The 2017 Legislative Session, however, is an illustration to how quickly those of the construction defect plaintiffs’ bar can move to initiate efforts to turn back the clock to a much riskier time for construction and design professionals.
Those in the industry should remain vigilant and monitor future legislative efforts to reinstate such awards or other clearly anti-builder measures. Such measures simply drive-up the overall cost and expense of home construction and, in turn, home ownership, which it is often said, is one of the cornerstones of the American dream.
Aaron Lovaas is a partner in the Las Vegas office of Newmeyer & Dillion. As a transactional attorney and business litigator, Aaron has the ability to evaluate legal issues from both points of view and help his clients understand their best option. He can be reached at aaron.lovaas@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
Reconciling Prompt Payments and Withholding of Retention Payments
March 30, 2016 —
Eric J. Rollins, Esq. – Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPIt is common in California for the owners of a project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work as it is completed, but withhold a certain percentage as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. Contractors almost always pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors. Unsurprisingly, disputes can arise regarding when the withheld retentions must be paid.
Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after receiving all or part of a retention payment. However, an exception exists -- a direct contractor may withhold from the retention paid to a subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount, whenever a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and a subcontractor.” (See Cal. Civ. Code, § 8814, subd. (c).) The problem with the statute is that it offers no help in defining a “good faith dispute,” and the California courts have historically not provided much guidance either. Can a “good faith dispute” be any dispute between the contracting parties, e.g., a dispute regarding change orders, mismanagement, etc.? Or must the dispute relate specifically to the retention? Unfortunately for California litigants, the answer may depend on the appellate district in which the parties find themselves.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric J. Rollins, Esq., Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPMr. Rollins may be contacted at
eric.rollins@ndlf.com
