Tariffs, Supply Snarls Spur Search for Factories Closer to U.S.
February 21, 2022 —
Laura Curtis - BloombergSmall businesses looking for a factory that can make some stylish orthopedic shoes, chairs or construction materials may have an easier time finding a closer-to-home alternative to waiting for the supply-chain snarl in the Pacific Ocean to work itself out.
Zipfox, an online platform that links businesses up with factories in Mexico, launched this week, enabling near-shoring of production and the chance to get goods into the U.S. more quickly than if businesses were sourcing from manufacturing hubs in China.
“People are feeling the pain from sourcing from China right now but they aren’t really aware of the manufacturing capability and capacity that Mexico already has,” Zipfox founder Raine Mahdi said Tuesday.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Laura Curtis, Bloomberg
Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects
December 10, 2024 —
Robert A. James, Elina Teplinsky, Alicia M. McKnight, Sidney L. Fowler & Clarence H. Tolliver - Gravel2Gavel BlogOn October 3, 2024, the Department of Energy Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to fund up to $400 million for clean energy projects in rural and remote areas via its Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas program. The NOFO will provide awards ranging from $2 million – $50 million, with plans to fund 20 to 50 projects. Awards will require a non-federal cost share, range across four topic areas, and target projects in rural and remote communities with populations of 10,000 people or fewer.
Eligibility
Applications are open to a wide range of entities, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations, state and local governmental entities, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, institutions of higher education, rural electric cooperatives, incorporated and unincorporated consortia, farming associations and cooperatives, and labor unions. Generally applicants must be U.S. entities, but foreign entities may be allowed to participate in limited circumstances. Applicants must identify at least one area in the U.S. or U.S. territories with a population of up to 10,000 people which will benefit from the proposal.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury,
Elina Teplinsky, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury,
Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and
Clarence H. Tolliver, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Teplinsky may be contacted at elina.teplinsky@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Tolliver may be contacted at clarence.tolliver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Causing Property Damage to Insured's Product Only
October 07, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Nebraska court found there was no coverage for rebar that did not meet specifications and did not cause property damage to other portions of the construction project. Drake-Williams Steel, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2016 Neb. LEXIS 116 (Neb. Aug. 5, 2016).
The general contractor was hired by the city to build an arena. Drake-Williams Steel, Inc. (DWS) was hired to supply rebar for the arena. The rebar was improperly bent when it was fabricated by DWS and did not conform to the terms of the contract. The rebar was incorporated into three components of the arena: the columns, the grade beams, and the pile caps. The pile caps were made of concrete with reinforcing rebar and were installed below ground level on top of the concrete piles that extended to the bedrock. The grade beams were also made of concrete and rebar. The beams formed an oval around the arena and connected different pile caps together and were also installed below ground level. No corrections were made to the grade beams.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Georgia Amends Anti-Indemnity Statute
June 02, 2016 —
David R. Cook Jr. – AHHC Construction Law BlogIn its most recent session, the Georgia General Assembly passed HB 943, which amends Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute. The amendment expands the Anti-Indemnity Statute beyond construction contracts to include contracts for engineering, architectural, and land surveying services (“A/E Contracts”).
In a
prior post, we discussed
Georgia’s Anti-Indemnity Statute, which generally prohibits indemnity clauses in construction contracts that require one party (the “Indemnitor”) to indemnify another party (the “Indemnitee”) if property damage or bodily injury results from the Indemnitee’s sole negligence. The
prior post, discussed the Supreme Court of Georgia’s broad interpretation of the Anti-Indemnity Statute.
HB 943 adds subpart (c), which states:
A covenant, promise, agreement, or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to a contract or agreement for engineering, architectural, or land surveying services purporting to require that one party to such contract or agreement shall indemnify, hold harmless, insure, or defend the other party to the contract or other named indemnitee, including its, his, or her officers, agents, or employees, against liability or claims for damages, losses, or expenses, including attorney fees, is against public policy and void and unenforceable, except for indemnification for damages, losses, or expenses to the extent caused by or resulting from the negligence, recklessness, or intentionally wrongful conduct of the indemnitor or other persons employed or utilized by the indemnitor in the performance of the contract. This subsection shall not affect any obligation under workers’ compensation or coverage or insurance specifically relating to workers’ compensation, nor shall this subsection apply to any requirement that one party to the contract purchase a project specific insurance policy or project specific policy endorsement.
(Emphasis added.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
What the FIU Bridge Collapse Says About Peer Review
September 23, 2019 —
Richard Korman & Scott Judy - Engineering News-RecordAttorneys for families of the six people who were killed and for survivors of 2018’s Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse say Louis Berger Group is the last defendant that has not yet agreed to settle lawsuits in state court in Miami. The legal actions target companies that designed and built the bridge.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record and
Scott Judy, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Mr. Judy may be contacted at judys@enr.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action
March 26, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result.
Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda.
At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Arizona Court of Appeals Rules Issues Were Not Covered in Construction Defect Suit
December 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled in the case of Peters v. Marque Homes. In this case, Walter Peters provided the land and funding for Marque Homes to build a luxury residence in Glendale, Arizona. By the terms of the “Joint Venture Agreement,” Peters provided the land and funding, while Marque would not charge Peters for overhead, profits, or supervision fees. The agreement specified that profits would be divided equally.
Two years later, Marque sued Peters claiming he had breached his obligations by refusing several offers for the home. Peters replied that Marque had “failed to complete the home so it is habitable to prospective purchasers.” Peters stated he had “retained an expert inspector who had identified numerous defects.” The court appointed a Special Commissioner to list the home for sale. Peters purchased the home with two stipulations ordered by the court. At this point, the earlier case was dismissed with prejudice.
Peters then sued Marque “asserting express and implied warranty claims arising out of alleged construction defects in the home.” Marque claimed that Peters’s claims were “precluded by the prior joint venture dispute.” The court granted Marque’s motion.
The appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that Peters’s claims were not precluded by the agreement. Although there had been a prior case between the two parties, warranty issues did not form a part of that case. “Peters never raised these allegations nor presented this evidence in support of any warranty claim.”
The court also noted that the “parties never agreed to preclude future warranty claims.” Marque and Peters “agreed in the stipulated sale order that ‘the sale of the property to a third party shall be “as is” with a 10-year structural warranty.’” The court noted that the agreement said nothing about one of the parties buying the house.
The appeals court left open a claim by Marque that there are no implied or express warranties available to Peters. They asked the Superior Court to address this.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes
June 06, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updatesrime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
