COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Construction Recovery Still Soft in New Hampshire

May 10, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The latest building news out of New Hampshire is somewhat mixed. Yes, there has been an increase of seventeen percent in the value of future residential construction on the state. But that’s not enough to offset the general slide in the value of future construction overall. The New Hampshire Business Review reports that the state saw a four percent drop in the cost of planned construction, comparing March 2012 to March 2013. The total value of the drop was shared between the twelve percent drop in nonresidential construction and the fifty-two percent drop in infrastructure building, each of which were more than $4 million less than in the prior year. The rise in residential construction could not make up the loss in other areas. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Colorado Chamber of Commerce CEO Calls for Change to Condo Defect Law

March 05, 2015 — Beverley BevenFlorez - CDJ STAFF
According to the Denver Business Journal, Dennis Houston, president and CEO of the Parker Chamber of Commerce in Colorado, spoke at the state’s capitol recently, calling legislators “to make it harder for attorneys to file class-action lawsuits against condominium builders so that areas like his can attract a workforce of millennials.” Houston and other Chamber of Commerce leaders gathered at the capitol “to lobby for sensible energy policies and construction defects reform, among other things.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

D&O Insurer Must Cover Mortgage Broker’s $15 Million Settlement of Alleged False Claims Act Violations

November 15, 2022 — Michael S. Levine, Geoffrey B. Fehling & Matthew J. Revis - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
A Delaware court recently granted summary judgment to a mortgage broker targeted in a federal government investigation for alleged False Claims Act violations, holding that the company’s directors and officers liability (“D&O”) insurer was required to indemnify more than $15 million in settlement costs with the U.S. Department of Justice. Guaranteed Rate, Inc. v. ACE American Insurance Company, No. N20C-04-268 MMJ CCLD (Del. Super. Ct. Sept. 6, 2022). We previously reported on the policyholder’s earlier victory in this case, in which the court held that a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from federal authorities triggered the insurer’s obligation to pay defense costs under the D&O policy. Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth, Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Matthew J. Revis, Hunton Andrews Kurth Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com Mr. Revis may be contacted at mrevis@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Like Water For Chocolate: Insurer Prevails Over Chocolatier In Hurricane Sandy Claim

November 08, 2017 — Afua S. Akoto - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Recently, a New Jersey Magistrate ruled that an insurer did not have to provide coverage for a chocolatier’s property damage and business interruption losses due to Hurricane Sandy. Madeline Chocolate Novelties Inc. (Madeline), a family-owned chocolatier in Queens Rockaway Beach, held a one-year all-risk policy with Great Northern Insurance (Great Northern). The policy contained a flood exclusion and a windstorm endorsement. When Hurricane Sandy hit in October 2012, Madeline suffered extensive damage and ceased operations during the ensuing holiday season. The chocolatier claimed $40 million in property damage and $13.5 million in business interruption losses and sought coverage under its policy. Great Northern paid just under $4 million and denied the remainder of the claim, citing the policy’s flood exclusion. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com

---

Owners and Contractors Beware: Pennsylvania (Significantly) Strengthens Contractor Payment Act

June 13, 2018 — Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions
Yesterday, Governor Tom Wolf signed into law House Bill 566 which make major changes to Pennsylvania’s Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act. Owners and General Contractors that fail to take head of the changes could face significant financial consequences. The Pennsylvania Contractor and Subcontractor Payment Act, known as CAPSA or simply the Payment Act, was passed into law in 1994. The intent was “to cure abuses within the building industry involving payments due from owners to contractors, contractors to subcontractors, and subcontractors to other subcontractors.” Zimmerman v. Harrisburg Fudd I, L.P., 984 A.2d 497, 500 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009). In reality, abuses still occurred. While the Payment Act purportedly dictated a statutory right to payment within a certain amount of time and imposes stiff penalties for failure make payment, including 1% interest per month, 1% penalty per month, and reasonable attorneys fees, the language of the Payment Act left recalcitrant contractors with wiggle room. Particularly, the Payment Act allowed owners and higher tier subcontractors to withhold payment “deficiency items according to the terms of the construction contract” provided it notified the contractor “of the deficiency item within seven calendar days of the date that the invoice is received.” 73 P.S. Section 506. The problem was that the Payment Act did not expressly state where the notice must be in written, what it must say, and what happened if notice was not given. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

Uniformity in Florida’s Construction Bond Laws Brings About Fairness for the Industry

August 17, 2020 — Gary L. Brown - Construction Executive
Before Florida updated its laws for construction bonds, there were some significant differences between how liens and bond claims were litigated. Forms and procedures lacked uniformity that created unnecessary challenges for the construction industry and legal practitioners serving the industry. Now, more consistency among the laws should benefit contractors, as well as lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers. Since the updates were instated in October 2019, some of the procedures and rules used for lien enforcement have been extended to bond claims, which may make it easier to resolve differences over payment and performance. That should come as a relief to local contractors and law firms, as well as to the numerous developers and construction companies based outside of Florida that operate in the state or are considering doing so. Florida is now the number one destination for new residents, especially from high-tax states, according to IRS data. With them come new homes, retail centers, offices, industrial space, roads and other infrastructure in what is now the third-most-populous state in the nation. Reprinted courtesy of Gary L. Brown, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Brown may be contacted at gbrown@kklaw.com

---

Owner Bankruptcy: What’s a Contractor to Do?

February 28, 2018 — Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham - Construction Executive Magazine
Bankruptcy of the owner or developer of a real estate construction project can be very unsettling to contractors. But a declaration of bankruptcy by the developer, in and of itself, does not constitute a breach of contract such that the contractor can stop working. Contract provisions providing that the contract is terminated if a party becomes insolvent or files for bankruptcy are generally unenforceable. Partially-performed construction contracts are executory contracts, meaning that the obligations of the parties to the contract have not yet been fully performed. The Bankruptcy Code allows a bankruptcy trustee (in a Chapter 7 dissolution case) or the debtor-in-possession (in a Chapter 11 reorganization case) either to assume or to reject an executory contract. A debtor-in-possession has until the time of the confirmation of its plan of reorganization to decide if it will assume or reject the contract. The contractor may ask the bankruptcy court to require the debtor-in-possession to make a decision on the contract sooner, but the court will most likely give the debtor-in-possession a fair amount of time to make the decision. Reprinted courtesy of Troy R. Covington and Stephen M. Parham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Mr. Covington may be contacted at sparham@bloomparham.com Mr. Parham may be contacted at tcovington@bloom-law.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Florida Adopts Daubert Standard for Expert Testimony

October 07, 2019 — Michael L. DeBona - The Subrogation Strategist
Seven months ago, the Florida Supreme Court declined to adopt Daubert as the standard for admitting expert testimony in Florida state courts. In DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219 (2018), the court reaffirmed that “Frye, not Daubert, is the appropriate test in Florida.” On May 23, 2019, however, Florida’s high court did an about-face. In In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC19-107, the Florida Supreme Court overruled its decision in DeLisle and declared that Florida will now apply the Daubert standard to determine whether scientific evidence is admissible. The Daubert standard comes from the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), which held that the longstanding Frye test[1] for admitting expert testimony was superseded by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Daubert instructed that federal judges should act as “gatekeepers” to ensure expert testimony is rooted in scientifically valid principles and that those principles are properly applied to the facts at issue. In determining whether scientific evidence should be admitted, Daubert sets forth several factors to consider: the testability of the theory or technique; the peer review and publication of the theory or technique; the error rate for the technique; the standards controlling the technique’s operation; and the general acceptance of the theory or technique.[2] The Daubert standard is generally considered a more onerous test than Frye, precluding expert testimony that might otherwise go to the jury under Frye.[3] Whereas Frye is a single factor test that applies only to new or novel science, Daubert is a multifactor test that applies to all expert testimony. Since Daubert, a growing number of states have moved away from the Frye test in favor of the Daubert standard; it is now followed by a majority of jurisdictions in the country. In 2013, the Florida State legislature attempted to move Florida in this direction by amending the Florida Evidence Code to codify the Daubert standard. But because the Florida Supreme Court is vested with the power to make procedural rules and it was unclear whether the Daubert standard was a procedural or substantive rule, it was uncertain whether the 2013 Daubert amendments were controlling law. Then in 2017, in In Re: Amendment to the Florida Evidence Code, No. SC16-181, the Florida Supreme Court expressly declined adopting the Daubert amendments to the extent they were procedural. This decision signaled that, if faced with the Daubert standard on appeal from a litigated case, the Florida Supreme Court would reaffirm that Frye – not Daubert – controlled the admissibility of expert testimony in Florida state courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael L. DeBona, White and Williams LLP
Mr. DeBona may be contacted at debonam@whiteandwilliams.com

---