Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The Mediator's Proposal
January 21, 2025 —
Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute ResolverIn our final edition of the year of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series on December 19, 2024,
Matthew Argue and
Gene Witkin discussed the use of the Mediator’s Proposal to bridge any final gaps to settlement between parties to a mediation. For those unfamiliar, a Mediator’s Proposal is a settlement proposal that the mediator makes to all parties to the dispute simultaneously. Each party then advises the mediators in confidence whether they accept or reject the proposal. The Mediator will communicate to all the parties that the Mediator’s Proposal is accepted only if all parties accept.
Argue and Witkin emphasized that the Mediator’s Proposal is not a shortcut and should not be used simply to split the difference. Instead, it is a tool available to the mediator to push the parties to resolution after they have had robust negotiations, understand the strengths and weaknesses of the positions of each side, and have made progress towards at least getting within range of one another. A successful Mediator’s Proposal depends on the mediator (and the parties) having sufficient information to make a credible recommendation and creating an environment where all parties will consider the Mediator’s Proposal in good faith.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’ConnorMr. Mackin may be contacted at
dmackin@cozen.com
Hard to Believe It, Construction Law Musings is 16
January 07, 2025 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsOn this date back in 2008 (wow, that seems so long ago), I began Construction Law Musings on the Blogger platform with a brief announcement. Little did I know that this corner of the internet (or is it Blawgosphere?) would still be around in 2024!
In the time since I made that short entry 16 years ago (I know, I can’t believe it either), I’ve met several construction lawyers here in Virginia who refer to me as the “blog guy.” To be recognized for the work I do here at Construction Law Musings, something that benefits me (and I hope the readers), and which I do for the fun of it, is an honor.
The blog has since taken on a life of its own in many respects, allowing me to meet some of the great construction pros who have provided a guest post or two for Musings and added their different perspectives. Musings also kept me up on at least most of the trends in Virginia construction law by making me post consistently (though sometimes less consistently than others). Now, around 975 posts and 16 years later, I find it hard to believe that so much time has passed and effort has been put into what started on a whim and the plan that I’d post thoughts on the legal landscape and construction from the perspective of a Virginia construction lawyer.
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
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida’s Statute of Limitations / Repose for Actions Founded on Construction Improvement Modified
April 25, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOn April 13, 2023, Florida’s all-important four-year statute of limitations–Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c)–relating to actions founded on construction of an improvement of real property was modified. This is a key statute of limitations for ALL construction practitioners because it also includes the statute of repose for latent construction defects.
At the bottom of this posting is the current version fo s. 95.11(3)(c) with the underlined section being recent additions. (They hyperlink above will identify the deletions and additions.) Important things to note:
- Statute of Repose. The statute of repose has been reduced from 10 years to 7 years. There is now an objective date for when the repose period commences: “within 7 years after the date the authority having jurisdiction issues a temporary certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy, or a certificate of completion, or the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, whichever date is earliest.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
#2 CDJ Topic: Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn July of this year,
Christopher Kendrick and
Valerie A. Moore of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP analyzed the results of the Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools case, in which “a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.”
Read the full story...
In the article, “General Liability Insurer Entitled to Subrogate Against its Insured’s Indemnitor,”
Matthew S. Foy and
Michael A. Pursell of
Gordon & Rees LLP also discussed the details of the Valley Crest v. Mission Pools case that involved installing a swimming pool on a St. Regis hotel property: “In Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that an insurer was entitled to equitably subrogate a breach of express indemnity claim against its insured’s indemnitor.”
Read the full story...
This month,
Graham C. Mills of
Newmeyer & Dillion reported on the decision by the Court of Appeals regarding the Valley Crest case, which “reinforces the right of a general contractor to defense and indemnity by a subcontractor when the parties have contractually allocated risk to the subcontractor. To ensure compliance with that right, the Valley Crest court imposed a strong penalty against a subcontractor that defaulted on its obligation.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!
May 30, 2022 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBWB&O Partner Tyler D. Offenhauser and Senior Associate Kevin B. Wheeler prevailed on their Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) on behalf of a public entity, the City of Murrieta Fire Department today!
As a matter of background, authorities were first called to a residence in Murrieta after a report of a gas line rupture. Firefighters and Southern California Gas Company responded to the call. As a crew from SoCalGas was trying to shut off the gas an explosion happened, leveling the home and killing 31-year-old SoCalGas employee Wade Kilpatrick. 30 surrounding homeowners have now alleged personal injuries, including TBI, as a result of the explosion. News agencies reported that Plaintiff Anthony Borel sustained a severe head injury and was placed in a coma. Plaintiff’s injuries included an epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, bilateral corneal abrasions, right orbital fracture, right temporal fracture, right maxillary fracture, frontal skull fracture, 18% partial-thickness burns to the face, abdomen, arms and legs, and a severe TBI with cognitive deficiencies. Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $20,000,000.00.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Deterioration of Bridge Infrastructure Is Increasing Insurance Needs
December 03, 2024 —
Grace Calengor - Construction ExecutiveAs the world is taken by storm—literally, with increasing hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires and more—insuring construction projects and infrastructure is becoming more complicated yet more necessary. Sean Pender, senior vice president of construction and development at CAC Specialty, is a leading specialty insurance broker and advisor. As major-storm season for the Northern hemisphere rounds out, he speaks with Construction Executive about the potential risk and insurance implications to the process of ensuring proper repairs, replacements and other forms of maintenance to one of the country’s most pivotal pieces of infrastructure: bridges.
What does insurance coverage look like for building bridges in various environments throughout the country?
Insurance is essential to protect the entity that owns the bridge during construction. Bridges under construction are at the highest risk of collapse because they are not yet fully stabilized and are exposed to severe weather and natural disasters, which could cause significant damage to the structure or injury to workers and civilians. Therefore, comprehensive liability insurance programs—typically with coverage limits of $50 to $100 million or higher—are crucial, especially with activities on or over waterways.
Reprinted courtesy of
Grace Calengor, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Architect Named Grand Custom Home Winner for Triangular Design
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFRobert Gurney, architect, created a triangular shaped home design to deal with restricted space on a corner lot that has "stumped developers for years," according to Custom Home.
"Using the wedge-shaped lot’s height limit and property line setbacks to define a structure, Gurney designed a striking triangle-plan house that not only answers its owners’ program requirements, but also makes a handsome and respectful addition to the existing streetscape," according to Custom Home.
Gurney told Custom Home that the clients--two graphic designers--helped make it successful. “They’re design-oriented,” he said, “so they were pretty much on board with whatever we came up with. And, fortunately, they didn’t need a lot of space; they’re empty-nesters.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
