Three Firm Members Are Top 100 Super Lawyers & Ten Are Recognized As Super Lawyers Or Rising Stars In 2018
July 28, 2018 —
Scott MacDonald - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCWith the Fourth of July festivities still ringing in our collective ears, we are having our own celebration at Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC. We avoid using this blog as a platform for self-promotion as we want to keep relevant construction industry news and notes hitting your inboxes. Longtime readers will know, however, that we make an exception to recognize the Super Lawyers of the firm, who are each humbled to receive this peer-voted award. We also share this news in recognition of our clients and industry-partners who have put their trust and confidence in us. Without these relationships, these industry acknowledgments would have no significance.
Super Lawyers is a wholly independent company that identifies outstanding lawyers in the profession. It selects attorneys using a patented multiphase selection process based on legal excellence, industry involvement, and civic leadership. Super Lawyers’ initial pool of candidates is based on peer nominations and evaluations from outside the firm, which is then combined with Super Lawyers’ own third-party research. Only five percent of all lawyers in Washington State are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers Rising Stars. What makes this award meaningful is it is based upon evaluation of individual merit—as opposed to a “pay-to-win” award.
John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, is again recognized as one of the 10-Best Lawyers in the State of Washington across all practicing industries.
Founding partner Paul R. Cressman, Jr. and partner Brett M. Hill are also recognized as two of the 100-Best Lawyers across all practicing industries in Washington State.
In addition, three other firm members are also recognized as Super Lawyers: Founding partner Scott R. Sleight, Bruce A. Cohen (of counsel), and Lawrence S. Glosser (partner). In addition, Ryan W. Sternoff (partner), Lindsay (Taft) Watkins (partner), Ceslie A. Blass (associate), and Scott D. MacDonald (associate) were selected as Super Lawyers Rising Stars. Well over half of the firm’s lawyers received Super Lawyers distinction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott MacDonald, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. MacDonald may be contacted at
scott.macdonald@acslawyers.com
Zero-Energy Commercial Buildings Increase as Contractors Focus on Sustainability
February 10, 2020 —
Jeffrey S. Wertman - Construction ExecutiveImagine a functional, low energy commercial building that annually consumes only as much power as the building creates with on-site, clean, renewable resources. From coast to coast, there is considerable momentum for zero-energy (ZE) buildings, also known as ZEB’s or net-zero energy buildings (NZEBs). Although still an emerging market, the growth trend for ZEBs is steep.
The world’s net-zero energy market for commercial and residential projects is expected to exceed $1.4 trillion by 2035. The number of ZEBs across North America has dramatically increased since 2010 which encompasses about 80 million square feet of commercial building space. ZE has captured the attention of building owners, developers, architects, engineers, contractors, designers, policymakers and others who see its potential to efficiently use clean energy resources to reduce the substantial carbon footprint of buildings.
Real Applications of Net Zero
From 2012 to 2019, the number of ZE projects has increased ten-fold. According to the “2019 Getting to Zero Project List” released in May 2019 by the New Buildings Institute, a nonprofit organization striving to achieve better energy performance in commercial buildings, the total number of certified, verified and emerging ZE projects grew to 607 in 2019. New projects continue to appear regularly. Today, hundreds of ZE buildings, including commercial buildings of all types (including retail, office, warehouse, hotel, educational and government) are being developed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey S. Wertman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
BP Is Not an Additional Insured Under Transocean's Policy
April 01, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiResponding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit, the Texas Supreme Court determined that BP was not an additional insured under Transocean's liability policy and had no coverage under the policy for the deaths caused by the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon. In re Horizon, 2015 Tex. LEXIS 141 (Tex. Feb. 13, 2015). We have previously posted on this case in the federal courts here and here.
Transocean owned the Deepwater Horizon, a mobile offshore drilling unit operating in the Gulf of Mexico pursuant to a contract with BP. After an explosion in April 2010, the rig caught fire, killing eleven crew members. Both Transocean and BP sought coverage under Transocean's primary and excess policies. Although they did not dispute that BP was an additional insured, Transocean and its insurers argued that BP was not entitled to coverage for pollution-related liabilities arising from subsurface oil releases in connection with the Deepwater Horizon accident.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
2017 Colorado Construction Defect Recap: Colorado Legislature and Judiciary Make Favorable Advances for Development Community
January 24, 2018 —
Kaitlin Marsh-Blake – Gordon & Rees Construction Law Blog Last March, the Colorado General Assembly introduced House Bill 17-1279 concerning the requirement that a unit owners’ association obtain approval through a vote of unit owners before filing a construction defect action. The bill, passed in May, requires a home owners’ association to first notify all unit owners and the developer or builder of a potential construction defect action, call a meeting where both the HOA and developer or builder have an opportunity to present arguments and potentially remedy the defect, and obtain a majority vote of approval from the unit owners to pursue a lawsuit before bringing a construction defect action against a developer or builder. The bill amends C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5, which previously only required substantial compliance with the above-mentioned actions. Moreover, the previous version of C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 did not require the HOA to perform these actions prior to a suit being filed. HB 17-1279 also removed the provision of C.R.S. § 38-33.3-303.5 that made it only applicable to buildings of five or more units.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kaitlin Marsh-Blake, Gordon & ReesMs. Marsh-Blake may be contacted at
kmarsh-blake@grsm.com
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Hold the Pickles, Hold the Lettuce?”
October 02, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyHold the pickles, hold the lettuce?
You can even hold the service… or at least proof of it!
In a dispute over the construction of a Burger King restaurant in Tupelo, Mississippi, a state court suit by the owner against its general contractor and architect was removed to federal court by one of the defendant parties, on the basis of the diversity of citizenship of the defendant parties from the plaintiff, per 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).
For its part, plaintiff, upon achieving service of its state court complaint against the various defendants, filed a proof of service as to the party which sought to remove the case, but not as to the other defendants (even though the other defendants were served). Once the case was removed to federal court and after the deadline for removal has passed, plaintiff sought to have the matter remanded based on the lack of the consent of the entirety of the defendant group to the removal, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (“When a civil action is removed solely under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or consent to the removal of the action.”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Contract And IP Implications Of Design Professionals Monetizing Non-Fungible Tokens Comprising Digital Construction Designs
December 26, 2022 —
Colin C. Holley - ConsensusDocsThere is an emerging market that appears poised to increasingly provide opportunities to monetize architectural and other construction designs through the sale of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Last year, artist Krista Kim reportedly made the first sale of a digital home design via an NFT marketplace, for over $500,000. With some NFTs selling for millions of dollars, monetizing digital designs is undoubtedly an enticing prospect for architects, engineers, and other design professionals. It is thus critical to understand the application of intellectual property rights to NFTs and to address those rights in contracts involving design professionals.
What is an NFT?
To understand the market for NFTs it is necessary to first understand blockchain technology. A blockchain is a decentralized system of recording information via a digital ledger of transactions duplicated and distributed across many computers. The manner in which each block of the ledger chain is created—using a cryptographic mathematical algorithm tied into the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data—prevents it from being changed retroactively without a change to all subsequent blocks and consensus of the decentralized network.
An NFT is a ‘token’ secured to a blockchain. It can represent ownership of any item that is non-fungible, i.e., any item that has unique qualities that add value and make the item non-interchangeable. NFTs can take unlimited forms, including, for example, tokens representing unique artwork, music, fashion items, in-game items, essays, collectibles, memorabilia, furniture, and real estate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colin C. Holley, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Mr. Holley may be contacted at
cholley@watttieder.com
Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq.
Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project.
The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’”
The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim.
Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims.
Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don’t Conspire to Build a Home…Wait…What?
June 08, 2020 —
Ben Volpe - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogIn 1986, the Colorado General Assembly enacted the Pro Rata Liability Act, codified at C.R.S. § 13-21-111.5, which eliminated joint and several liability for defendants in favor of pro rata liability.[1] The statute was “designed to avoid holding defendants liable for an amount of compensatory damages reflecting more than their respective degrees of fault.”[2] However, the following year, the Colorado legislature carved out an exception to preserve joint liability for persons “who consciously conspire and deliberately pursue a common plan or design to commit a tortious act.”[3] Because of this conspiracy exception, plaintiffs try to circumvent the general rule against joint and several liability by arguing that construction professionals defending construction defect cases were acting in concert, as co-conspirators. Plaintiffs argue that if they can prove that two or more construction professionals consciously conspired and deliberately pursued a common plan or design, i.e., to build a home or residential community, and such a plan results in the commission of a tort, i.e., negligence, the defendants may be held jointly and severally liable for all of the damages awarded.
Since 1986, Colorado courts have construed the “conspiracy” provision in § 13-21-111.5(4), but some have disagreed as to what constitutes a conspiracy for purposes of imposing joint liability.
Civil Conspiracy
In Colorado, the elements of civil conspiracy are that: “(1) two or more persons; (2) come to a meeting of the minds; (3) on an object to be accomplished or a course of action to be followed; (4) and one or more overt unlawful acts are performed; (5) with damages as the proximate result thereof.”[4]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Benjamin Volpe, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Volpe may be contacted at
volpe@hhmrlaw.com
