Brookfield Wins Disputed Bid to Manage Manhattan Marina
January 28, 2015 —
Martin Z Braun – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Brookfield Property Partners won a bid to run a marina in New York’s Battery Park City neighborhood over the objections of residents backing a local businessman who operated the facility and a popular sailing club and school.
The state’s Battery Park City Authority voted Thursday to approve a 10-year agreement with Brookfield, which owns an adjacent 8 million-square-foot office and retail complex. Brookfield is bringing in billionaire real estate investor Andrew Farkas’s Island Global Yachting to manage the North Cove Marina.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Martin Z Braun, BloombergMr. Braun may be contacted at
mbraun6@bloomberg.net
Lessee Deemed Statutory Employer, Immune from Tort Liability by Pennsylvania Court
November 03, 2016 —
Jerry Anders & Alison Russell – White and Williams LLPThe Superior Court of Pennsylvania addressed whether a lessee can be shielded from tort liability as a statutory employer and thus, immune from civil liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The court in Doman v. Atlas America, Inc. held that a primary contractor who leased property for the purposes of removing and drilling natural gas is a statutory employer under Section 302(a) of the Act and thus, entitled to tort immunity under Section 203 of the Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jerrold Anders, White and Williams LLP and
Alison Russell, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Anders may be contacted at andersj@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Russell may be contacted at russella@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
On the Ten Year Anniversary of the JOBS Act A Look-Back at the Development of Crowdfunding
May 02, 2022 —
J. Kyle Janecek & Jeffrey M. Dennis - Newmeyer DillionLast month marked the ten-year anniversary of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, which was signed into law by President Obama on April 5, 2012. On May 16, 2016, Title III of the JOBS Act was enacted, as the final piece of the JOBS Act, which gave businesses better access to crowdfunding tactics due to the ability to raise funds based on equity. Today, the JOBS Act and the impact of equity crowdfunding more generally has grown among multiple industries, from entertainment and technology to real estate and construction, and has come a long way from the non-equity crowdfunding of Kickstarter and Indiegogo. So what have been the powers that businesses gained from Title III of the JOBS Act? What has been the impact of the last ten years? Where do businesses go from here to better utilize this source of funding?
WHAT ARE THE CROWDFUNDING POWERS GIVEN BY THE JOBS ACT?
The main difference and change that the JOBS Act had on the field of "crowdfunding" was that for the first time, unaccredited investors could obtain equity stakes in businesses through online solicitations. However, a business was still required to go through the proper approved channels, like accredited crowdfunding portals to solicit and receive funding. Prior to this, crowdfunding had gotten more of an impact and reputation from platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo, platforms that benefitted creative works or could act as a "pre-order" system with no guaranty of performance or quality of goods by the party seeking funds.
Reprinted courtesy of
J. Kyle Janecek, Newmeyer Dillion and
Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Janecek may be contacted at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com
Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Quick Virginia Mechanic’s Lien Timing Refresher
February 27, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs those who read Construction Law Musings on a regular basis know,
mechanic’s liens are a big part of my construction law practice. These
tricky and strictly enforced statutory collection tools are very powerful when correctly recorded and utterly useless if they aren’t recorded in a timely fashion and with the correct information contained within them. Couple that fact with recent
changes to the mechanic’s lien form in 2019, and I feel the need to give a quick refresher.
If you’ve kept up with Musings, you know about the two big numbers for Virginia mechanic’s lien timing, 90 and 150. These should be kept in mind for every general contractor, subcontractor, or supplier on any construction project in Virginia.
Virginia Code Section 43-4 sets out the reasons to keep these numbers in mind. The code section sets out why you need to know these numbers.
The 90 refers to the deadline for recording a lien. This number affects the right to a lien in Virginia. In order to preserve lien rights, a construction contractor must record the lien within ninety days of the last day of the last month in which the last work was performed or no later than ninety days from the date of completion of the project or other termination of work. The short version is that most general contractors on commercial projects have 90 days from the last work in which to record their lien and most subcontractors have 90 days from the last day of the last month of work. However, the best practice is to simply calculate the 90 days from the last work performed or material supplied to avoid issues and arguments between attorneys regarding timing.
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
Contractors and Owners Will Have an Easier Time Identifying Regulated Wetlands Following Recent U.S. Supreme Court Opinion
August 01, 2023 —
David Scriven-Young - ConsensusDocsContractors appreciate how difficult it often is on a technical level to perform work in or near wetlands or other environmentally sensitive areas. Such work is even more difficult due to the complex, and ever-changing regulations issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The CWA applies to “navigable waters”, which are defined as “the waters of the United States.” To determine whether certain wetlands are in fact “the waters of the United States”, contractors and owners have had to engage in a fact-intensive “significant-nexus” determination dependent upon a lengthy list of hydrological and ecological factors found in the regulations. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the applicability of those regulations and instituted a simpler test to determine whether wetlands on an owner’s property fall within them.
In
Sackett v. EPA, the Sacketts purchased property near a lake in Idaho. In preparation for building a home, they began backfilling the site with dirt and rocks. A few months later, the EPA sent the Sacketts a compliance order informing them that their backfilling violated the CWA because their property was part of protected wetlands. The EPA demanded that the Sacketts immediately undertake activities to restore the site and threatened the Sacketts with penalties of over $40,000 per day if they did not comply. According to the EPA, the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot fell under the jurisdiction of the CWA because they were “adjacent to” (i.e., in the same neighborhood as) an unnamed tributary on the other side of a 30-foot road, which fed into the nearby lake. The EPA concluded that the Sacketts’ wetlands, when considered together with a large nearby wetland complex, significantly affected the ecology of the lake. Thus, the EPA charged that the Sacketts had illegally dumped soil and gravel into “the waters of the United States.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Scriven-Young, Peckar & Abramson PCMr. Scriven-Young may be contacted at
dscriven-young@pecklaw.com
No Coverage for Contractor's Faulty Workmanship
July 10, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Kentucky Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the contractor's faulty workmanship in digging the existing basement of a building to make it deeper. Martin v. Acuity, 2018 Ky. LEXIS 188 (Ky. April 26, 2018).
Martin Elias/Properties, LLC (MEP) purchased an older home to renovate and resell for profit. MEP hired Tony Gosney to renovate and expand the basement. Gosney agreed to dig the existing basement deeper, pour new footers and pour a new concrete floor. While performing his work, Gosney failed to support the existing foundation adequately before digging around it. Within days, the old foundation began to crack and eventually the entire structure began to sag. Gosney stopped work and notified his insurer, Acuity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ohio subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion
August 11, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn Mosser Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. 09-4449 (6th Cir. July 14, 2011)(unpublished), claimant project owner Port Clinton contracted with insured general contractor Mosser for the construction of a building. Following completion, Port Clinton sued Mosser for breach of contract seeking damages because of physical injury to the project occurring after completion resulting from defective backfill material that settled improperly.
Mosser’s CGL insurer Travelers denied a defense and Mosser filed suit against Travelers seeking a declaratory judgment. Mosser and Travelers filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the supplier of the backfill material?Gerken?qualified as a subcontractor for purposes of the subcontractor work exception to the “your work” exclusion—exclusion l.—for property damage to or arising out of Mosser’s completed work.  Mosser had purchased the backfill material from Gerken pursuant to a purchase order specifying that Gerken was to supply Mosser with an industry standard grade of backfill for use in the Port Clinton project.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation
February 25, 2011 —
Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen LauderdaleThis article is the first in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010
1. Centex Homes v. Financial Pacific Life Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
After settling numerous homeowners’ construction defect claims — and more than ten years after the homes were substantially completed — a home developer brought suit against one of the concrete fabrication subcontractors for the development seeking indemnity for amounts paid to the homeowners, as well as for damages for breach of the subcontractor’s duties to procure specific insurance and to defend the developer against the homeowners’ claims. The subcontractor brought a motion for summary adjudication on the ground the developer’s claims were barred by the ten year statute of repose contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15.
The District Court agreed the developer’s claim for indemnity was barred by Section 337.15. And it held that because the damages recoverable for breach of the subcontractor’s duty to purchase insurance are identical to the damages recoverable through the developer’s indemnity claim, the breach of duty to procure insurance claim also was time-barred. The District Court, however, allowed the claim for breach of the duty to defend to proceed. The categories of losses associated with such a claim (attorneys’ fees and other defense costs) are distinct from the damages recoverable through claims governed by Section 337.15 (latent deficiency in the design and construction of the homes and injury to property arising out of the latent deficiencies).
2. UDC — Universal Development v. CH2M Hill, 181 Cal. App. 4th 10 (6th Dist. Jan. 2010)
Indemnification clauses in construction agreements often state that one party to the agreement — the “indemnitor” — will defend and indemnify the other party from particular types of claims. Of course, having a contract right to a defense is not the same as actually receiving a defense. Any indemnitor attempting to avoid paying for defense costs can simply deny the tender of defense with the hope that when the underlying claim is resolved the defense obligations will be forgotten. In the past, when parties entitled to a defense — the “indemnitees” — had long memories and pressed to recover defense costs, indemnitors attempted to justify denying the tender by claiming their defense obligations coincided with their indemnity obligations and neither arose until a final determination was made that the underlying claim was one for which indemnity was owed.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Ms. Matson can be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com, Mr. Hamersmith can be contacted at hhamersmith@sheppardmullin.com, and Ms. Lauderdale can be contacted at hlauderdale@sheppardmullin.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
