What’s in a Name? Trademarks and Construction
April 25, 2022 —
Carol Wilhelm and J.P. Vogel - Construction ExecutiveEvery company, no matter the industry, relies on its name and reputation to develop customers and generate revenue. Think about the brands that dominate American culture such as Nike, Wal-Mart, Amazon or McDonald’s, then imagine those businesses without the ability to adequately protect their names, slogans and logos. No doubt the vultures would circle and brand power would most likely become short lived or otherwise diluted to the point of non-existence. The construction industry is not exempt, and the industry leaders benefit from identifiable names and logos, built over years of reputation and brand building. While the tools necessary to protect your company’s brand exist at the state and federal level, many business owners or leaders are unfamiliar with the trademark process and unaware of the consequences of not utilizing those tools.
Trademark Registration
Trademarks are “concise and unequivocal identifiers” that provide potential customers with essential information about your business. With a single word, tagline, logo, color—essentially anything that can carry meaning—potential customers learn to associate particular product or service characteristics and expected quality level with a particular source. That is, your mark is the way that consumers connect your expertise and reputation to your business and nobody else’s. It serves a critical role in reducing consumer search costs and capturing your hard-earned business opportunities.
Reprinted courtesy of
Carol Wilhelm and J.P. Vogel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Vogel may be contacted at jpvogel@grayreed.com
Ms. Wilhelm may be contacted at cwilhelm@grayreed.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Corps Proposes $4.6B Plan to Steel Miami for Storm Surge
June 22, 2020 —
Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-RecordA $4.6-billion U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposal to protect Miami from future storm surge, largely by building massive sea walls and elevating infrastructure systems, is the latest of such plans the agency has developed for East Coast communities.
Pam Radtke Russell, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster
February 06, 2023 —
Jason Daniel Feld - Kahana FeldIn the beautiful coastline region along the famous Pacific Coast Highway between Ventura and Santa Barbara rests the small cottage town of La Conchita. With unobstructed ocean views, this community is only 820 feet wide on a narrow strip of land abutting a 590 feet high cliffside bluff. The bluff has a slope of approximately 35 degrees and consists of poorly cemented marine sediments. This is the perfect recipe for constant disaster from a geological perspective and the site of several major landslides that have devastated this community. Geologic evidence indicates that landslides, which are part of the larger Rincon Mountain slides, have been occurring at and near La Conchita for many thousands of years up to the present with reported landslides beginning as early as 1865. In both 1889 and 1909, the
Southern Pacific Rail Line
running along the coast was inundated. In the 1909 slide, a train was buried. Since that time, other slides have occurred, covering at times cultivated land, roadways, and the community itself. The two most devastating landslides occurred in 1995 and 2005.
1995 Landslide
From October 1994-March 1995, there was double the amount of seasonal rainfall for the area – in excess of 30 inches. The slide occurred on March 3, 1995, when surface cracks in the upper part of the slope opened on the hillside, and
surface runoff was infiltrating into the subsurface. The heavy rains essentially saturated the slope causing a massive slide. On March 4, 1995, the hill behind La Conchita failed, moving tens of meters in minutes, and buried nine homes with no loss of life. The
County of Ventura immediately declared the whole community a
Geological Hazard Area, imposing building restrictions on the community to restrict new construction. On March 10, 1995, a subsequent debris flow from a canyon to the northwest damaged five additional houses in the northwestern part of La Conchita. In total, the slide measured approximately 390 feet wide, 1080 feet long and 98 feet deep. The deposit covered approximately 9.9 acres, and the volume was estimated to be approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of sediment. The devastation was immeasurable and the damage to homes, property and infrastructure was in the millions of dollars to repair. Litigation quickly arose following the 1995 slide with seventy-one homeowners suing the La Conchita Ranch Co. in Bateman v. La Conchita Ranch Co. The judge ruled that irrigation was not the major cause of the slide and that the ranch owners were not responsible.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana FeldMr. Feld may be contacted at
jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Duty to Defend Affirmed in Connecticut Construction Defect Case
August 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to an article by Matthew Vocci of Ober | Kaler in JD Supra, the Supreme Court of Conneticut affirmed in Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Netherlands Ins. “that allegations of years-long, continuing and progressive water intrusion caused by alleged construction defects triggered a duty to defend under CGL coverage language.”
Vocci stated that the result demonstrated “the importance of the wording of the allegations relating to construction defects, resulting damage and when the parties were on notice of the issues. For property owners, contractors/builders/developers and their insurers, the allegations in the complaint guide what can be a difficult and contentious determination regarding whether the insured is provided with a defense from its CGL carrier.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts
October 21, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Rural Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lester Bldgs., LLC 2019 WI 70, 2019 Wisc. LEXIS 272, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered whether a subrogation waiver clause in a construction contract between the defendant and the plaintiff’s insured violated Wisconsin statute § 895.447, which prohibits limitations of tort liability in construction contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the waiver clause did not violate the statute because it merely shifted the responsibility for the payment of damages to the defendant’s insurance company. The waiver clause did not limit or eliminate the defendant’s tort liability. This case establishes that while
§ 895.447 prohibits construction contracts from limiting tort liability, a subrogation waiver clause that merely shifts responsibility for the payment of damages from a tortfeasor to an insurer does not violate the statute and, thus, is enforceable.
In Rural Mutual, the plaintiff’s insured, Jim Herman, Inc. (Herman), entered into a contract with Lester Buildings, LLC (Lester) to design and construct a barn on Herman’s property. The contract included a provision that stated the following:
Both parties waive all rights against each other and any of their respective contractors, subcontractors and suppliers of any tier and any design professional engaged with respect to the Project, for recovery of any damages caused by casualty of other perils to the extent covered by property insurance applicable to the Work or the Project, except such rights as they have to the proceeds of such property insurance and to the extent necessary to recover amounts relating to deductibles of self-insured retentions applicable to insured losses. . . . This waiver of subrogation shall be effective notwithstanding allegations of fault, negligence, or indemnity obligation of any party seeking the benefit or production [sic] of such waiver.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Landlord Duties of Repair and Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment
February 10, 2020 —
Lawrence S. Glosser - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCA recent case from Division I Washington Court of Appeals addressed both a landlord’s duties of repair and maintenance and the Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment in commercial leases. Votiv, Inc. v. Bay Vista Owner LLC, No. 78289-4-I, 2019 WL 4419446 (Wash. Ct. App., Sept. 16, 2019).
The Plaintiff in that case leased an office space in a mixed-use residential/office/commercial building in Seattle. Although the ownership groups of the various portions of the building were each separate, the entire building was managed by defendant Bay Vista Owner LLC (“BVO”), that was also the Plaintiff’s landlord.
There was a need to replace a deteriorating roof membrane to repair water intrusion into the building. The work involved significant demolition on the roof surface over the premises that Votiv, Inc. (“Votiv”), a music/media company, leased on the top floor. The repair work was done primarily during business hours causing significant disturbance to Votiv’s business operations.
Votiv sued BVO and other defendants for, among other things, nuisance, breach of lease, constructive eviction, and breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The trial court denied Votiv’s claim for injunctive relief and granted summary judgment to the Defendants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Glosser may be contacted at
larry.glosser@acslawyers.com
Best Practices: Commercial Lockouts in Arizona
March 19, 2024 —
Patrick Tighe - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIf a tenant defaults under a commercial lease, Arizona law permits the landlord to re-take possession of the premises by locking out the defaulting tenant. However, if the landlord’s lockout is wrongful, the landlord may be liable for the damages the tenant sustains because of the wrongful lockout. To minimize such liability, here are some general best practices to follow when locking out a defaulting tenant:
- Do Not Breach the Peace. It is vital when performing a lockout to not breach the peace. What constitutes a “breach of the peace” depends on the particular circumstances at hand. For example, if a tenant arrives during the lockout and becomes angry or threatens violence, the landlord should stop performing the lockout and return at a later time. As a general rule of thumb, it is best to perform lockouts in the early morning hours or in the late evening hours when the landlord is less likely to encounter the tenant.
- Provide A Notice of Default. Many commercial leases require the landlord to provide a notice of default before the landlord can lock out a defaulting tenant. Check, double check, and triple check that the landlord followed the lease’s notice of default provisions correctly, including that the landlord sent the notices to all required parties in accordance with the time requirements set forth in the lease.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Tighe, Snell & WilmerMr. Tighe may be contacted at
ptighe@swlaw.com
Agree First or it May Cost You Later
May 08, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneBusiness relationships often begin before parties execute a written agreement containing the terms and conditions by which the relationship will be governed. With little more than a Letter of Intent (“LOI”) or Letter of Award (“LOA”) one party is typically pressured to begin investing time and money to start preliminary work on a project. If such LOI or LOA contains nothing more than an agreement to agree later, the performing party should minimize its investment until the later agreement is executed. A recent court decision in New York confirmed the danger to the performing party under “agreement to agree” provisions.
In Permasteelia North America Corp. v. JDS Const. Group, LLC, 2022 WL 2954131 (N.Y. Sup. CT. 7/22/22), the plaintiff subcontractor allegedly performed $1.9 million worth of preliminary work under nothing more than a LOA with an agreement to agree provision. Issues arose, and the parties never entered any later written agreement. The general contractor refused to pay the plaintiff anything for its preliminary work. In response, the plaintiff filed suit against the general contractor asserting four counts: foreclosure of its lien, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and account stated. All four counts were based on an alleged oral “handshake deal” for subcontract work for the project. The general contractor’s LOA stated that neither party would be bound “unless and until the parties actually execute a subcontract.” During discovery, the plaintiff admitted that neither party intended to enter into any contract until its potential terms were negotiated, reduced to writing, and signed. Moreover, the plaintiff only offered one set of meeting minutes and a few project agendas to support its alleged “handshake deal.” Once these necessary undisputed facts were confirmed, the defendant moved for summary judgment on all four counts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
