No Retrofit without Repurposing in Los Angeles
October 21, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Los Angeles Times has continued its series on the seismic safety of buildings in downtown Los Angeles. According to the article, Los Angeles only requires seismic retrofits of buildings if their purpose is being changed. One investor, Izak Shomof, bought a residential hotel and kept it as one to avoid retrofitting the building. He converted an office building to upscale residences and so the building was strengthened.
His son, Eric Shomof, keeps an office in the unreinforced building. He said if more retrofitting were required, “you’d see a lot more vacant buildings down here,” describing the process as “not cheap.”
Depending on whether or when a building has changed its use, the concrete buildings of downtown Los Angeles may or may not be protected against failure in an earthquake.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fires, Hurricanes, Dangerous Heat: The US Is Reeling From a String of Disasters
August 22, 2023 —
Will Wade & Brian K Sullivan - BloombergFrom deadly wildfires to floods, the US is reeling from several natural disasters in quick succession — and more are likely on the way.
Torrential rains from the remnants of Hurricane Hilary are inundating parts of California. Two tropical storms, one post-tropical cyclone and two potential storms are lined up in the Atlantic Ocean. Almost 100 wildfires are burning across 15 states as officials in Hawaii investigate the deadliest US blaze in more than a century. And record heat will test Midwest power grids this week.
All of this, all at once, is a lot — and it’s not just bad luck. Climate change has triggered heat waves around the world, leading to ideal fire conditions in forests across the Northwest and Canada. It’s also boosting Atlantic water temperatures, which can intensify storms as the peak of hurricane season approaches. And unusually warm Pacific Ocean waters fueled Hilary, which in turn will contribute to scorching heat in the Midwest.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
Construction Litigation Roundup: “Who Needs Them”
August 28, 2023 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyWho needs them?
So argued a surety pursuing recovery under its general agreement of indemnity when the indemnitors urged a Louisiana federal court to dismiss the surety’s complaint for failure to join various allegedly required parties as defendants in the litigation.
As part of its court action, the surety moved for preliminary injunction to enforce its collateral security rights. In response thereto, the indemnitors informed the court that if the injunction were to be granted, the indemnitors would “be forced to sell assets that are encumbered by security interests senior to those held by” the surety. In connection therewith, the indemnitors demanded that the other creditors be joined in the action or the lawsuit dismissed. The indemnitors also urged that the public project owner be joined as a party because the surety was seeking proceeds from the project that were still in the possession of the project owner.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
NJ Court Reaffirms Rule Against Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Claims and Finds Fraud Claims Inherently Intentional
September 20, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Frank J. Perch, III - White and Williams LLPAwarding summary judgment to an insurer under both liability and directors & officers (D&O) coverage parts, a New Jersey trial court reaffirmed the principle that claims of defective workmanship without resulting “property damage” are not covered under a general liability policy, and further dismissed claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, finding that such claims were inherently intentional and do not state a covered “occurrence.”
In Velez v. AR Management Company, et al., 2021 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1675 (Law Div. Bergen Co. Aug. 10, 2021), owners of a condominium unit rebuilt after a fire sued the condominium association, several association board members, the association’s property management company and the general contractor for the reconstruction work. The owners’ suit alleged faulty workmanship and incomplete repairs. In addition, the owners asserted fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the management company, alleging conflicts of interest and self-dealing between the management company and the general contractor, which had common ownership.
In a third-party complaint, the management company sought coverage from the condo association’s liability and D&O insurer. The court dismissed the D&O coverage claim, noting that the management company was not a director or officer or otherwise entitled to insured status for the D&O coverage part.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat: A Poultry Defense, a Houston Highway and a CERCLA Consent Decree that Won’t Budge
March 22, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelFebruary saw the usual array of significant environmental decisions and federal regulatory notices.
THE FEDERAL COURTS
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Luminant Generation v. EPA
The court will be grappling with a difficult venue case governed by the Clean Air Act (42 USC Section 7607(b)). In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the case of Luminant Generation v. EPA (714 F. 3d 841), in which the court upheld the affirmative defenses that were made part of the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) and which applied to certain unpermitted emissions from regulated sources during periods of startup, shutdown or malfunction. These defenses were challenged in the Fifth Circuit and were rejected. On the national stage, EPA has been involved in litigation over these affirmative defenses and recently excluded from a “SIP Call” the Texas program, which was carved out. This EPA decision is being challenged in the DC Circuit (see Case number 20-1115),with the State of Texas arguing as an intervenor that any issues involving Texas belong in the Fifth Circuit, and not in the DC Circuit because the Act allows regional issues to be decided in the regional federal courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
The Roads to Justice: Building New Bridges
August 23, 2021 —
Aileen Cho - Engineering News-RecordFormer U.S. Dept. of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx grew up on “the wrong side of the tracks.”
“My home was a stone’s throw from Interstates 85 and 77,” recalls Foxx, who grew up in Charlotte, N.C., and served as DOT Secretary from 2013-17 under President Barack Obama. “The airport was nearby. Planes flew at low altitude over our house. Whether or not I was using the system, I sure heard and saw a lot of it.” Desirable areas to live were far away from transportation infrastructure, “and the property values of those living near these projects was diminished.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Law Alert: Incorporation of Defective Work Does Not Result in Covered Property Damage in California Construction Claims
June 18, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Regional Steel Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. (No. B245961, filed 5/16/14, ord. pub. 6/13/14), a California appeals court held that the insured's use of the wrong steel seismic reinforcement hooks in construction of a mixed-use building was not an occurrence, and did not result in covered property damage.
Regional Steel was the structural steel subcontractor on a 14-story mixed-use project in North Hollywood, California. Regional supplied plans which were approved by the developer and its structural engineers for installation of steel reinforcements, including seismic reinforcement hooks, to be encased in concrete. During construction, City inspectors determined that the plans called for the wrong hooks, necessitating repairs to finished portions of the work and delays in further construction. This ultimately resulted in a lawsuit between the developer, Regional Steel, the concrete subcontractor, the structural engineer and a quality assurance inspector.
The project was insured under a wrap policy issued to the developer, with Regional named as an additional insured. The court rejected an argument that the wrap endorsement fundamentally changed the insurance, and the issue boiled down to whether incorporation of the wrong hooks, the damage caused by tearing out concrete to replace the hooks, or the resulting loss of use, triggered coverage. Liberty asserted that no damage to property was alleged and the purely economic losses caused by the need to reopen the poured concrete to correct the tie hook problem did not constitute "property damage" within the meaning of the policy. Liberty further posited that the tie hook problem did not constitute an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy because the alleged damage was not caused by an accident.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Chris Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP 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
