Digitalizing the Hospital Design Requirements Process
April 02, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessDecisions made at the early stages of a hospital project can have a huge impact on its life cycle value. To make sure that a hospital will be a good investment, its future users should be involved in helping set out the design requirements. A Finnish team of experts wanted to see if they could improve the process and set up an experiment to see how it could be done digitally.
Currently, over one billion euros are budgeted to hospital construction and renovation in Finland. Globally, the sum is around US$400 billion. You would imagine that the design for such large investments would be very efficient from the start. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
During the design phase, doctors, specialists, nurses, and other stakeholders take part in workshops in which they express their needs and requirements. For a large hospital project, 40 to 100 workshops are the norm. The work is done with a variety of tools, with sticky notes being the predominant technique.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Year and a Half Old Las Vegas VA Emergency Room Gets Rebuilt
March 07, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFLess than two years have passed since the billion dollar Las Vegas VA Medical Center construction was completed, and “earthmovers have begun churning the site again, this time to expand the hospital’s emergency room because the existing one is inadequate,” according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The new emergency room project is estimated to cost $16 million.
The current emergency room’s design is flawed. “VA officials this week couldn’t explain why the ambulance parking area was designed to be roughly 50 yards from the emergency room’s south entrance, a distance that adds critical seconds to a lifesaving situation,” reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Furthermore, VA officials did not confirm “who drew up the flawed design” or who “was responsible for checking the blueprints.”
The Las Vegas Review-Journal also reported that another reason for the expansion is that the current emergency room is too small. A VA spokesman had told the journal that “the emergency room ‘was built based on the workload and the funding that was available at the time,’” yet the journal pointed out that “the number of potential veterans projected to use the center” has remained constant.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Environmental Roundup – May 2019
July 09, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelFederal Courts of Appeal
Dam Claims Collapse
On May 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided the case of Navelski, et al. v. International Paper Company. After a major storm, a dam constructed by International Paper to serve the operations of its local paper mill, was breached, releasing millions of gallons of water into a nearby creek resulting in the flooding of many homes located downstream from the creek. IP was sued by the homeowners in a class action, alleging negligence and strict liability for conducting an abnormally dangerous activity. The trial court dismissed the strict liability claim, and the jury found IP was not negligent in the operation of the dam. On appeal, the court upheld the jury verdict, agreeing that the verdict was supported by the evidence heard by the jury. The appeals court also agreed that the strict liability claim was properly dismissed as a matter of law because the operation of this dam was not an abnormally dangerous activity under Florida law. The plaintiffs had also argued that the jury should not have been advised that the home county, Escambia County, has applied for a FEMA grant which apparently made the case that some of the downstream homes were naturally prone to flooding. A redacted version of the application was allowed to be shown to the jury, but the appeals court held that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the court ruling was prejudicial.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Revisiting the CMO; Are We Overusing the Mediation Privilege?
November 19, 2021 —
Michael T. Kennedy Jr. - BERDING|WEILOne of the most common features in construction defect cases is the Case Management Order (“CMO”) or Pre-Trial Order (“PTO”) to govern pre-trial and mediation procedures. CMOs and PTOs arose in the days when the HOA would sue the developer, the developer would cross-complaint against the subcontractors, and each defendant and cross-defendant might have 2 or 3 insurance carriers defending, each of whom may retain their own panel counsel. In a large case there may have been 20 parties and 30 defense attorneys. In order to avoid the cost and chaos of all of those parties propounding their own discovery, and in order to prepare these cases for mediation well before trial and the associated costs, it became standard practice in California to include provisions in the CMO to stay all discovery until just before trial.
Plaintiff would provide a Defect List or Statement of Claims and the parties experts would meet and exchange information as part of the mediation process. All of the information exchanged would be subject to mediation privileges and inadmissible at trial. The benefit of this practice was that the parties (and carriers) would avoid the cost of formal discovery and allow the experts to discuss compromised scopes of repair to help settle the case while being able to take a more aggressive position at trial. The disadvantages are that each party uses its privileged initial expert reports to stake out negotiating positions more extreme than what they would put on at trial, with each side losing credibility with the other in assessing the value of the case, and for those cases that did not settle, the parties would be faced with having to do all of the depositions and discovery in the last 60 days, or delaying trial, or both.
Over the last 10 or 15 years with the advent of wrap-up insurance policies, these cases now usually involve 2 sides instead of 20; only the HOA and the developer remain in the case. However, old habits die hard, and the standard CMO/PTO hasn’t evolved with other aspects of these cases. The practice of staying all discovery and exchanging information only under mediation privileges remains, and as a result insurance carriers don’t receive the admissible evidence that they need to determine coverage and evaluate the real settlement value of the case until just before trial. On the plaintiff’s side, if most of the experts’ work is done under the guise of mediation privilege, those costs may not be recoverable. Outside the context of mediation, costs incurred in investigation of the defects and preparation of a scope and cost of repair are recoverable.
This reflexive claim of mediation privilege over all information exchanged during the case has outlived its usefulness. The CMO can and should remain to regulate formal discovery and to help the parties prepare for mediation, but regulated discovery should be opened early in the case. In California, the SB800 process already provides for the exchange of admissible information during the prelitigation right to repair process. Continuing that exchange during the early litigation allows the parties to continue to prepare for mediation, but waiving privileges had advantages for both sides.
A senior claims manager once commented that Plaintiff’s mediation-protected Statement of Claims “might as well be a stack of blank paper” for all of its usefulness to the carrier in assessing the value of the case. If the Plaintiff and it expects are free to inflate their claims early in the case without having to worry about every supporting those claims in front of a jury, they have little or no credibility. And if those claims are inflated or not “real,” not only can the carrier not properly assess the verdict range and settlement value of the case, but it may also be hampered in making a coverage determination. Simply put, if the exchange of real information through formal discovery is put off until just before trial, the defense cannot be ready to settle until then. Worse, the cost of defense goes through the roof in the last 60 days before trial as the lawyers’ scramble to take all of the depositions and to all of the other work that had been stayed for the previous year or two.
The Plaintiff is faced with the same question of credibility of defense experts where they are free to take a “low ball” negotiating position without having to support that position through cross-examination in front of the jury. Just as the carrier behind the defense attorney needs the Plaintiff’s “real” evidence to assess the claim, so does the HIOA Board of Directors behind the Plaintiff’s counsel. Additionally, in California as in most states, the cost of experts’ preparation for mediation may not be recoverable as costs or damages, but investigation of the defects and preparation of the scope and cost of repair is recoverable.
The biggest challenge is resolving construction defect claims for both sides is how to resolve these cases quickly while keeping costs under control. Practices that worked 20 years ago are no longer applicable with changes in insurance, and in light of some of the bad habits that arise when all of the information exchanged was confidential.
The CMO/PTO process can still be useful to regulate the discovery and mediation schedule given the volume of documents and other information to be exchanged but exchanging “real” information in a form that may come into evidence at trial should foster earlier resolution, resulting in cost savings for the parties. The CMO can provide for the parties to respond to controlled discovery, and the exchange of expert reports and potentially depositions can and should be done earlier in the case, well before the eve of trial. The parties can then assess the true value of each case and prepare for more substantive mediation without waiting until they are on the figurative courthouse steps.
Construction defect cases have a pattern, and it is tempting for busy lawyers to just put each case through the same algorithms that they have used for years. However, these cases have evolved and those of us handling these cases need to reevaluate our approach to these cases. Taking aggressive negotiating positions that no longer have any credibility with the other side has become counterproductive, and the exchange of real evidence earlier in the case would better serve our clients and carriers.
BERDING|WEIL is the largest and most experienced construction defect and common interest development law firm in California. For more information, please visit https://www.berding-weil.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael T. Kennedy Jr., BERDING|WEILMr. Kennedy may be contacted at
mkennedy@berdingweil.com
Colorado Mayors Should Not Sacrifice Homeowners to Lure Condo Developers
September 17, 2014 —
Jesse Howard Witt - The Witt Law FirmFor the past two years, Colorado’s Metro Mayors Caucus has been aggressively lobbying the state legislature to strip away consumer protections in construction defect disputes, in the hope that more lax construction standards may attract condominium developers to their cities. Although the General Assembly voted down their proposals in the 2013 and 2014 sessions, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock raised the issue again during his recent State of the City address, and it is likely that proponents will sponsor another bill during the upcoming 2015 session.
The mayors would do better to protect their constituents’ rights and work to correct the underlying problems that have hampered condominium construction in recent years. Eliminating consumer protections is not the right way to help their communities grow.
Should developers build apartments to rent or condominiums to sell?
At the core of this debate is the recent trend favoring apartments over condominiums. According to an October 2013 report from the Denver Region Council of Governments (DRCOG), the construction of new condominiums around Denver has not rebounded from the Great Recession as quickly as the construction of apartments or single-family homes. Many of the new attached-housing projects currently in development are expected to be offered as apartments for rent rather than condominiums for sale. This concerns some mayors, who feel that apartments promote a more transient population, with fewer permanent ties to the their communities. To encourage developers to build condominiums instead of apartments, the mayors have argued that Colorado should repeal or limit laws that currently protect condominium owners from shoddy workmanship and construction defects.
In April 2013, DRCOG had urged the Colorado General Assembly to pass Senate Bill 13-52, which would have given immunity for environmental hazards to builders of multi-family communities located near bus stops or light rail stations. The bill would also have given these builders an unfettered right to choose what repairs were appropriate if any homeowners complained of other defects, and it would have prohibited homeowners from seeking relief in court for unsatisfactory repairs; if builders did not offer reasonable repairs, homeowners’ only option would have been to pursue costly private arbitration. During judiciary committee hearings, a number of mayors and homebuilders testified in favor of the bill, and expressed a belief that it was virtually impossible to build a condominium project without being sued over defective work, and that this was the reason why apartrments had become more popular. There were few data to support their anecdotes, however, and the DRCOG report had not yet been published. As a result, the committee rejected the bill.
Just what the “Doctor” ordered.
Several months later, DRCOG made its report available. Not surprisingly, portions of this document supported the type of legislation that DRCOG had promoted earlier in the year. The report’s authors acknowledged, in fact, that the subjective sections of their report were limited to the opinions of the development industry, and “should be recognized as one side of the discussion.” The authors also conceded that they had relied primarily on interviews with homebuilders, contractors, and defense lawyers in preparing their findings; they had spoken to “very few” plaintiff attorneys, and it does not appear that they spoke to any homeowner association representatives.
Nevertheless, local politicians immediately seized on the report as evidence that laws should be changed. “God bless DRCOG,” joked one member of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce in an interview with Westword. “I think it’s devastating,” Lakewood Mayor Bob Murphy said in a separate interview with the Denver Business Journal. “I see this as a verification of what I’ve been talking about… I’m not aware of a single member of the 41-member Metro Mayors Caucus who is opposed to some kind of reform.”
At the January 2014 meeting of the Metro Mayors Caucus, Mayors Murphy and Hancock cited the report when arguing for changes in the law. Other mayors echoed their concerns and voted to support legislation that would take away homeowners’ access to the courts, limit the power of homeowner associations to advocate for their members, and impose difficult administrative barriers to taking legal action against developers.
Senate Bill 220
The mayors eventually found a receptive ear in Commerce City Senator Jessie Ulibarri. In the final days of the 2014 session, Ulibarri broke ranks with fellow Democrats and introduced Senate Bill 14-220.
Ullibarri’s bill would have addressed the mayors’ concerns by making it illegal for homeowner association boards to speak with attorneys, consult experts, or request that builders repair construction defects, unless the board first obtained the votes of at least half of the community. The bill would have required that the board obtain votes from a majority of the entire membership—not just those who appeared at a meeting or participated in the election—and forbid the use of proxies to meet this total. In practice, this would have made it effectively impossible for large communities to hold a builder accountable for negligent construction, code violations, or breaches of warranty. In addition, even for communities that would be able to overcome these voting hurdles, the bill would force many disputes into binding arbitration with whatever service the builder had selected to resolve disputes. In theory, these changes would have made it so difficult for communities to enforce their legal rights that developers would have enjoyed de facto immunity from claims for defective work. Senator Ulibarri and the mayors hoped that giving this immunity to developers would spur them to build more inexpensive condominiums, without fear of liability for ignoring the building code or delivering low quality work.
Ultimately, the late introduction of SB 220 proved fatal. Democratic leadership expressed frustratation that Ullibarri had put forth the bill without allowing sufficient time to discuss potential amendments to preserve consumer rights, and the 2014 session ended before the bill could pass through committee hearings. The mayors, however, seem intent on introducing similar legislation in 2015, repeating the mantra that it is impossible for developers to build quality condominiums at a reasonable price. Mayor Murphy, in particular, has been vociferous in his support for laws curtailing homeowner rights: He recently proposed a local ordinance that would deny Lakewood residents the consumer protections available to other Colorado homeowners in construction disputes.
Litigation is not the only factor favoring rentals.
This approach is fundamentally misguided. Although many apartment builders have cited the fear of litigation as a factor affecting their decision to avoid the condomium and townhome market, there is little in the DRCOG report, or elsewhere, to support the theory that eliminating consumer protections will cause these developers to start erecting condominiums.
In reality, the DRCOG report itself (which was recently taken off the DRCOG’s website without explanation), identified multiple factors that have slowed condominium construction, not just the perceived legal risks of litigation over defective work. These factors included more stringent lending requirements from banks, surplus inventory from foreclosures, homebuyers’ inability to afford down payments, and overall economic and market conditions that have recently favored apartments. Giving builders immunity for defective work will not change any of these economic circumstances.
In addition, the DRCOG report noted that some Millennials may simply prefer to rent rather than buy; it acknowledged the existence of a vigorous ongoing debate in academic circles over whether the “Gen-Y” and “Millennial” populations have the same desire to own property as their parents in the “Boomer” generation, though the report’s authors ultimately concluded that generational preferences have only had a minor effect on condominium construction. The report further noted that demand for condominiums may increase on its own over time, as older Boomers seek to downsize and move to smaller houses. These issues are also independent of any concern over construction defects.
Moreover, one should not overlook a factor that received little attention from the DRCOG report: Colorado’s strong rental market. Recent reports show that rents are at all-time highs across the state, and many individuals are willing to pay a premium for desirable rental property in this tight market. It should therefore come as little surprise that homebuilders have started constructing more apartments to meet this demand.
Mayors should concentrate on why apartments cost less to build.
On the subject of construction and construction defects, the DRCOG report did identify three reasons why it may be less expensive to build apartments than condominiums in today’s market.
One was quality control. For condominium projects, prudent developers often choose to retain a third-party inspector to visit the site and verify that subcontractors are performing their work correctly. This is a wise step to ensure that any defects are identified promptly and corrected on the spot; making such repairs during construction, while the responsible subcontractors are still on site, and before other trades have covered up their work, is typically far less expensive than taking a house apart and fixing mistakes years later. On an apartment project, however, a developer may choose to omit this step and wait to see if renters complain about defects or demand repairs. By eliminating this quality control expense, the DRCOG report found that a developer could save an estimated $1,800 per unit during construction.
A second reason was the use of less-expensive subcontractors. The report found that general contractors who build condominium projects may demand a “premium” of between four and six percent of overall job costs to pay for subcontractors who have the necessary credentials and insurance to do the most challenging phases of the work. This is deemed crucial for condominium projects, because the eventual homeowners may seek redress in court if their homes contain construction defects. By contrast, those who lease apartments are thought less likely to insist on quality workmanship, and builders may therefore be able to get by with a cheaper workforce when constructing rental properties. The report found that using less-qualified subcontractors could save developers an estimated $9,300 per unit.
The third reason was lower insurance costs. The report assumed that condominium communities would not have the same level of on-site maintenance as apartment complexes, and that condominium owner associations would “introduce an element of risk for litigation that apartment properties do not have.” As such, developers of apartment projects often pay between $3,674 and $3,952 less per unit for liability insurance than developers of condominium projects.
Adding these three figures produces a total savings of $14,774 to $15,052 per unit for apartments. Developers interviewed for the DRCOG report stated that the only way they could make sufficient profits on “entry-priced” condominiums (those with a sales price under $450,000) was to use the cheaper construction methods associated with apartments. These developers were reluctant to cut such corners on condominiums, however, because of the fear that buyers might sue for the cost of repairing defects and code violations.
Lowering quality standards will not help the industry.
Although the DRCOG report helped explain why the perceived fear of litigation may have made some developers hesitant to build condominiums, this perception does not justify laws that would strip away consumer protections or lower quality standards in the industry.
Overall, the DRCOG report described a market saturated with poorly-built condominiums, many of which have been the subject of multi-million dollar construction defect lawsuits and foreclosures in recent years. Although several national builders have now pulled out of the Colorado attached-housing market, the report noted that a lingering oversupply of condominiums has held sales prices down. The report stated that this oversupply would likely diminish within a few years, but it may take time before the market fully normalizes and returns to the point where local, honest contractors can compete with those who have been peddling cheap, substandard products. The last thing that Colorado lawmakers should do now is encourage more low-quality workmanship by limiting homeowner rights.
Likewise, while high insurance rates remain a valid concern, the DRCOG report suggested that this increase is actually the result of 2010 legislation that the homebuilders themselves sponsored. Senate Bill 10-1394, now codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13 20-808, protects builders from unfavorable policy interpretations by creating a rebuttable presumption of insurance coverage for property damage from construction defects. This is good for developers, but has made some insurance carriers nervous. According to the DRCOG report, roughly a dozen carriers have left the state in recent years, and insurance brokers “attribute their departure to the passage of the 2010 legislation.” The report also noted that new insurance providers have since entered the market, but these carriers tend to specialize in the “high cost/high risk” arena, and charge premiums that are twenty-five to forty-five percent higher. Developers likely did not intend this result when they sought insurance reform in 2010, but that does not mean that homeowners should be penalized in 2015.
In sum, these data do not support curtailing consumer rights. If Senator Ulibarri and the mayors truly want condominium construction to become more economical for developers, they should direct their attention to the real issue: How did it become impossible for quality builders to earn a profit on condominiums? The DRCOG report suggests that construction defects are part of the problem, but politicians should be thinking about ways to prevent the defects, not penalize the consumers who end up stuck living in defective houses. If poor workmanship and code violations have become so commonplace that a developer can only make money by eliminating quality control and hiring unqualified workers, then steps should be taken to stamp out negligence and level the playing field for quality builders. Politicians should not create even more incentives for builders to cut corners.
Moreoever, one should note that Colorado, unlike many states, does not license its general contractors at the state level; some cities require contractors to pass a local examination, but a statewide licensure program could help weed out builders with a history of defective work.
Temporarily providing grants to offset quality control and insurance costs could also help condominium developers stay competitive until the economic conditions improve. In fact, Senator Ullibarri proposed a separate bill in 2014, SB 216, that would have done just that, but Republicans killed the measure shortly before SB 220 was heard in committee.
Arbitration and HOA restrictions are not the answer.
Unfortunately, however, many of Colorado’s mayors and legislators insist that eliminating consumer protections is the only way to create an incentive for builders to construct more condominiums. Thus, their ideas have largely ignored the underlying problems of cheap, substandard work; they have instead focused on concepts such as requiring private arbitration of disputes and limiting the power of homeowner associations to represent their members in lawsuits. Although these concepts may seem neutral at first glance, they could actually tilt the balance heavily in favor of the homebuilding industry.
With regard to arbitration, one should recognize that the process is unlike mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution, in which the parties meet and try to reach a mutually acceptable compromise. Arbitration is more akin to a private lawsuit, wherein the parties give up their right to an impartial jury and, instead, pay a panel of lawyers or retired judges to hear their evidence and award monetary damages. This tends to make arbitration much more expensive, and to create a financial incentive for arbitrators to favor the large companies that are likely to give them future business, not the occasional consumer who is unlikely to need a professional dispute resolution service again.
With regard to homeowner associations, individual homeowners often lack the resources to litigate claims against well-funded developers and insurance companies, and the only way they can protect their property values is to join together in an association with their neighbors. A united association of homeowners can often persuade a builder to make reasonable repairs; a divided group of individuals can rarely achieve such a result. Limiting this right of association would merely encourage developers to build more substandard units.
Likewise, while homeowner voting requirements may seem innocuous, they often penalize communities with large numbers of military, absentee, or out-of-town owners, all of whom may be difficult to reach in the event that the community needs a quick vote on legal action. If nothing else, the hypocrisy of these arguments should anger the mayors’ constituents. Homeowner associations and cities both rely on the same model of representative government. But when a municipality hires a contractor to build a new city hall or erect a new bus stop, it does not let the contractor unilaterally dictate the terms of dispute resolution, nor does it promise to abandon all legal rights unless a majority of its entire population votes to act. Imagine if Mayor Hancock had to obtain affirmative votes from half of Denver’s 483,000 registered voters before he could ask the City Attorney to enforce a construction contract; DIA would be a defect-riddled nightmare for taxpayers.
Despite such facts, however, many of the mayors at the January 2014 meeting seemed confused or naïve about what really happens when a homeowner gives up his or her legal rights. Some, for instance, did not seem to understand the different forms of alternative dispute resolution available, or to appreciate the difference between voluntary mediation (in which both sides meet and agree on appropriate repairs or solutions) and binding arbitration (in which the builder selects a private service to decide if the homeowners are entitled to money damages). Cherry Hills Village Mayor, Doug Tisdale, meanwhile, encouraged the other mayors to use talking points, such as arbitration being “faster, cheaper, more effective, and more efficient” than proceeding in court, precisely because neither side can appeal if the arbitrator misinterprets the law. He failed to offer any real facts or statistics to support this opinion, however, or to explain why homeowners should feel good about forfeiting their right to appeal an erroneous decision.
Mayor Tisdale went on to suggest that mayors tell their constituents that homeowners of limited means could always find an attorney willing to represent them individually on a contingent fee, even if legislators took away the ability of homeowner associations to advocate on behalf of their members. No such statement should ever be part of a mayor’s talking points; anyone who actually practices in this field knows that construction attorneys will rarely agree to represent a single condominium owner on a contingent fee basis, because of both the high investigation costs and the reality that the owners’ association almost always has exclusive responsibility for maintaining and repairing the community’s structures and other common elements.
An honest debate
This is not to say that the homebuilders’ concerns about the increased costs of condominium construction are entirely without merit.
The DRCOG report suggested that the prevalence of cheap, low quality work across Colorado forced many developers to cut back on quality control and hire inexperienced subcontractors in order to remain competitive and earn a profit in recent years. The resulting poor workmanship led to construction defects and litigation, and the insurance carriers responded by raising rates on builders across the board. The passage of SB 10-1394 appears to have exacerbated the problem and pushed insurance rates even higher. The combination of low sales prices and high insurance rates, coupled with a dip in demand for owner-occupied attached housing, has made it very difficult for local developers to make money on condominiums.
As the DRCOG report confirmed, a key underlying cause of this problem has been defective work. Stripping away consumer protections will not encourage condominium developers to invest in more quality control or premium subcontractors, however; stripping away consumer protections will merely encourage more of the same mistakes that contributed to the condominium shortage in the first place. If the mayors truly want to address the lack of new condominiums, they should look at why substandard construction has become acceptable and ways to improve code compliance and overall quality. Mayors are in a unique position to direct their cities’ building departments, and they should take advantage; instead of lobbying for weakened consumer protections, mayors should invest their tax dollars in hiring and training more building inspectors, and they should establish a clear policy prohibiting approval of substandard construction. Once communities stop tolerating shoddy workmanship, good developers will again be able to build quality condominiums without fear of incompetent competitors undercutting their prices.
Legislators may also want to revisit the option of providing temporary tax credits or other financial assistance to developers who hire their own quality control inspectors and take other steps to avoid building homes with construction defects. The DRCOG report concluded that the developers could shave about $15,000 off the construction cost of an entry-level condominium unit by eliminating quality control, using less-qualified subcontractors, and saving on insurance premiums, and the government could act to eliminate this incentive. Licensing contractors at the state level could help in the long term, but politicians may also wish to consider supporting tax credits or other incentives of up to $15,000 per unit to developers who agree to build quality condominiums instead of cheap apartments. This would allow the developers to offset the higher costs of building for-sale properties, avoid litigation over substandard work, maintain adequate insurance, and still earn an attractive profit.
Obviously, some taxpayer advocates might object to the subsidization of real estate developers’ profit margins in this manner. Others might conclude that encouraging owner-occupied housing is a worthwhile investment of a community’s tax revenue. Regardless, this would at least be an honest debate about the real question: Who should bear the cost of building condominiums without defects? The mayors’ current plan to make homeowners pay for repairing a builder’s poor workmanship is the wrong answer.
Jesse Howard Witt is an attorney with The Witt Law Firm in Denver. He focuses on construction law and represents homeowners, associations, developers, and contractors. He welcomes comments at www.wittlawfirm.net.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Environmental Roundup – April 2019
May 06, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelBesides showers, this April brought a number of notable new environmental decisions issued by the federal courts. Before your mind turns to May and its flowers, here’s a summary:
1.
DC Circuit. On April 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the case of State of New York, et al. v. EPA. In the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the Congress established the Northeast Ozone Transport Region, composed of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and a portion of Virginia. Recently, several of these states requested EPA to expand this region to include the “upwind states” of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the remaining portions of Virginia. Doing so would assist the “downwind” states in complying with EPA’s 2008 Ozone standard. EPA rejected this request, which was then appealed to the DC Circuit by the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. Because of its unique properties, ozone created by emissions in the upwind states can be transported to the downwind states, thus allegedly hampering their ability to cope with EPA ozone standards. The court agreed that EPA has the authority to expand the Northeast Transport Ozone Transport Region, but it also has the ability to exercise its reasonable discretion not to do so. In addition, the agency’s decision to rely instead on the remedies available to it in in the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” provision was reasonable and adequately justified, and the court accordingly upheld the agency’s decision. The court also noted that other remedies may be available to the downwind states, just not this one.
2.
DC Circuit. The Court also decided on April 23, 2019 the case of Air Transport Association of America v. Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA held that the payments made by the City of Portland’s airport’s utility city charges for offsite stormwater drainage and Superfund remediation was not an “impermissible diversion” of airport revenues or in violation of the “Anti-Head Tax Act,” which is codified at 49 USC Section 40116(b) and which prohibits collecting a tax on persons travelling in air commerce. Here, the charges are assessed against the airport for the use by the airport of the city’s water and sewage services. The Superfund assessment is based on the fact that the Willamette River which runs through downtown Portland could make the city a Superfund potentially responsible party, and the cty is assessing all rate payers—including the airport—a Superfund assessment. The airport is federally funded and is owned and operated by the Port of Portland, and the Port pays a combined sewer, stormwater /water bill with multiple line items including these contested items. The court notes that federal law, in particular 49 USC Section 47107(k)(2), authorizes airport revenues to be used for the operating costs of the airport receiving federal funding, and the FAA could reasonably determine that these general expenses are authorized airport “operating costs” even though the city services are provided outside the boundaries of the airport.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Law Firm Fails to Survive Insurer's and Agent's Motions to Dismiss
May 08, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiInterpreting New Jersey law, the federal district court dismissed without prejudice the law firm's complaint against its insurer and agent. Law Office of Drew J. Bauman v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31844 (D. N. J. Feb. 27, 2023).
The law firm had a professional liability policy issued by Hanover. The law firm was sued in the underlying case involving a real estate transaction. The law firm tendered the defense and indemnity of the underlying complaint, but coverage was denied. The law firm sued, contending Hanover breached the policy by refusing to abide by its obligations under the policy.
In the alternative, the law firm alleged that its agent, USI Insurance Services, LLC, was liable if the policy did not require Hanover to defend and indemnify in the underlying case. It was further alleged that USI was responsible for procuring coverage for the law firm and knew of its insurance needs. USI was negligent in securing a policy with inadequate coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Eminent Domain Bomb Threats Made on $775M Alabama Highway Project
July 03, 2022 —
Derek Lacey - Engineering News-RecordMultiple bomb threats have been made against Alabama transportation officials, law enforcement and others in reaction to eminent domain plans for a major highway expansion project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
