New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board
July 01, 2019 —
Kristen E. Andreoli - White and William's Taking Care of Business BlogOn April 10, 2019, the New York City Council adopted Intro No. 1253 – the largest effort in a series of bills known as the Climate Mobilization Act. Intro No. 1253 enacts new regulations to reduce the city’s current largest source of carbon emissions – the operation of buildings.
Jared Brey, in his April 25, 2019 article in U.S. News and World Report, “How an Evolving Movement Pushed NYC to Address the Climate Crisis,” states that “[i]n the city, around 70% of carbon emissions are produced by buildings, and around half of all building emissions are produced by just 2% of structures larger than 25,000 square feet that are covered by the bill.”
The level of development, population density and relative economic power of a city such as New York have made this bill particularly interesting to other jurisdictions around the globe which may be considering their own similar legislation. In his article, Brey cites David Miller, a former mayor of Toronto and the North American regional director for C40, a group of cities coordinating strategies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement:
“I think what New York has done is globally significant … It’s really a huge step forward, using the city’s powers and influence to directly address a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions without waiting for the national government or the international community to act.”
Several other jurisdictions have already begun to approach this issue, generally either by passing bills or creating task forces to further investigate how to meet stated emissions reduction goals. In 2018, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed an executive order with a stated goal of net-zero carbon emissions within the state by the year 2045. The California State Assembly subsequently passed a bill creating a task force to investigate the potential to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses by both commercial and residential buildings by 2030, although their plan is not due until January 1, 2021. The city of San Jose has implemented new building standards for all new residential buildings to be net-carbon neutral by 2020, and all new commercial buildings must be so by 2030.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kristen E. Andreoli, White and Williams LLPMs. Andreoli may be contacted at
andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com
The Burden of Betterment
February 23, 2017 —
Ryan M. Charlson, Esq. - Florida Construction Law NewsThe concept of betterment has long been used by defendants in cases involving defective design or construction to limit the damages awarded to a plaintiff.[1] The theory behind betterment is that: “if in [the] course of making repairs [an] owner adopts a more expensive design, recovery should be limited to what would have been the reasonable cost of repair according to original design.”[2] Betterment is often raised as an affirmative defense, requiring a defendant to prove that the plaintiff has received a good or service that is superior to that for which the plaintiff originally contracted. A recent South Florida case seems, at first blush, to suggest the burden of establishing the value of betterments may fall to the plaintiff, although a closer reading indicates the decision is likely to have limited applicability.
In Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. The City of Miami Beach, the Third District Court of Appeal was asked to review the damages award to the City for construction defects associated with the redesign and improvement of a park.[3] The completed project contained landscaping deficiencies, along with other “minor defects” in the playground’s construction.[4] After a unilateral audit, and without providing the contractor its contractually required opportunity to cure the defects, the City “removed, redesigned, and replaced the playground in its entirety.”[5] It did so despite no recommendation by the City’s own expert to perform such work.[6] During the bench trial, the “only measure of damages provided by the City was the costs associated with the planning, permitting, and construction of a park that is fundamentally different from the one it contracted with [the contractor] to build.”[7]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Charlson may be contacted at
ryan.charlson@csklegal.com
Hawaii Court of Appeals Affirms Broker's Liability for Failure to Renew Coverage
July 16, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's finding that the broker was liable for failing to secure coverage for the insureds' home. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Vreeken, 2014 Haw. App. LEXIS 322 (Haw. Ct. App. June 30, 2014).
Based upon their dealings with the broker, the insureds thought they had coverage for their home from March 3, 2004 to March 3, 2005 and from May 9, 2005 to May 8, 2006. The house was elevated nine feet above the ground for structural renovation, but collapsed on May 23, 2005. The original policy had lapsed on March 3, 2005. The second policy was voided because the application prepared by the broker stated there was no renovation work underway on the property.
The insureds sued. The jury found the broker and its agent liable for general, special and punitive damages. An appeal was filed. The ICA largely affirmed after addressing the many points raised on appeal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Developers Can Tap into DOE’s $400 Million for Remote and Rural Clean Energy Projects
December 10, 2024 —
Robert A. James, Elina Teplinsky, Alicia M. McKnight, Sidney L. Fowler & Clarence H. Tolliver - Gravel2Gavel BlogOn October 3, 2024, the Department of Energy Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations announced a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to fund up to $400 million for clean energy projects in rural and remote areas via its Energy Improvements in Rural or Remote Areas program. The NOFO will provide awards ranging from $2 million – $50 million, with plans to fund 20 to 50 projects. Awards will require a non-federal cost share, range across four topic areas, and target projects in rural and remote communities with populations of 10,000 people or fewer.
Eligibility
Applications are open to a wide range of entities, including for-profit and nonprofit organizations, state and local governmental entities, Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, institutions of higher education, rural electric cooperatives, incorporated and unincorporated consortia, farming associations and cooperatives, and labor unions. Generally applicants must be U.S. entities, but foreign entities may be allowed to participate in limited circumstances. Applicants must identify at least one area in the U.S. or U.S. territories with a population of up to 10,000 people which will benefit from the proposal.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury,
Elina Teplinsky, Pillsbury,
Alicia M. McKnight, Pillsbury,
Sidney L. Fowler, Pillsbury and
Clarence H. Tolliver, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. Teplinsky may be contacted at elina.teplinsky@pillsburylaw.com
Ms. McKnight may be contacted at alicia.mcknight@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Fowler may be contacted at sidney.fowler@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Tolliver may be contacted at clarence.tolliver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
With No Evidence of COVID-19 Being Present, DC Trial Court Finds No Claim for Business Interruption
September 28, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA D.C. Superior Court rejected a business interruption claim due to closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Rose's 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exchange, Civil Case No 2020 CA 002424 B (Order dated Aug. 8, 2020). The decision is here.
Plaintiffs owned a number of restaurants in the District of Coiumbia. Plaintiffs had commercial property coverage in a policy issued by Erie. The policy provided coverage for loss of income sustained due to interruption of business resulting directly from "loss or damage" to the insured property.
DC Mayor Bowser issued a series of orders in March 2020 which closed all non-essential businesses, including plaintiffs' restaurants. Plaintiffs filed claims with Erie. When coverage was denied, plaintiffs filed suit. Both sides moved for summary judgment.
The dispute centered on whether the closure of the restaurants due to the mayor's orders constituted a "direct physical loss" under the policy. Plaintiffs argued that the loss of use of the restaurants was "direct" because the closures were the direct result of the mayor's orders without intervening action. The court reasoned, however, that the orders were governmental edicts that commanded individuals and businesses to take certain actions. Standing alone and absent intervening actions by individuals and businesses, the orders did not effect any direct changes to the properties.
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
A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege
April 19, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe federal courts have issued some significant environmental law rulings in the past few days.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc.
On March 4, 2021, the court held that the deliberative process privilege of the Freedom of Information Act shields from disclosure in-house draft governmental biological opinions that are both “predecisional” and deliberative. According to the court, these opinions, opining on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) effects on aquatic species of a proposed federal rule affecting cooling water intake structures—which was promulgated in 2019—are exempt from disclosure because they do not reflect a “final” agency opinion. Indeed, these ESA-required opinions reflect a preliminary view, and the Services did not treat them as being the final or last word on the project’s desirability. The Sierra Club, invoking the FOIA, sought many records generated by the rulemaking proceeding, and received thousands of pages. However, the Service declined to release the draft biological opinions that were created in connection with the ESA consultative process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Quick Note: Submitting Civil Remedy Notice
May 10, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are steps an insured or claimant need to take in order to assert a statutory bad faith claim. The first step is the obligatory Civil Remedy Notice. This obligation is set forth in Florida Statute s. 624.155. The Civil Remedy Notice is, in essence, written notice of the specific violation(s) that are being claimed against the insurer that give rise to potential bad faith and an opportunity for the insurer to cure the violation(s). Florida Statute s. 624.155 would not be confused as a model of clarity, so it is important that a insured or claimant work with an attorney regarding any bad faith claim including filling out the Civil Remedy Notice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
You Are Not A “Liar” Simply Because You Amend Your Complaint
March 14, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn litigation, it is common for a plaintiff to amend their complaint. They may amend to add additional parties. To add new claims. To change the factual allegations. Or, to change the theme of their case.
Most of the time, complaints are not verified by the plaintiff. Instead, complaints are drafted and signed by the plaintiff’s counsel.
A question becomes: how prior reiterations of a complaint can be used against the plaintiff to show they are a bunch of “liars” by making amendments to their complaint. Sounds prejudicial to the plaintiff, right? Particularly if there is a jury.
The reality is that amending complaints for various reasons is routine. Doing so does NOT make the plaintiff a liar and is not a vehicle that a defendant should use to create this inference. A defendant that tries to do so simply wants to detract from the substantive facts and issues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
