Top 10 Take-Aways from the 2024 Fall Forum Meeting in Pittsburgh
December 03, 2024 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverOver 500 construction law attorneys and consultants convened last week at the confluence of three rivers in what became the first-ever meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania of the ABA Forum on Construction Law. The Steel City was a fitting backdrop for a meeting focused on issues of design in construction. Thanks to the hard work of many, most notably the newly minted Forum Chair Keith Bergeron and Meeting Coordinators Kendall Woods and Michael Clark, the meeting's attendees brought home new connections and a host of new lessons learned. Read on for my top 10 take-aways from the 2024 Fall Meeting in Pittsburgh and feel free to share yours in the comments below.
10. An architect's standard of care does not require perfection. A common refrain across many of the meeting's plenary sessions was that any design that is produced by human hands will never be perfect. In recognition of our own fallibility, the legal standard to which design professionals will be held to account does not require that their designs be error-free. A design professional must generally exercise the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by professionals performing similar services under similar circumstances. Establishing what that means in each locality will vary and will most likely need to be supported by the expert opinion of another practicing design professional.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
Brooklyn Atlantic Yards Yields Dueling Suits on Tower
September 03, 2014 —
Erik Larson – BloombergForest City Ratner Cos., the initial developer of Brooklyn’s $4.9 billion Atlantic Yards project surrounding Barclays Center arena, exchanged lawsuits with the Swedish construction firm Skanska AB (SKAB) over claims of design flaws and delays in building a stalled residential tower.
The lawsuits, filed today in Manhattan state court, focus on a contract for the 34-floor “modular” residential high-rise building under construction next to the arena for the National Basketball Association’s Brooklyn Nets that opened in 2012 as the centerpiece of the former rail yard and a symbol of the New York borough’s resurgence.
Skanska, a Stockholm-based firm that has grown to become New York’s second-largest building contractor, seeks at least $50 million in damages for changes to the building that were made without consultation, according to its complaint. Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner blames Skanska for the project’s problems, citing “tens of millions of dollars” in cost overruns caused by a lack of skill and a failure to adhere to terms of the 2012 contract.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Erik Larson, BloombergMr. Larson may be contacted at
elarson4@bloomberg.net
California Precludes Surety from Asserting Pay-When-Paid Provision as Defense to Payment Bond Claim
December 21, 2020 —
Nicholas Korst - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCIn a recent case in California, the Court of Appeals held that a surety who had issued a public works payment bond cannot rely on the “Pay-When-Paid” provision in the subcontract as a defense against the subcontractor’s claim against the payment bond.[1] The case was a public works project in Kern County, CA where the North Edwards Water District (the “District”) hired Clark Bros., Inc. (“Clark”) as the general contractor to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired subcontractor Crosno Construction (“Crosno”) to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. The subcontract included the following “pay-when-paid” provision, which provided a definition of “reasonable time”:
If the Owner or other responsible party delays in making any payment to the Contractor from which payment to Subcontractor is made, Contractor and its sureties shall have a reasonable time to make payment. “Reasonable time” shall be determined according to the relevant circumstances, but in no event shall be less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against the Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment, including (but not limited to) mechanics lien remedies. (emphasis added).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nick Korst, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Korst may be contacted at
nicholas.korst@acslawyers.com
The Brexit Effect on the Construction Industry
June 30, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFNow that the United Kingdom (UK) has voted to leave the European Union (EU)—commonly known as ‘Brexit’—much discussion has arisen on how it will affect the construction industry both in the UK and globally.
Brexit could impact the U.S. housing market in various ways, some negative and some positive. For instance, the mortgage refinancing industry is poised to receive a “glut of applications due to low interest rates,” Construction Dive reported. It’s also possible that the U.S. will receive an influx of foreign investors who may perceive the UK as being too isolationist, making the U.S. seem “more open to global business,” according to the Detroit Free Press. They also pointed out that the vote has already impacted the U.S. housing market, since it is most likely the reason the Federal Reserve decided against raising interest rates in June.
Furthermore, Construction Dive presented two different views of how home buying may be effected. On the one hand, investors who lost money in the stock market may be less inclined or able to purchase property at this time. But on the other hand, if Brexit causes home prices to decline, it may “be a relief to those homebuyers finding it difficult to come up with a down payment, particularly first-timers who are facing limited starter-home inventory in addition to steep price tags.”
Barron’s does not seem to believe that the stock market decline due to Brexit will affect the U.S. building industry. The publication maintained their “relatively favorable view of the home builders” industry for the following reasons: “1) Healthy demand trends seen in our monthly survey of real-estate agents; 2) 100% U.S. exposure and tailwinds from lower mortgage rates; and 3) Generally undemanding valuations. However, we are somewhat balanced by: 1) Rates have already been favorable, limiting incremental buyer urgency; 2) Risk that continued market volatility or broader economic fallout could hurt housing fundamentals; and 3) Industry gross margins face pressure from rising land and labor costs. We forecast accelerating order growth through the fourth quarter, driven by community count growth and easier second-half comps, and think improving trends would be a positive catalyst.”
Less positive are the predictions for the UK construction industry. CNBC reported that migrant workers currently make up twelve percent of the UK construction force, and Brexit could cause the labor shortage to worsen. According to Global Construction, Brian Berry, Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders agreed that the industry needs migrant workers, however, he also stated that the UK needs to begin investing in their own “home-grown talent” through increasing apprenticeships.
Another prediction is that infrastructure projects may be adversely effected. For instance, the Independent reported that an anonymous source alleged that international investors have already begun to delay future infrastructure projects in the UK due to the uncertainty of the UK and the EU parting terms negotiation. Current projects may also be in jeopardy, according to the source, since the projects are often contingent upon existing shipping trade rules—if smaller ships can no longer go straight into Europe, it could be enough to halt these projects.
According to the Architects’ Journal, projects will stop—and they have evidence that one already has been halted: “Within minutes of the Brexit news, Daniel Minsky, who works with a boutique investment and development agency in London, was told that a proposed land deal had been pulled. The buyer withdrew at 7.05am this morning because they felt the residential value ‘was too risky.’”
The Architects’ Journal also predicted that environmentally friendly projects may decline since many of the green initiatives were governed by the EU under the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive. However, James Shackleton of Eversheds LLP disagreed with the assessment. Shackleton believes that Brexit may not result in less regulation, giving the following examples: “The Construction Design and Management Regulations 2015 which essentially enact EU Directive 1992/57/EEC and require certain minimum health and safety requirements in design and construction, are unlikely to be swept away.” Furthermore, the “Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 enacting EU Directive 2002/91/EC requiring Energy Performance Certificates for buildings is unlikely to be repealed,” Shackleton claimed.
Read the full story, Construction Dive…
Read the full story, Detroit Free Press…
Read the full story, Barron’s…
Read the full story, CNBC…
Read the full story, Global Construction…
Read the full story, Independent…
Read the full story, The Architects’ Journal…
Read the full story, Eversheds LLP (Lexology)…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Norfolk Southern Agrees to $310M Settlement With Feds Over 2023 Ohio Derailment
June 21, 2024 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordNorfolk Southern Corp. has agreed to pay more than $310 million and implement safety improvements as part of a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Justice over the disastrous February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, officials and the company announced May 23.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement
December 02, 2019 —
K. Alexandra Byrd - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to.
The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee.
The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Byrd may be contacted by
kab@sdvlaw.com
S&P Near $1 Billion Mortgage Ratings Settlement With U.S.
January 14, 2015 —
Tom Schoenberg and Edvard Pettersson – BloombergStandard & Poor’s is close to a settlement of about $1 billion with the U.S. for allegedly misleading investors about its ratings of mortgage-backed securities before the subprime crisis, a person familiar with the matter said.
The McGraw Hill Financial Inc. (MHFI) unit and the Justice Department may agree to settle the case as early as this quarter, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the negotiations are confidential.
The Justice Department has secured settlements worth tens of billions of dollars during the past two years from mortgage lenders and banks it blamed for the 2008 financial crisis. Those companies generated unprecedented amounts of shoddy mortgages that were packaged and sold to investors as securities, many of which turned out to be worthless despite their investment-grade ratings.
Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Pettersson may be contacted at epettersson@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Schoenberg and Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg
City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association: Clarifying the Application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act
June 17, 2024 —
David McLain - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn June 17, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court delivered a significant opinion in the case of City of Aspen v. Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association (Case No. 22SC293). This decision provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and the economic loss rule in the context of construction defect claims.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a construction defect dispute between the City of Aspen, which served as the developer and declarant for the affordable housing condominiums at issue, and the Burlingame Ranch II Condominium Owners Association, the HOA created by Aspen to manage the association after the period of declarant control. The Association alleged that Aspen breached various warranties related to the construction of affordable housing units, leading to structural deficiencies. Aspen argued that the CGIA barred these claims because they could lie in tort.
The Lower Court’s Decision
The district court initially agreed with Aspen, holding that the Association’s claims sounded in tort and were therefore barred by the CGIA. The court relied on the principle that governmental immunity protects public entities from liability for claims that ‘lie in tort or could lie in tort,’ as established by the CGIA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
