Hawaii Construction Defect Law Increased Confusion
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHawaii’s Act 83 put into the law that in determining if a construction defect was due to an occurrence, the courts needed to ignore any case law that arose after the insurance policy was taken out. The hope, according to Bibeka Shrestha, writing at Law360, was to provide certainty to builders. The effect, however, “further muddled the litigation landscape.”
Carl Shapiro said of the Hawaii legislature that “instead of solving the problem, they’ve created an even bigger miss.” Tred Eyerly, an insurance attorney says that the state “needs a decision from the Hawaii Supreme Court.”
One result is that now the state court and the federal courts have different views on how to look at prior cases. The state courts are holding that “the uncertainly should be resolved in favor of the policyholder,” while the federal courts “pointed to earlier case law that nixed coverage for these types of claims.
The legislature seems unlikely to resolve this confusion on its own. One legislative liaison said that “nobody knew how to pass a law saying ‘you will grant coverage.’” Brian Yamane also told Law360 that “there has been no attempt by anybody to introducte legislation to amend the law.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Action Violation
October 26, 2017 —
Michael C. Zisa & Susan Elliot – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Two recent decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Federal Claims highlight that sureties and bond producers are not immune to the potentially severe consequences of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and related federal fraud statutes. In each case, the Court determined that sureties and bond producers can face potential liability under these fraud statutes for direct and indirect submission of false claims to the federal government
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzisa@pecklaw.com
Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fall 2024 Legislative Update:
October 28, 2024 —
Joshua Lane - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCReview of (a) RCW 60.30.010-020, (b) RCW 49.17.530, (c) RCW 19.95.020, (d) RCW 39.116.005, et seq., (e) RCW 36.70B.080, and (f) RCW 39.12.010 and .13
While much of the focus on the recent legislative updates has been on RCW 39.04.360, a number of other legislative changes may also have significant impacts on Washington’s construction industry. Six of these changes are summarized below.
A. RCW 60.30.010 and .020 (SSB 6108) – Concerning Retainage on Private Construction, Effective June 6, 2024
Last year, ESSB 5528 imposed restrictions and obligations related to retainage and timing of final payment on private (non-public works) projects. It capped retainage at 5%, required prompt payment on final payments, and required owners to accept a retainage bond on private construction projects, excluding single-family residential construction less than 12 units.
This year, SSB 6108 adds suppliers to the statutes (RCW 60.30.010 and 0.020) pertaining to retainage on private construction projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Lane, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Lane may be contacted at
joshua.lane@acslawyers.com
California Bid Protests: Responsiveness and Materiality
January 06, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogIt can be a rough and tumble world out there. And in the case of public works construction in California, this includes bid disputes.
California’s competitive bidding laws require that a public works contract be awarded to the “lowest responsible bidder.” However, as we’ve mentioned before, there are two requirements which must be satisfied for a bidder to be determined to be the lowest responsible bidder: (1) the awarded bidder’s bid must be “responsive”; and (2) the awarded bidder must be “responsible.”
In a case decided this past month, DeSilva Gates Construction v. Department of Transportation, Case No. C074521 (December 14, 2015), the California Court of Appeals for the Third District addressed the first of these two requirements, whether two bids on $34 million highway widening project were responsive, which in turn involves a two-step process: (1) whether the bids were responsive or not; and (2) if not, whether the variance in the bids were “material” or “immaterial.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Pollution Created by Business Does Not Deprive Insured of Coverage
November 26, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court determined that coverage was properly denied under the pollution exclusion of the policies. Headwaters Resources, Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20060 (10th Cir. Oct. 20, 2014).
Over 400 residents of Chesapeake, Virginia, filed two lawsuits against the insured, Headwaters, alleged property damage and bodily injury due to pollution generated in connection with the development of a golf course. The complaints alleged that between 2002 and 2007, the defendants used 1.5 million tons of toxic fly ash during construction of a golf course. The insured allegedly transported the fly ash to an open pit adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The chemicals from the fly ash leached into the ground water, damaging the private wells. The fly ash pit also released airborne contaminants that produced a strong smell of ammonia. As a result of the alleged contamination, the property values of plaintiffs' homes depreciated and members of the community faced increased risk of serious bodily injuries caused by exposure to the fly ash.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Congratulations to Las Vegas Team on Their Successful Motion for Summary Judgment!
May 06, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPThis case arose from an alleged trip and fall on an uneven surface in a parking lot outside of BWBO’s client’s restaurant. Plaintiff alleged more than $385,000 in past medical specials (with high potential for future care and treatment) with exposure in excess of $1,000,000.00. The Plaintiff named as Defendants BWBO’s client as well as several entities related to their landlord.
Early in the case, Las Vegas Partner Jeffrey W. Saab and Senior Associate D. Ryan Efros moved for summary judgment based on terms of the restaurant’s lease. They argued that based on the lease, the duty to maintain the surface of the parking lot fell exclusively to the landlord, rather than the restaurant’s client. Plaintiff opposed the motion arguing that the prevailing case law held that any agreement between a tenant and its landlord does not preclude a plaintiff from asserting either or both defendants breached their duties of care. Jeff and Ryan distinguished that case and successfully persuaded the Court that there could be no contractual duty and no common law duty to maintain the parking surface, clearing the way for the court to grant summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
How Will Today’s Pandemic Impact Tomorrow’s Construction Contracts?
October 26, 2020 —
Levi W. Barrett, Nathan A. Cohen & Mark A. Snyder - Peckar & AbramsonThe emergence of COVID-19 has created a new set of challenges in the already complex world of negotiating construction contracts. In the pre-COVID-19 era, general contractors, construction managers and those negotiating on their behalf, needed to balance a variety of fairly well-established legal risks and exposures and commercial realities with the need to maintain a positive relationship with their counterparty. While many are rightfully concerned with addressing the impacts of COVID-19 to their on-going projects, those negotiating new contracts now are undoubtedly cognizant that they are negotiating in the midst of an unpredictable future that is tipping the historical negotiating balance. The following presents some crucial areas to focus on when negotiating and drafting your contracts in this new era.
Contract Terms Through the COVID-19 Lens
Contractors should examine proposed new contracts carefully to identify rights that afford COVID-19 protections and identify contractual obligations that create COVID-19 commercial risks.
Specific attention should be paid to those sections relating to force majeure/excusable delay, emergencies, changes (including changes in law), contingency, suspension and termination, site investigation as well as all representations and warranties. The paramount concern in examining these provisions is to ensure that they not only entitle the contractor to relief for those unknown events, emergencies and changes, but that they also contain sufficient entitlement for the contractor to obtain both time extensions and financial compensation for unknown impacts of a known event – the COVID-19 pandemic.
Reprinted courtesy of
Levi W. Barrett, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.and
Mark A. Snyder, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Barrett may be contacted at lbarrett@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Mr. Snyder may be contacted at msnyder@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
