L.A. Makes $4.5 Billion Bet on Olympics After Boston Backs Out
August 26, 2015 —
James Nash – BloombergLos Angeles’s dreams of hosting the Olympic Games for a third time could get a boost from the City Council this week, even as officials try to assure taxpayers that they won’t be forced to bail out a botched effort.
The council is expected to vote Wednesday on giving Mayor Eric Garcetti power to negotiate with the U.S. Olympic Committee to bring the 2024 games to Los Angeles and require the city to pay for cost overruns.
Los Angeles emerged as the U.S. contender for the games after Boston withdrew from consideration in July. Opponents there warned that taxpayers were on the hook if the nearly month-long sporting event lost money.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Nash, Bloomberg
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Calls for CFPB Investigation into Tenant Screening Businesses
December 13, 2021 —
Brian H. Montgomery - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogSenator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, has written to
newly confirmed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Rohit Chopra, asking him to review companies in the tenant screening industry for possible Fair Credit Reporting Act violations and other violations of U.S. laws. The CFPB, for its part, has already published a bulletin alerting Consumer Reporting Agencies (CRAs) and other furnishers of consumer information that, as federal, state and local pandemic-related housing protections expire, the Bureau will be giving greater enforcement focus to these businesses’ compliance with accuracy and dispute obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Regulation V. While it is still unclear whether Director Chopra will direct the Bureau to investigate specific businesses flagged by Chairman Brown, the tenant screening industry will likely face increased scrutiny in the coming months, which may impact their service offerings and cause interruptions for landlords relying on these businesses and services.
There are approximately 2,000 tenant screening companies across the United States. These companies are used by landlords to better identify and perform background checks on prospective tenants. These reports typically provide a prospective tenant’s rental and eviction histories, credit score, debt-to-income ratio, and outstanding credit obligations, among other financial metrics. The reports also usually include a criminal background check, including searches of sex offender registries and other public records searches. Many tenant screening companies then use this information to provide an estimate of the risk that each tenant presents, calculated through proprietary algorithmic formulas. These reports are usually available to landlords at a cost ranging from approximately $5 to $55 per report, usually passed through to the prospective tenant through application fees.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian H. Montgomery, PillsburyMr. Montgomery may be contacted at
brian.montgomery@pillsburylaw.com
Be Careful with Mechanic’s Lien Waivers
June 09, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsMechanic’s liens are near and dear to my heart here at
Construction Law Musings. These powerful tools can and should be properly used to help you, as a construction professional, get paid for your good work. Of course, the correct steps toward perfecting one of these liens must be followed, including being sure to
meet the stringent lien deadlines. I’ve discussed
the steps for filing such a lien and the various pitfalls relating to the
very picky statutory requirements for recording an enforceable memorandum of lien in Virginia.
One important area that I have not discussed as thoroughly as these basic requirements (and an area of which I have been
reminded by my pals at the Construction Payment Blog) is the area of mechanic’s lien waivers. While the Virginia General Assembly has
ended the days of pre-payment contractual waiver of mechanic’s lien rights for subcontractors and suppliers, mechanic’s lien waivers that waive rights either simultaneous with or after receipt of progress and final payments are still valid and used on a regular basis.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Terminating A Subcontractor Or Sub-Tier Contractor—Not So Fast—Read Your Contract!
May 24, 2018 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC BlogEvery few months I receive a call from a general contractor or subcontractor who has just terminated a subcontractor or sub-tier contractor for non-performance and is “checking in with me to see if there are any liability issues.” After the termination has taken place, if the termination is wrongful, there are serious legal consequences. Calling your lawyer after the fact will not cure missteps in the termination process. Termination for non-performance is a common term in most contract documents. As courts interpret contracts, however, the right to earn revenue from a contract is a substantial interest, and courts generally “abhor” forfeitures (termination) of that right. In other words, the courts will strictly determine whether the terminating party to a contract has complied with the termination process to the letter. A recent example from Connecticut is instructive in this regard. [1]
The general contractor on a large hospital project in Connecticut terminated its electrical subcontractor, hired others to finish the electrical subcontractor’s work, and then sued the electrical subcontractor for $26 million. The electrical subcontractor countersued the general contractor for $3.6 million of work that it had completed at the time of the termination which had not been paid for. The subcontractor claimed that due to the many changes that had occurred on the project, it stopped work because the changes altered the contract to the point that it was no longer the same contract. The subcontractor walked off the project and the general contractor then terminated the subcontractor and re-procured the work from other subcontractors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
Federal Court Denies Summary Judgment in Leaky Condo Conversion
August 04, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFIn the US District Court for Illinois, Judge William Hibber has rejected the request for summary judgment sought by the developers of a condominium building in the case of Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 1735 W. Diversey, LLC (the insureds). The insureds renovated a building at 1735 W. Diversey, Chicago, converting it into condominiums. After the project was completed and all units sold, and a condominium association form, one of the owners found that unit suffered leaks during rainstorms. The condo board hired a firm, CRI, to investigate the cause of the leakage. CRI found “water infiltration through the exterior brick masonry walls, build-up of efflorescence on the interior surfaces of the masonry, and periodic spalling of portions of the brick masonry.”
The redevelopment firm had purchased coverage from Nautilus. “Shortly after the Board filed its first complaint, the Insureds tendered the mater to Nautilus and requested that it indemnify and defend them from the Board's underlying claims. Nautilus, however, rejected the Insureds’ tender and denied coverage under both insurance policies.” Nautilus stated that the water leakage did not constitute an occurrence under the policies. The court cited these policies in which an occurrence is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” The Illinois courts have determined that construction defects are not accidents.
The court concluded that the insured did not bring forth claims within the coverage of the policies and denied the motion for summary judgment.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wisconsin Federal Court Addresses Scope Of Appraisal Provision In Rental Dwelling Policy
September 05, 2022 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Higgins v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 22-C-198, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117477 (E.D. Wis. July 5, 2022), the Court addressed the often disputed question of whether an appraisal provision in an insurance policy is limited to disputes over valuation or extends beyond valuation to causation and/or coverage. The underlying loss in the Higgins case involved a fire at a rental dwelling owned by the Plaintiff and insured by State Farm under a Rental Dwelling policy for, among other things, fire losses. Subsequent to being notified of the fire, State Farm investigated and provided the Plaintiff with its estimated cost of repair. Plaintiff disputed the estimate, including the repairs necessary, and also sought additional sums for debris removal and lost rent.
The insurance policy at issue in Higgins included an appraisal provision which provided: “If you and we fail to agree on the amount of loss, either one can demand that the amount of the loss be set by appraisal.” Pursuant to this provision, Plaintiff demanded that State Farm submit to an appraisal to resolve the parties' disagreements. State Farm responded by indicating that it would enter into appraisal over the areas where there were "pricing differences" but not areas where there were "scope differences." According to State Farm, there were a number of issues regarding the scope of repairs necessary to restore the dwelling to its pre-loss condition. Plaintiff disagreed with State Farm's position and did not seek to move forward with the appraisal process on only the items State Farm identified as appropriate for appraisal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
New Case Alert: California Federal Court Allows Policy Stacking to Cover Continuous Injury
November 23, 2016 —
William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.“Stacking” is a practice that is very favorable for policyholders, especially in environmental coverage cases involving extended pollution events. It allows a policyholder to combine the limits of multiple consecutive policies to cover continuous injury claims occurring over multiple policy periods. Without stacking, insurers can limit a policyholder’s recovery to a single policy limit.
The Eastern District of California recently decided that a policyholder could stack the limits of six consecutive policies, where the occurrence was a continuous injury spanning all six policy years. Among other rulings, the court determined that the plain language of the policy under dispute did not prevent stacking.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
The Connecticut Appellate Court Decides That Construction Contractor Was Not Obligated To Continue Accelerated Schedule to Mitigate Its Damages Following Late Delivery of Materials by Supplier
April 11, 2022 —
Robert M. Barrack - Gordon & ReesIn United Concrete Prods. v. NJR Constr., LLC, 207 Conn. App. 551, 263 A.3d 823 (2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court has issued a decision that should be of interest to the Connecticut construction industry and the construction bar. The lawsuit arose out of the late delivery of materials on a construction project, which is a frequent problem on construction projects. In United Concrete Products, the defendant general contractor, NJR Construction, LLC (“NJR”) was retained by the State of Connecticut Department of Transportation (“DOT”) to replace a bridge over the Hockanum River (“Project”). Id. at 555-58 (2021). The Prime Contract provided that NJR with an eight-week time-frame to perform the work, at which time the road would be closed to traffic. Id. The Prime Contract also provided for a bonus of $3,000 for each day the road was opened to traffic prior to the eight week deadline of August 8, 2016, and for liquidated damages of $3,000 for each day the road remained closed beyond the deadline. Id.
NJR subsequently entered into a purchase order (“Subcontract”) with the plaintiff, United Concrete Products, Inc. (“United”), whereby United agreed to provide certain concrete components for the Project, including ten pre-stressed concrete beams. Id. The Subcontract required that United deliver the concrete beams by June 7, 2016, but, NJR did not actually schedule the delivery until June 29, 2016. Id. Nevertheless, even with that schedule NJR could have reopened the road by July 19, 2016, which would have allowed it to receive the full $60,000 incentive bonus. However, United did not deliver the concrete beams until July 26, 2016, which caused NJR to lose the incentive bonus, be assessed liquidated damages by the DOT, and to incur additional delay damages. Id. After deducting the amount of $179,500 in damages that it incurred due to United’s late delivery of the beams, NJR paid United the balance of $66,074.75. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert M. Barrack, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMr. Barrack may be contacted at
rbarrack@grsm.com
