Know What’s Under Ground and Make Smarter Planning Decisions
July 29, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessA Finnish experimentation project developed a framework for classifying ground conditions for building and infrastructure construction. It will help anticipate the future cost of foundation laying during the early stages of city planning.
The ground conditions of an area can have a substantial effect on the costs and the environmental impacts of constructing buildings and infrastructure. At early stage, urban designers don’t typically have enough data to make smart decisions about zoning in that respect as obtaining that data is time-consuming and hence also costly.
Consequently, an experimentation project called MAKU-digi: Making the costs of land use visible devised a method for automating the analysis of ground conditions. I had the pleasure of interviewing Juha Liukas, Lead Advisor at Sitowise, and Hilkka Kallio, Geologist at Geological Survey of Finland (GTK), about the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Panthers Withdraw City, County Deal Over Abandoned Facility
September 19, 2022 —
The Associated Press (Jeffrey Collins) - BloombergColumbia, S.C. (AP) -- Carolina Panthers owner David Tepper’s real estate company wants to revoke a bankruptcy settlement it negotiated with the city and county where its abandoned South Carolina practice facility was supposed to be built because it says the governments are making exorbitant and unreasonable demands.
GT Real Estate Holdings had offered $21 million to York County. It suggested giving the proceeds from selling part of its site in Rock Hill so the city would get at least $20 million.
But the county and city have filed separate lawsuits and court papers. York County said it is entitled to more than $80 million in part to get back money from a special penny sales tax that was supposed to expand a road but Tepper’s company used for the proposed practice facility.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
GA Federal Court Holds That Jury, Not Judge, Generally Must Decide Whether Notice Was Given “As Soon as Practicable” Under First-Party Property Damage Policies
November 01, 2021 —
Edward M. Koch & Lynndon K. Groff - White and WilliamsInsurance policies covering first-party property damage often require insureds to notify insurers of a loss “as soon as practicable.” Where an insured may or may not have given notice “as soon as practicable,” the issue arises as to who should determine whether the insured complied with this requirement: the judge or the jury?
On October 6, 2021, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia addressed this issue in Vintage Hospitality Group LLC v. National Trust Insurance Company, Case No. 3:20-cv-90-CDL, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192651 (M.D. Ga. Oct. 6, 2021). In Vintage Hospitality, a July 2018 hailstorm damaged the roof of a hotel owned by the policyholder. The policyholder did not discover leaks from the hotel roof until two months later, in September 2018. The policyholder, not realizing that the hailstorm had caused the leaks, unsuccessfully attempted to repair the leaks. Eventually, in February 2020—19 months after the hailstorm and 17 months after the policyholder discovered the leaks—the policyholder hired a construction company to evaluate the roof. It was not until then that the policyholder learned that the hotel had sustained hail damage from the July 2018 storm. The policyholder notified its July 2018 first-party property damage insurer a few days later.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward M. Koch, White and Williams and
Lynndon K. Groff, White and Williams
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Groff may be contacted at groffl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Liquidating Agreements—Bridging the Privity Gap for Subcontractors
September 03, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorWhat is a subcontractor to do when the owner has demanded additional work, but has refused to pay for it? Typically, a subcontractor cannot sue the owner because the subcontractor doesn’t have a contract with the owner. Perhaps the subcontractor and general contractor should enter into a liquidating agreement through which the general contractor can pursue the claim on behalf of the subcontractor.
Liquidating agreements bridge the privity gap between owners and subcontractors who sustain damages because of the others actions. Liquidating agreements or pass-through agreements grant the general contractor a release of its liability to the subcontractor after the general contractor prosecutes the subcontractor’s pass-through claim against the owner and gives the subcontractor any recovery.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Living Not So Large: The sprawl of television shows about very small houses
March 12, 2015 —
S Jhoanna Robledo – BloombergVince and Sam are newlywed twentysomethings who’ve been bunking with family for a year. Finally, they’ve saved up enough to buy a palace to call their own. Well, sort of: They want to shrink their footprint and expenses by living in a custom-built, 204-square-foot standalone house in southern New Jersey. It has to have room for gym equipment—they’re fitness buffs—and a study for Sam, who’s in medical school. Even Vince’s adorably headbanded mom isn’t sure how it will all fit. When Vince and Sam first see their new digs under construction, tall and narrow like a top-heavy garage, Vince admits they’re “freaking out on the inside.”
So goes a standard episode of Tiny House Nation, the first of a half-dozen miniaturized real estate shows that have recently premiered. “We discovered that for millennials, there was an overriding social trend of extreme downsizing, and we wanted to dig deep into that,” says Gena McCarthy, executive producer of the show, which began airing last year after the Biography Channel morphed into the youth-focused FYI network. Last summer’s first season averaged 257,000 viewers per week, according to Nielsen; this season’s average viewership is up 77 percent, to 465,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
S Jhoanna Robledo, Bloomberg
Pennsylvania Finds Policy Triggered When Property Damage Reasonably Apparent
January 28, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed when a liability policy was triggered for ongoing property damage. The Court also declined to apply the multiple trigger theory. Pennsylvania Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. John, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3313 (Pa. Dec. 15, 2014).
In 2002, Appellants, co-owners of a dairy farm, expanded the size of their dairy herd and milking facility. Appellants hired LPH Plumbing to install a new plumbing system, which would include a wastewater drainage system and a separate freshwater drinking system. LPH Plumbing subcontracted with Stoltzfus Welding to weld metal pipes leading to a holding tank for the new freshwater drinking system. Construction was completed in July 2003.
Unknown to Appellants, the plumbing system was defective when dairy operations began. PVC piping for the wastewater was cracked, allowing "gray water" to escape. Further Stoltzfus failed to properly weld an intake pipe leading to a holding tank that formed a part of the freshwater drinking system for the dairy herd. Consequently, Appellants' herd was exposed to contaminated drinking water shortly after dairy operations began in July 2003.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Product Defect Allegations Trigger Duty To Defend in Pennsylvania
August 31, 2020 —
Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently concluded, in Nautilus Insurance Co. v. 200 Christian Street Partners, LLC., that a duty to defend is triggered when product-related allegations are pled in connection with a claim for defective construction.
In Nautilus, the coverage dispute arose out of two independent underlying lawsuits in which homeowners alleged that the homes built by 200 Christian Street Partners (“Christian Street”) were defectively constructed. Christian Street tendered the claim to its insurer, Nautilus Insurance Co. (“Nautilus”), for defense and indemnity.1
Nautilus filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend Christian Street in the underlying actions.2 Specifically, Nautilus asserted that it was not required to provide a defense in the underlying actions because Pennsylvania law does not consider faulty workmanship to constitute an “occurrence” and, therefore, to trigger the policy’s insuring agreement and the insurer’s duty to defend.3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Manobianca may be contacted at
smm@sdvlaw.com
