Certificate of Merit to Sue Architects or Engineers Bill Proposed
May 03, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFNorth Carolina may become the twelfth state to require a Certificate of Merit to sue an architect or engineer. If North Carolina Senate Bill 435 (SB435) passes, then plaintiffs when filing a complaint will need to also attach an affidavit of a third-party licensed professional engineer or architect stating that the case has merit.
SB435 is a short two pages in its current form. The bill states that the “third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall (i) be competent to testify and hold the same professional license and practice in the same area of practice as the defendant design professional and (ii) offer testimony based upon knowledge, skill, experience, education, training, and practice. The affidavit shall specifically state for each theory of recovery for which damages are sought, the negligence, if any, or other action, error, or omission of the design professional in providing the professional service, including any error or omission in providing advice, judgment, opinion, or a similar professional skill claimed to exist and the factual basis for each such claim. The third-party licensed professional engineer or licensed architect shall be licensed in this State and actively engaged in the practice of engineering or architecture respectively.”
A few of the amendments allude to disciplining design professionals who certify civil actions that are without merit. The bill has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary I.
While North Carolina is considering enacting a Certificate of Merit law, eleven other states already require one, including Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas. Christopher D. Montez, a partner with Thomas, Feldman & Wilshusen, LLP, has written a useful summary for each state’s certificate of merit scheme.
Read the text of SB435
Track the progress of SB435
Read more from Christopher D. Montez’s article on Thomas, Feldman & Wilshusen, LLP site
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Housing Advocacy Group Moved to Dissolve New Jersey's Council on Affordable Housing
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe New Jersey Law Journal reported that "[a]n affordable housing advocacy group in New Jersey is asking the state Supreme Court to remove from the administration of Gov. Chris Christie the authority to determine municipalities’ obligations for low- and moderate-income housing and to instead place that responsibility in the hands of trial judges."
New Jersey's state constitution mandates affordable housing obligations (referred to as the Mount Laurel decisions).
“It is no longer possible to trust that COAH can or will faithfully implement the Mount Laurel doctrine,” wrote the center’s associate director, Kevin Walsh, in the motion to enforce litigants’ rights, as quoted by the New Jersey Law Journal. “This should be the end; there should be no more extensions, no further last chances.”
Municipalities are protected from being sued by developers, however, last year the court stated "that it would consider lifting that protection if COAH failed to adopt new regulations that passed constitutional muster," according to the New Jersey Law Journal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Get Your Contracts Lean- Its Better than Dieting
January 13, 2020 —
Brian Perlberg, Esq. - ConsensusDocsI recently took the AGC Lean Construction Educations Program Units 1-7. After studying diligently, I’m happy to say that I passed the exam and earned my CM-Lean credential. Surprisingly, this makes me the first attorney to earn this distinction out of over 1,200 CM-Lean holders. So why is a construction attorney learning about lean? After all, this was my first exam in 20 years since I took the bar.
Well, according to McKinsey Global Institute, construction actually became less productive from 1995 through 2009. When it comes to efficiency, construction still lags significantly behind the manufacturing sector and the overall economy. Construction contracts – what we sign and the way in which we negotiate them, or lack thereof – is a principal reason why construction productivity is stagnant.
Contracting under an integrated lean project delivery method (ILPD) and incorporating Lean construction tools is the most powerful means to increase efficiency and add-value to owners. Owners are the client’s end-users of construction projects. ConsensusDocs has taken a leadership role in publishing the first standard ILPD contract which is an integrated form of agreement (IFOA). The ConsensusDocs 300 Integrated Project Delivery (IPD™) provides an off-the-shelf solution to contract utilizing lean tools. Not every owner can or is comfortable using an IPD approach. Consequently, ConsensusDocs produced the ConsensusDocs 305 Construction Lean Construction Addendum last year to provide an option for contracting for lean on Construction Management at-Risk and design-build projects. Some people call this approach IPD-lite or IPD’ish. Some disfavor such terms, because those terms have been used loosely on projects that aren’t very Lean.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian Perlberg, Esq., Executive Director and Senior Counsel of ConsensusDocsConsensusDocs may be contacted at
support@consensusdocs.org
Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court Clarifies Pennsylvania’s Strict Liability Standard
January 14, 2015 —
William Doerler and Edward Jaeger, Jr. – White and Williams LLPIn Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., -- A.3d --, 2014 WL 6474923 (Pa. Nov. 19, 2014), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discussed the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s products liability law and, overturning prior precedent, clarified the law. In particular, the Court, overturned Azzarello v. Black Brothers Company, 480 Pa. 547, 391 A.2d 1020 (1978), clarified the role of the judge and the jury in products liability cases and settled the question of whether Pennsylvania would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability §§ 1, et. seq. (Third Restatement) as the standard for deciding Pennsylvania products liability cases. The Tincher decision makes clear that Pennsylvania will continue to apply § 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (Second Restatement) in products liability cases and that jurors, not the court, will decide the question of whether a product is in a defective condition. Plaintiffs may prove that a product is defective using either the consumer expectations test or the risk-utility test.
Background
The Tincher case arose out a fire that occurred at the home of Terrance and Judith Tincher on June 20, 2007. The Tinchers alleged that the fire started when a lightning strike near their home caused a small puncture in corrugated steel tubing (CSST) carrying natural gas to a fireplace located in their home. The defendant, Omega Flex, Inc. (Omega Flex) manufactured the CSST.
Reprinted courtesy of
William Doerler, White and Willams LLP and
Edward Jaeger, Jr., White and Williams LLP
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
London Is Falling Down and It's Because of Climate Change
July 16, 2023 —
Priscila Azevedo Rocha - BloombergBritain’s increasingly
extreme weather is shaking the very foundations of its centuries-old history.
The nation has been experiencing prolonged
periods of drought after wet winters since last year. That’s causing the porous rock beneath vast parts of southeast of England, including London, to move more than usual, cracking or tilting many of the city’s historical homes in the plushest neighborhoods. The damage has triggered the highest insurance payout in almost two decades, with experts warning that it could get worse.
The London clay, the type of soil that covers most of these areas, “is quite unique” because it can shrink and swell a lot, according to
Lee Jones, a geological engineer at the British Geological Survey who has studied UK hazards for over 30 years. “The wetter it gets, the more it swells and expands and the drier it gets, the more it shrinks and cracks,” he said, adding that future temperature extremes will exacerbate the impact on buildings and roads.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Priscila Azevedo Rocha, Bloomberg
Number of Occurrences Depends on Who is Sued
August 20, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to David L. Beck of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (as published by Association of Corporate Counsel), an Oregon court “held that property damage incurred to a condominium project resulting from a myriad of construction defects constituted just one occurrence under the relevant excess general liability policy.”
In Chartis Specialty Ins. Co. v. American Contractors Ins. Co Risk Retention Group, et al., Chartis argued that “[b]ecause there were multiple defects/conditions resulting in property damage” there were also “multiple occurrences.” However, “[t]he court disagreed, finding that despite various defects, the property damages at issue arose from just one occurrence: the developers' failure to perform its duties.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial.
The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted.
But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer.
The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal.
The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred.
In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no.
Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures
November 07, 2022 —
Reeya Patel - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCDepartment of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington v. Roof Doctor, Inc. d/b/a Roof Doctors, Inc. of Tacoma (Unpublished opinion)
Roof Doctor, a company engaging maintenance of roofs, was hired to complete work for a commercial building in Tacoma in February 2018. During the job, Roof Doctor was cited for two violations by a Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ (L&I) compliance inspector and seven additional asbestos violations. Each citation was rated with a probability of 1 – 3 to determine the likelihood of injury, illness, or disease. The ratings allowed issuance of an appropriate monetary penalty.
The disputes among the parties on appeal were as follows:
First, L&I and Roof Doctor disputed the asbestos probability ratings and calculated penalties. L&I produced as evidence, the fact that nine employees were physically hanging roofing material with asbestos, but none had training or knew that the material contained asbestos. L&I did agree that that most of the employees were experienced in handling roofing material and knew of the dangers that asbestos presented. Roof Doctor explained that because the employees were working outdoors, the danger of asbestos exposure was mitigated due to a low probability that a high concentration of asbestos could be inhaled by the employees when outdoors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
