Buffett’s $11 Million Beach House Is Still on the Market
February 28, 2018 —
Noah Buhayar – BloombergWarren Buffett auctions a lunch date for charity every year, and the winning bid usually stretches to seven figures. He twice sold his used cars to fans for multiples of their Kelly Blue Book value. Someone once even paid more than $200,000 to purchase his old wallet. (It had a stock tip inside.) For those who venerate one of the world’s best investors, money is usually no object when buying a piece of the legend.
A year ago, Buffett put his vacation home in Emerald Bay, a gated enclave next to Laguna Beach, Calif., up for sale. He bought the property in 1971 at the urging of his first wife, Susan, for $150,000—the equivalent of a bit less than $1 million today. At the time, he didn’t think of it much as an investment, he told the Wall Street Journal last year. Laguna was less developed back then, more surfer-and-hippie paradise than multimillionaire’s haunt. The couple and their family often spent summers at the home, as well as time around Christmas, when Buffett would hole up in the master bedroom working on his closely followed
annual letter to
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. shareholders.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Noah Buhayar, Bloomberg
Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole
August 06, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistArkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]
In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Construction Workers Face Dangers on the Job
November 18, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFOSHA calculates that for each 33,000 active construction workers, one will die on the job each year, making their risk over the course of their careers at one out of every 200 workers. This puts it many times over OSHA’s definition of “significant risk” of 1 death per 1,000 workers over the course of their careers. According to an article in People’s World, “the main risk of death is from falls.”
At a talk at the American Public Health Association’s meeting, one expert noted that “construction workers make up 6 percent to 8 percent of all workers, but account for 20 percent of all deaths on the job every year.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
UConn’s Law-School Library Construction Case Settled for Millions
June 11, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFA group of builders recently settled with the state of Connecticut for $12.1 million in a case “over flaws in the construction of UConn's law-school library” reported Hartford Business. The State of Connecticut v. Lombardo Bros. Mason Contractors, Inc., et al. had been scheduled to start trial in 2015. According to Hartford Business, “The settlement ends six years of litigation over defects in construction of the library, which was completed in 1996 and renamed in 2010 in honor of the late Gov. Meskill.”
An investigation into the construction of the library began after “[l]eaks, instability in the library’s granite façade, and other structural and safety problems became evident.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When Customers Don’t Pay: What Can a Construction Business Do
June 06, 2022 —
Patrick Hogan – Handle.comLate payments are not unusual in construction. From general contractors to subs and material suppliers, every construction project participant has dealt with delayed payments as part of business. However, there’s the issue of clients who refuse to pay. Not late--just no payment. For businesses big and small, a client who refuses to pay can make a significant impact financially and operationally. Many construction transactions are made on trust, and when a client doesn’t pay, some contractors and suppliers may make poor decisions. Yet, to get out of a project going sideways--with payment in hand or lessons learned--you need to be smart and proceed with your business interest in mind.
Why is the customer not paying?
This is where it begins. You must first identify the reasons why a customer refuses to pay. Were they unsatisfied with the quality of work? Do they feel that what was delivered was not aligned with what’s contractually obligated? Do they feel like the work was rushed or the materials used inferior? Was the job finished later than agreed? All these are possibilities that need to be investigated.
If the customer has not volunteered any of this information, it’s best to personally visit the project or set a meeting with the customer to discuss issues in person. If the problems the customer has raised are valid, plan how to resolve them right away. Suppose, after the discussion, you’ve determined that the customer demands things beyond what’s contractually obligated, and you cannot resolve them without incurring unreasonable time and costs. In that case, you might have a delinquent customer in your hands.
Let the customer know your decision. If you’ve decided to proceed and fix the issues they’ve raised, send the invoice for the unpaid work immediately upon commencing the remedial work. Of course, there is no guarantee that addressing their concerns will result in swift payment, so exercise your best judgment. If you think you’ve exhausted all the cordial means to get them to pay as the contract requires, you might need to consider your legal options.
A legal option to recover payments: Filing a mechanics lien
State laws protect construction providers like contractors and material suppliers from non-payment through lien laws. Mechanics liens work by placing a hold on the property where the work or materials were provided as a security in case of non-payment. Mechanics liens can result in a sale of the property where the lien is attached, and the proceeds will be used to pay unpaid vendors.
When a client fails to pay after a good-faith pursuit to resolve the payment issue, filing a mechanics lien becomes the smartest next move. However, note that to file a mechanics lien, you must have fulfilled the requirements of lien laws specific to the state where the project is located. For many states, the main requirement is sending a preliminary or pre-lien notice to secure your right to file liens. It’s only good business practice to
file preliminary notices for every project you work on. It’s not an indication of distrust in the client’s ability to pay–and that is mentioned in the wording of many statutory statements included in preliminary notices. It’s just industry standard to file prelim notices.
Filing a mechanics lien includes a period where the client still has the opportunity to pay arrears before the lien is enforced. Suppose the client fails to pay in this period. You are now allowed to enforce the mechanics lien through a lawsuit. This is a complex process, but it presents itself as the last resort to recover payments. As long as all your documents are in check, you’ve filed the necessary notices in the time and manner required by law, and you’ve fulfilled your contractual obligations to the client, a ruling in your favor is the likely outcome.
Promoting timely payments
It’s in your best interest to promote timely payments from your customers. While construction contracts are primarily reliant on trust, there are many things you can do to encourage and facilitate timely payments from your clients. Here are some ideas:
- Use detailed contracts and progress billing
- Vet clients through background research, credit history, references, and public financial records
- Send regular on-time invoices
- Ensure your invoices are aligned with the formats used by your client’s payables department
- Provide multiple payment methods
- File the necessary preliminary notices throughout the project
In the case of construction payments, the adage prevention is better than cure applies. There are many reasons why payments get delayed or skipped, some malicious, some not. It’s in your best interest to ensure that you are doing everything from your end to promote timely payments and that you’re fully protected by rights granted to construction businesses by law.
About the Author:
Patrick Hogan is the CEO of
Handle.com, where they build software that helps contractors and material suppliers with lien management and payment compliance. The biggest names in construction use Handle on a daily basis to save time and money while improving efficiency.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Appellate Team Obtains Affirmance of Dismissal of Would-Be Labor Law Action Against Municipal Entities
August 12, 2024 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomNew York, N.Y. (July 11, 2024) - In Charlot v. City of New York, ___ A.D.3d ___, 2024 NY Slip Op 03161 (2d Dep’t 2024), New York Associate Dean Pillarella, a member of the Appellate Practice, recently obtained an affirmance of the lower court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s action against the City of New York (“the City”) for failure to timely serve a notice of claim. New York Partner Meghan Cavalieri, a member of the Construction Practice, and her team authored and argued the initial motion to dismiss.
The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as a result of a construction-site accident on December 8, 2020, on City-owned property in the course of the construction of a school by the New York City School Construction Authority. N.Y. General Municipal Law (“GML”) § 50-e(1)(a), requires service of a notice of claim within 90 days after the claim arises as a condition precedent to the commencement of a tort action. The plaintiff served no notice of claim until June 2021 and commenced an action in January 2022, alleging violations of N.Y. Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200. Given the plaintiff’s failure to comply with GML § 50-e(1)(a), Meghan and her team rejected the notices of claim as untimely. The plaintiff then moved for leave to deem the notices of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. In response, Meghan and her team opposed the motion and cross-moved to dismiss the action.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Saved By The Statute: The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Bar Claims Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
May 10, 2021 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Earl v. NVR, Inc., No. 20-2109, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6451, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) considered whether, under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiff’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims against the builder of her home were barred by the economic loss doctrine. The UTPCPL is a Pennsylvania statute that prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201-3. The Third Circuit previously addressed the impact of the economic loss doctrine on UTPCPL claims in Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002). In Werwinski, the court held that the plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine. The Court of Appeals overturned its decision in Werwinski and held that the economic loss doctrine does not bar UTPCPL claims since such claims are statutory, and not based in tort.
In Earl, the plaintiff, Lisa Earl, entered into an agreement with defendant NVR, Inc. (NVR) for the construction and sale of a home in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Earl learned of the home through NVR’s marketing, which described the home as containing “quality architecture, timeless design, and beautiful finishes.” Ms. Earl alleged that during the construction of the home, she had further discussions with agents of NVR, who made representations that the home would be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and that any deficiencies noted by Ms. Earl would be remedied. The defendant also assured Ms. Earl that the home would be constructed in accordance with relevant building codes and industry standards. After moving into the home, Ms. Earl discovered several material defects in the construction. She provided notice of these defects to NVR, but NVR’s attempts to repair some of the defects were inadequate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Contractor’s Burden When It Comes to Delay
October 26, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen a contractor is challenging the assessment of liquidated damages, or arguing that it is entitled to extended general conditions, the contractor bears a burden of proof to establish there were excusable delays that impacted the critical path and, in certain scenarios, the delays were not concurrent with contractor-caused delay:
When delays are excusable, a contractor is entitled to a time extension, such that the government may not assess liquidated damages for those delays. The government bears the initial burden of proving that the contractor failed to meet the contract completion date, and that the period of time for which the government assessed liquidated damages was correct. If the government makes such a showing, the burden shifts to the contractor to show that its failure to timely complete the work was excusable. To show an excusable delay, a contractor must show that the delay resulted from “unforeseeable causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor.” “In addition, the unforeseeable cause must delay the overall contract completion; i.e., it must affect the critical path of performance.” Further, the contractor must show that there was no concurrent delay.
Ken Laster Co., ASBCA No. 61292, 2020 WL 5270322 (ASBCA 2020) (internal citations omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
