Columbus Ohio Building Expert Directory

Partner John Toohey and Senior Associate Sammy Daboussi Obtain a Complete Defense Verdict for Their Contractor Client!

December 11, 2023 — Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Newport Beach attorneys John Toohey and Sammy Daboussi obtained a complete defense verdict after years-long litigation in favor of their concrete contractor client. This lawsuit arises from a claim made by Plaintiff for construction defects in a high-end single-family home. Our client was hired to perform concrete work on the foundations of the home. It was alleged that the home’s foundation was incorrectly built. It was further alleged that the construction defects/errors led to delays and substantial expenses. We argued that our client relied on the certifications provided to them by design professionals and the City. We further argued that our client, like any reasonable concrete/foundation subcontractor, has no responsibility or obligation, contractual or otherwise, to review and recheck the work completed by a licensed professional. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Killer Subcontract Provisions

January 20, 2020 — Patrick McNamara - Porter Law Group
We are frequently requested by subcontractor clients to review the subcontract that has been prepared by the prime contractor, before our client signs it. While no two agreements are identical, there are a number of problematic contract provisions that appear in many agreements. Here is a list of ten such provisions (and their variations) that are potential “deal breakers”:

PAY IF/WHEN PAID (e.g. “Contractor shall have the right to exhaust all legal remedies, including appeals, prior to having an obligation to pay Subcontractor.”) “Pay-if-paid” provisions (“Receipt of payment from Owner shall be a condition precedent to Contractor’s duty to pay Subcontractor”) are illegal in California. However, the only legal limit on “Pay-When-Paid” provisions is that payment must be made “within a reasonable time.” The example above, as written, essentially affords the prime contractor a period of several years following completion of the project before that contractor has an independent duty to pay its subcontractors – not a “reasonable” amount of time, to those waiting to be paid. A compromise is to provide a time limit, such as 6 months or one year following substantial completion of the project.
CROSS-PROJECT SET-OFF (e.g. “In the event of disputes or default by Subcontractor, Contractor shall have the right to withhold sums due Subcontractor on this Project and on any other project on which Subcontractor is performing work for Contractor.”) Such provisions are problematic and likely unenforceable, as they potentially bar subcontractors’ lien rights. Such provisions should be deleted.
CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN QUALITY (e.g. “Subcontractor warrants that the Work shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”) Unless a subcontractor’s scope of work expressly includes design work, this provision should either be deleted or modified, with the addition of the following phrase: “Subcontractor shall not be responsible for conformance of the design of its work to applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McNamara, Porter Law Group
Mr. McNamara may be contacted at pmcnamara@porterlaw.com

Missouri Asbestos Litigation Reform: New Bill Seeks to Establish Robust Disclosure Obligations

March 15, 2021 — Jennifer B. Pigeon - Lewis Brisbois
Missouri State Senator Eric Burlison is reviving attempts to reform asbestos litigation in the State of Missouri through the introduction of SB 331. This bill was pre-filed on December 29, 2020 and first read on January 6, 2021. The bill establishes disclosure procedures for claimants in asbestos-related lawsuits. Specifically, the bill, if passed, would require claimants in civil asbestos-related lawsuits to file a sworn information form within 30 days of filing an asbestos-related lawsuit. The required disclosures under SB 331 include, but are not limited to (1) each asbestos-containing product to which the exposed person was exposed and each physical location at which the exposure occurred; (2) the identity of the manufacturer or distributor of specific asbestos-containing products for each named exposure; (3) the specific location and manner of each exposure; (4) the beginning and end dates of each exposure, the frequency and length of each exposure, and the proximity of the asbestos-containing product or its use to the exposed person; and (5) a certification that any claim that can be made with a bankruptcy trust concerning any asbestos injury to the exposed person has been filed. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jennifer B. Pigeon, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Pigeon may be contacted at Jenna.Pigeon@lewisbrisbois.com

Some Work Cannot be Included in a Miller Act Claim

June 28, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
The Miller Act is close to my heart here at Construction Law Musings. Payment bond claims under the Miller Act help protect subcontractors on construction projects where the national government or its agencies are the owners of the property and therefore mechanic’s liens are unavailable. Even where you follow the proper claims process under this statute, the question remains as to what sorts of costs can be included in the claim. A recent case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court in Alexandria, VA gives some insight into the limits of claims under the federal Miller Act. In Dickson v Forney Enterprises, Inc. et. al., the Court looked at the question of whether costs of a project manager’s purely clerical duties can be included and correspondingly whether performing those duties can extend the relevant one-year limitations period for filing suit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

Florida’s Statute of Limitations / Repose for Actions Founded on Construction Improvement Modified

April 25, 2023 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
On April 13, 2023, Florida’s all-important four-year statute of limitations–Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c)–relating to actions founded on construction of an improvement of real property was modified. This is a key statute of limitations for ALL construction practitioners because it also includes the statute of repose for latent construction defects. At the bottom of this posting is the current version fo s. 95.11(3)(c) with the underlined section being recent additions. (They hyperlink above will identify the deletions and additions.) Important things to note:

Statute of Repose. The statute of repose has been reduced from 10 years to 7 years. There is now an objective date for when the repose period commences: “within 7 years after the date the authority having jurisdiction issues a temporary certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy, or a certificate of completion, or the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, whichever date is earliest.”

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

More (and Simpler) Options Under New Oregon Retention Law

October 21, 2024 — Michael Yelle - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Similar to the changes made by the Washington Legislature last year, the Oregon Legislature recently changed its retention law. Oregon public works agencies and large commercial project owners are now required to accept surety bonds in lieu of withholding retainage on construction projects. There is also no longer a requirement to deposit retention funds in an interest-bearing escrow account. The owner or public agency must accept the bond in lieu of retainage unless specific grounds exist. For example, public agencies must find there is “good cause” for rejection of the bond based on the “unique project circumstances. Private owners have less discretion to reject a bond and if the bond meets the statutory requirements, per ORS 701.435(1)(a) “the owner and lender shall accept” the bond “in lieu of all or any portion of the retainage…” Courts have not analyzed when “good cause” exists for public agencies to reject bonds or exactly what will allow a private owner to reject a bond. However, an agency or owner cannot have a general policy to reject retention bonds. The statute does not provide next steps if the contractor disagrees with a decision to reject the bond. It may be necessary to proceed under the contract’s dispute resolution procedure or it may be more appropriate to take the issue directly to the courts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael Yelle, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Mr. Yelle may be contacted at michael.yelle@acslawyers.com

Determining the Cause of the Loss from a Named Windstorm when there is Water Damage - New Jersey

March 23, 2020 — Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Water damage, while one of the leading causes of loss under a property policy, often results in some of the most complex claims due to the intersection of exclusions, sublimits, and complex wording within the policy. One particularly difficult issue is whether water damage caused by a storm surge is covered by the flood sublimit, or under the general policy or water limit. In New Jersey Transit Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s (“NJTC v. Lloyd’s”), the New Jersey Appeals Court found that the “flood” sublimit of the policy should not apply as the cause of the loss was a “named windstorm” and not a “flood.” In NJTC v Lloyd's the court was asked to determine whether a flood sublimit applied to losses sustained during Superstorm Sandy. The court found that although there was “flooding,” the water damage was more closely related to the “named windstorm”, and therefore, the $400 million policy limits should apply. The court focused its analysis on the definitions for “flood” and “named windstorm” and by applying the efficient proximate cause doctrine to determine which would apply. When reviewing the definitions within the property policies, the court determined that although the loss would qualify under the definition of “flood,” the policy also contained a definition for “named windstorm” which “more specifically encompasses the wind driven water or storm surge associated with a ‘named windstorm’”1. In addition, the policy did not specifically state that “storm surge” associated with a “named windstorm” should be considered a “flood” event and fall under the “flood” sublimit. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Perry may be contacted at amp@sdvlaw.com

No Trial Credit in NJ Appellate Decision for Non-Settling Successive Tortfeasors – Must Demonstrate Proof of Initial Tortfeasor Negligence and Proximate Cause

January 11, 2021 — Kevin C. Cottone, Robert Wright, & Monica Doss - White and Williams LLP
Where an initial tortfeasor settles in a successive negligence case, the non-settling tortfeasors do not get a credit at trial, says the New Jersey Appellate Division. The court held in Glassman v. Friedel [1], that non-settling successive tortfeasors are not entitled to a pro tanto credit after the initial tortfeasor settles and its negligence is undetermined. Rather, successive tortfeasors have the burden at trial to demonstrate that (1) the initial tortfeasor was negligent, and (2) the initial tortfeasor’s negligence was the proximate cause of the second event. In Glassman, the plaintiff, as executor of his deceased wife’s estate, sued a restaurant and property owner of the site where his wife fell and fractured her ankle. Afterwards, the plaintiff added defendants including the doctors and the medical center that cared for his wife after she fractured her ankle. The plaintiff alleged that they had been negligent during his wife’s surgery, which led to postoperative complications and injuries to his wife’s leg, ultimately resulting in a fatal pulmonary embolism. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin C. Cottone, White and Williams LLP, Robert Wright, White and Williams LLP and Monica Doss, White and Williams LLP Mr. Cottone may be contacted at cottonek@whiteandwilliams.com Mr. Wright may be contacted at wrightr@whiteandwilliams.com Ms. Doss may be contacted at dossm@whiteandwilliams.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES