Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe State of Florida has frozen the assets of Nationwide Pools over claims of deceptive practices. Nationwide will be allowed to engage in pool construction during the lawsuit. The Florida Attorney General’s office alleges that Nationwide Pools failed to pay subcontractors, misrepresented warranties, and left customers with unfinished pools. The State of Florida is seeking restitution to consumers who did business with Nationwide Pools.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Lyon to Acquire RSI Communities
February 22, 2018 —
Dave Suggs - CDJ STAFFAccording to the article “William Lyon Agrees to Buy RSI Communities $460 million deal plants Lyon in Texas and adds to Inland Empire land holdings” published on the website Builder, the Newport Beach home builder is purchasing the Southern California and Texas home builder. This will be Lyon Homes’ first venture in the state of Texas.
RSI Communities works within both San Antonio and Austin, Texas as well as Southern California and the Inland Empire. It was founded by Todd Palmaer, a home building expert and Ron Simon, a building products expert and Newport Beach businessman. First time home buyers have been RSI’s main target.
President and CEO of RSI, Tod Palmaer is optimistic about the acquisition “We are delighted to have our company join the William Lyon Homes organization. We have a great deal of confidence in the William Lyon Homes platform and its executive management team, and believe that its acquisition of RSI Communities will add to Lyon’s continued success in its current and new markets.”
Pat Donahue who has almost 30 years of experience in home building, will serve as President to the Inland Empire Division. John Bohnen, RSI’s present Chief Operating Officer, will be the regional president in Texas. Mr. Bohnen has previously held executive positions with numerous home builders. William Lyon’s president and CEO Mark R. Zaist is excited about adding RSI’s key players to their team, and had this to say about the purchase. “The acquisition of RSI represents our most significant acquisition since our entry into Portland and Seattle with the Polygon Northwest Homes acquisition in 2014 and furthers our strategy of building in the strongest markets in the Western U.S., while also strengthening our pipeline in Southern California, as we continue our mission of being the premier Western Regional home builder.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Strategy for Deterring Intracorporate Litigation?: Delaware Supreme Court Supports Fee-Shifting Bylaws
May 13, 2014 —
Marc Casarino and Lori Smith – White and Williams LLPA fee-shifting bylaw of a Delaware non-stock corporation is not facially invalid according to the Delaware Supreme Court’s May 8, 2014 opinion in ATP Tour, Inc. v. Deutscher Tennis Bund.
In this case, ATP Tour, Inc., a non-stock membership corporation (“ATP”) governed by a seven member board, had adopted a bylaw provision which provided that current and former members of ATP would be responsible for the litigation costs arising out of any litigation initiated by any such member against ATP or any of the other members in which the initiating party did not obtain a judgment on the merits that substantially achieved in substance and amount the full remedy sought. The bylaw provision had been adopted, in accordance with ATP’s charter, by the Board unilaterally without any consent from the members. The members had agreed at the time they joined ATP to be bound by the bylaws, as amended from time to time. Two members of ATP initiated a suit against ATP relating to certain actions taken with respect the ATP’s tournament schedule and format alleging both federal antitrust claims and Delaware fiduciary duty claims but did not prevail on any of their claims. ATP then moved to recover its legal fees relating to such actions.
Reprinted courtesy of
Marc Casarino, White and Williams LLP and
Lori Smith, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casarino may be contacted at casarinom@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Virtual Jury Trials of Construction Disputes: The Necessary Union of Both Sides of the Brain
May 17, 2021 —
John Dannecker - Construction ExecutiveBart Smith is the Senior Project Manager for Simply Best, a general contracting firm. He has been assigned to serve as the liaison with outside counsel in a lawsuit against Holly’s Harleys, a project owner who contracted with Best for the construction of a motorcycle showroom. Best filed suit in federal court for additional project costs it incurred, which it contends were caused by the specification of incompatible materials by Holly’s design firm.
The coronavirus pandemic is still raging as the trial date approaches. Courthouse facilities are closed so civil trials are conducted using remote technology, if they occur at all. Bart negotiated the prime contract with Holly’s, and he regrettably allowed Best’s binding arbitration and jury trial waiver clauses in the prime contract to be deleted. Bart worries about how the intricacies of Best’s case can be adequately explained to a jury in a remote trial. His concern approaches panic when Best’s trial counsel explains how the trial will be conducted with none of the parties—their attorneys, the judge, the witnesses or the jury—present in the same location.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Dannecker, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Massive Redesign Turns Newark Airport Terminal Into a Foodie Theme Park
March 05, 2015 —
Belinda Lanks – BloombergYou wait on what looks like a Soviet bread line. You show your I.D. to a guard. You take off your shoes, empty your pockets, and surrender to a digital scanner.
Fortunately, there’s always a bevy of gleaming cocktail bars and foodie outposts welcoming you to the other side.
No? Get ready. That’s the plan for United Airlines’ Terminal C at Newark Liberty International Airport—a $120 million redesign that includes 55 dining venues with enough celebrity-chef cameos to rival the glitziest of Las Vegas casinos. Instead of the usual McDonald’s, TCBY, and Sbarro, there will be restaurants serving up far-ranging cuisine, from authentic ramen and tacos to gourmet, Neapolitan-style pizza and Swedish meatballs. Since the terminal must remain in operation, all the structures will be assembled off-site and dropped in next year to keep construction time to a minimum.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Belinda Lanks, Bloomberg
Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”
While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”
Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”
In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.
The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”
The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.
The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”
The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”
The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”
The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Picks Up Post-COVID and So Do Claims (and A Construction Lawyer Can Help)
September 12, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsI’m a construction attorney and proud to be one. Over the past couple of years, my expertise (and that of my fellow members of the Virginia construction bar) has been challenged by everything from COVID-related shutdowns to supply chain issues to unanticipated price increases. With each of these obstacles placed in front of my clients and friends in the Virginia construction industry, I have gotten calls and questions as to how to best handle the various issues facing the construction world.
Needless to say, changes in price or material availability occurring between the date of a contract’s signing and the (likely delayed) start or completion of the contractual scope of work have caused some consternation and claims. Many of these claims did not come forward or reach my, or others, desk until after the world reopened post-COVID and construction began to speed up and money started to be owed. While one “easy” answer, particularly for those “upstream” in the payment chain, is “tough luck, you gave me a fixed price, signed a contract, and we expect you to honor it,” this may not be the best and most practical way to get the job done.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Effective October 1, 2019, Florida General Contractors Have a Statutory Right to Recovery of Attorney Fees Against a Defaulted Subcontractor’s Surety
July 01, 2019 —
Warren E. Friedman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Florida contractors will soon have a level playing field, at least related to the right to recovery of attorney fees in certain circumstances. Effective October 1, 2019, the Florida statute by which legal fees may be recovered from insurers and sureties was amended to expressly afford that right to contractors.
Florida’s Insurance statute, Chapter 627, affords a right to recovery of attorney fees when a judgment is obtained against an insurer and in favor of any insured pursuant to a policy or contract executed by the insurer. See Fla. Stat. § 627.428. In the construction context, the Florida Legislature has also applied this right to the recovery of attorney fees from sureties, for example in circumstances where suit is brought against a surety under a payment or performance bond. See Fla. Stat. § 627.756.
But there was an oddity to this statute – it specifically provided this right for “owners” and “subcontractors”, but “contractors” were skipped over. For as long as Section 627.756, Florida Statutes has been on the books, the right to recovery of attorney fees against a surety under a payment or performance bond was only afforded to owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen. Specifically, since at least 1977, Section 627.756, Florida Statutes substantially provided as follows (emphasis added):
Section 627.428 applies to suits brought by
owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen against a surety insurer under payment or performance bonds written by the insurer under the laws of this state to indemnify against pecuniary loss by breach of a building or construction contract. Owners, subcontractors, laborers, and materialmen shall be deemed to be insureds or beneficiaries for the purposes of this section.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Warren E. Friedman - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Friedman may be contacted at
wfriedman@pecklaw.com
