Caterpillar Forecast Tops Estimates as Construction Recovers
January 28, 2014 —
Shruti Date Singh – BloombergCaterpillar Inc. (CAT), the largest maker of mining and construction equipment, forecast earnings and revenue for 2014 that topped analysts’ estimates as the recovery in the U.S. building industry spurs sales of bulldozers and excavators.
Sales will be about $56 billion plus or minus 5 percent, the company said in a statement today. The average of 13 estimates compiled by Bloomberg was $55.5 billion.
Profit will be $5.85 a share excluding $400 million to $500 million in restructuring costs. That’s more than the $5.77 average estimate. Peoria, Illinois-based Caterpillar also said it approved a $10 billion share buyback plan through 2018 and will repurchase about $1.7 billion in stock in the first quarter that will complete its previous authorization.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shruti Date Singh, BloombergMs. Singh may be contacted at
ssingh28@bloomberg.net
PA Superior Court Provides Clarification on Definition of CGL “Occurrence” When Property Damage Is Caused by Faulty Building Conditions
September 30, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Konrad R. Krebs - White and Williams LLPThe standard for an “occurrence” under a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy has been addressed on several occasions by Pennsylvania courts when an insured has allegedly performed faulty workmanship on a construction project. Specifically, in Pennsylvania, a claim for damages arising from an insured’s performance of faulty workmanship pursuant to a construction contract, where the only damage is to property supplied by the insured or worked on by the insured, does not constitute an “occurrence” under the standard commercial general liability insurance policy definition. But what about the circumstance when the insured has failed to perform contractual duties where the claim is for property damage to property not supplied by the insured or unrelated to the service the insured contracted to provide? The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently addressed this question in Pennsylvania Manufacturers Indemnity Co. v. Pottstown Industrial Complex LP, No. 3489 EDA 2018, 2019 Pa. Super. 223, 2019 Pa. Super. LEXIS 729* (Pa. Super. 2019).
Pottstown Industrial Complex arose out of an underlying dispute between a landlord and a commercial tenant who had leased space to store its product inventory. The tenant alleged that the landlord was responsible under the lease for keeping the roof “in serviceable condition in repair.” Notwithstanding this responsibility, the tenant alleged that the landlord failed to properly maintain and repair the roof, resulting in leaks and flooding during four separate rainstorms, destroying over $700,000 in inventory. The tenant specifically alleged that the floods were caused by poor caulking of the roof, gaps and separations in the roofing membrane, undersized drain openings, and accumulated debris and clogged drains.
The insurer filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a determination that there was no coverage under a commercial general liability policy issued to the landlord. Following a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the trial court entered an order in favor of the insurer, holding that allegations of inadequate roof repairs were claims for faulty workmanship and were not covered under Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006) and Millers Capital Insurance Co. v. Gambone Brothers Development Co., 941 A.2d 706 (Pa. Super. 2007).
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Konrad Krebs, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Krebs may be contacted at krebsk@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How the Jury Divided $112M in Seattle Crane Collapse Damages
April 04, 2022 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordThe jury verdict in a wrongful death lawsuit against companies involved in a 2019 Seattle crane collapse that killed four people split damages among three different companies—and also blamed a fourth firm that wasn't a defendant—but not in a way that matched the state safety fines proposed against the firms.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid
October 28, 2015 —
James Tarmy – BloombergThe Anglo-Iraqi starchitect Zaha Hadid has designed just two residential buildings in the U.S., one in New York (520 West 28th Street in the Chelsea Gallery District next to the High Line) and one in Miami (One Thousand Museum, next to PAMM and overlooking Biscayne Bay). Both have yet to be completed and both, as it happens, have penthouses priced in the region of $50 million.
Two trophy properties by a Pritzker Prize-winning architect and two almost identical price tags? (The Miami penthouse clocks in at a mere $49 million, the New York penthouse an even $50 million.) It’s practically begging for a head-to-head comparison.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Tarmy, Bloomberg
2018 California Construction Law Update
January 10, 2018 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog The California State Legislature introduced 2,495 bills during the first year of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session. Of these, 859 were signed into law.
While much political attention was focused on several California laws that could be viewed as California’s rebuke of Washington, including California’s legalization of marijuana, enactment of “sanctuary state” legislation, and bills focused on climate change, 2017 also saw the enactment of a package of bills intended to address the state’s housing affordability crises (for a great summary of these bills see Wendel Rosen’s Landuse Group’s recent article
Slate of New Housing Bills Takes Effect January 1, 2018 ), as well as a range of other bills of interest to the construction industry including bills related construction financing, alternative project delivery methods, and solar construction.
Each of the bills discussed below took effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise stated.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel, Rosen, Black, Dean, LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Not Remotely Law as Usual: Don’t Settle for Delays – Settle at Remote Mediation
May 25, 2020 —
Victor J. Zarrilli, Robert G. Devine & Michael W. Horner - White and Williams LLPThe emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 has created extraordinary circumstances that have significantly impacted how we go about living, working and interacting with one another. The practice of law is no exception.
While most cases have been postponed and some extended indefinitely, the issues and disputes that first triggered the litigation remain. In fact, the burdens created by social distancing and other responses to the COVID-19 outbreak have served to only increase these disputes and create an urgent need in some for quick resolution.
In our previous article, we summarized some of the best practices that should be applied when taking and defending depositions in a remote, virtual setting. That technology can also offer the same benefits for alternative dispute resolutions. If planned properly, the use of technology allows remote mediations to be conducted as seamlessly as in-person mediations and, in some circumstances, affords additional benefits that can achieve the best possible resolution for all sides.
This article summarizes the opportunities technology has created by which parties can attempt to resolve their disputes through alternative dispute resolution methods, even in a time of social distancing.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Victor J. Zarrilli,
Robert G. Devine and
Michael W. Horner
Mr. Zarrilli may be contacted at zarrilliv@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Horner may be contacted at hornerm@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation
June 08, 2020 —
Gregory S. Capps & Michael E. DiFebbo - White and Williams LLPOn April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred.
In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and
Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at difebbom@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pinnacle Controls in Verano
February 21, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has applied the California Supreme Court’s recent Pinnacle decision to a new case, Verano Condominium Association v. La Cima Development. As in Pinnacle, La Cima sought to compel arbitration of construction defect claims with a homeowners association. The trial court denied La Cima’s attempt to compel arbitration on the grounds that the arbitration agreement was made with the individual homeowners and not the homeowners association. Further, it was determined that the CC&Rs “were unenforceable due to unconscionability.”
La Cima appealed, and the appeals court affirmed in part and reversed in part. After Pinnacle, La Cima sought a review. The Supreme Court of California directed the appeals court to vacate their earlier decision and reconsider, based on Pinnacle.
The Fourth Circuit Court has concluded that this conflicted with the ruling in Pinnacle. There, as in Verano, homeowners signed agreements that disputes with the developer would be settled through binding arbitration. The appeals court had found for the community association, but on review, the California Supreme Court reversed this decision.
The California Court of Appeals had two issue to consider in this review: whether the arbitration provisions applied to the homeowners association, and whether these provisions were unconscionable. The court concluded that “in light of Pinnacle it is clear the arbitration provisions set forth in the Verano CC&Rs constitute a valid agreement to arbitrate.” On the second question, the Verano CC&Rs were described by the court as “materially indistinguishable” from those in the earlier case. As the state Supreme Court found that those were not unconscionable, clearly neither were these.
The case was remanded for further proceedings and La Cima is entitled to recover the costs of the appeal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
