COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Contractors May be Entitled to Both Prompt Payment Act Relief and Prejudgment Interest for a Cumulative 24%!

August 22, 2022 — Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
The Washington Prompt Payment Act, in Ch. 39.76 RCW and in RCW 39.04.250, ensures that contractors and subcontractors are promptly paid for their performance on public works contracts. Where a government entity or a prime contractor wrongfully withholds undisputed amounts due, that government entity or prime contractor must pay interest at a rate of 12% per annum. Separately, prejudgment interest is awarded “based on the principle that a defendant ‘who retains money which he ought to pay to another should be charged interest upon it.’” Hansen v. Rothaus, 107 Wn.2d 468, 472, 730 P.2d 662 (1986) (quoting Prier v. Refrigeration Eng’g Co., 74 Wn.2d 25, 34, 442 P.2d 621 (1968)). The purpose is to “compensate the plaintiff for the use value of the money representing liquidated or determinable damages.” Id. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight
Ms. Kutsin may be contacted at margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com

---

Nevada State Senator Says HOA Scandal Shows Need for Construction Defect Reform

November 13, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Nevada State Senator sees the ongoing HOA scandal as a sign that the state’s construction defect laws need to be revised. State Senator Mike Schneider says that the law “is flawed and actually makes it too easy to do what these folks have done.” What these folks have done has, of course, lead to a number of indictments and guilty pleas in federal court. One problem that Senator Schneider points to in current Nevada construction defect law is that homeowner attorneys get 40% of any settlement, sometimes leaving homeowners without sufficient funds to repair the defects. “It’s gotten out of hand. We pay some outrageous costs and fees in this cases.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Illinois Federal Court Determines if Damages Are Too Remote

July 13, 2020 — Lian Skaf - The Subrogation Strategist
Foreseeability is a tort concept that tends to permeate several aspects of legal analysis, often causing confusion in litigants’ interpretation of, and courts’ application of, foreseeability to their cases. In Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Progress Rail Services. Corp., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73967 (C.D. Ill.), the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois took on the task of analyzing a case dealing with foreseeability issues to determine if the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty and if the damages were so remote as to violate public policy. The court held that since the defendant’s actions contributed to the risk of harm to the plaintiff and the facts satisfied the four-prong duty test, the defendant owed the plaintiff’s subrogor a duty of reasonable care. It also held that the plaintiff’s damage claim did not open the defendant up to liability that would violate public policy. In the case, an employee of defendant Progress Rail Services Corporation (Progress Rail) was operating a crane at Progress Rail’s Galesburg location on May 7, 2018. The employee struck an overhead power line while working, causing a power disruption to nearby businesses. The plaintiff’s subrogor, Midstate Manufacturing Company (Midstate), was one of the affected businesses, reporting that its Amada hydraulic punch was damaged. Midstate submitted a property damage claim to its carrier, Cincinnati Insurance Company (Cincinnati), who reimbursed it under its policy. Subsequent to its payment, Cincinnati filed suit against Progress Rail in Illinois state court. Progress Rail then removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Skaf may be contacted at skafl@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Residential Building Sector: Peaking or Soaring?

October 01, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Forbes notes that residential builders and remodelers are one of the fastest-growing groups of privately held companies, but is that growth going to continue? Tim McPeak, an analyst at Sageworks, said, “aside from the strong sales growth, these companies have a relatively healthy 4.6% net profit margin.” Another analyst, Scott Cresswell of The Bonadio Group, said that his “clients who do multifamily are exponentially off the charts with new work. Cresswell also noted that firms in the Northeast are also experiences labor shortages, particularly with wood-frame construction, since, “there are not a lot of carpenters out there.” As a result of the new construction, some workers are more money from overtime. A further hike in interest rates may stop this growth. Mr. McPeak noted that “the expectation of everyone is we’re going to see rates rise.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Private Statutory Cause of Action Under Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act

July 11, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Florida’s Underground Facility Damage Prevention and Safety Act is set forth in Florida Statutes Chapter 556. Any owner or operator of underground infrastructure as well as contractors that perform underground excavation and demolition operations are familiar (or, need to be familiar) with this Act and the requirements it imposes on them. In a nutshell, this Act requires excavators to notify operators of underground facilities (e.g., pipelines, cables, sewers) through a notification system before excavating or demolishing an underground location. Then notification system gives the operator of the underground facility two days’ advance notice that an excavation will be taking place. After receiving this notice, the operator of the underground facility must mark the area where its infrastructure is located which could be affected by the underground excavation or demolition operations. The Act further imposes duties on excavators to use increased caution, supervise mechanized equipment, perform excavation and demolition operations in a careful an prudent manner, and to re-notify the notification system if the operator’s marking is no longer visible so the location of the operator’s underground facility can be re-marked. 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

---

Damages in First Trial Establishing Liability of Tortfeasor Binding in Bad Faith Trial Against Insurer

October 22, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The court considered whether, in a second trial for bad faith, the insured was required to again prove her damages, instead of relying on the jury's damage determination in the first trial where the tortfeasor's liability was established. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Paton, 2014 Fla. Ct. App. LEXIS 14362 (Fla. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2014). The insured was injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of the underinsured driver. Geico paid the insured the $10,000 policy limit under her policy. The insured's mother also had uninsured/underinsured coverage with Geico, with policy limits of $100,000. When the insured demanded the $100,000 policy limits from her mother's policy, Geico offered $1,000. Later, Geico offered $5,000, but returned to the $1,000 offer after the insured refused to settle. When the insured reduced her demand to $22,500, Geico did not respond. The insured sued and the case went to trial. The jury awarded $10,000 for past pain and suffering, and $350,000 for future pain and suffering. The verdict set the insured's total damages at $469,247. Geico did not file a motion for new trial nor did it appeal. Judgment was entered in favor of the insured, but was limited to the $100,000 UM policy limits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Cybersecurity "Flash" Warning for Construction and Manufacturing Businesses

April 26, 2021 — Jeffrey M. Dennis - Newmeyer Dillion
The FBI recently released its 2020 Internet Crime Report (Report), which details and analyzes complaints received through the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). In 2020, IC3 received a record number of complaints – nearly 800,000, with reported losses in excess of $4.1 billion. Companies must acknowledge that cybercrime is a real, dangerous threat to their business, and understand how, and why, these threats continue to escalate. At a minimum, businesses should take several proactive steps to protect themselves. What is IC3? IC3 is an online platform hosted by the FBI, which exists to provide the public with a trusted place to report cybercrime to the FBI. Since its inception in 2000, the IC3 has received 5.6 million complaints, and has averaged approximately 440,000 complaints over each of the last five years. The complaint figure for 2020 is nearly double that average. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com

---

Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?

October 23, 2018 — Ceslie Blass - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC Blog
Many general contractors and property management companies hand over project sites to subcontractors and have little, if anything, to do with the construction work that occurs. However, under RCW 49.17, the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), general contractors and some property management companies/owners are still responsible for workplace safety for the employees of their subcontractors and independent contractors. The Washington Supreme Court held in Stute v. PBMC that a general contractor could be held liable for injury to a subcontractor’s employee sustained as a result of a WISHA violation.[1] The Stute decision changed the landscape of workplace safety, imposing an expansive, per se liability on general contractors for workplace injuries. Stated differently, general contractors have a specific, non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with WISHA regulations, which extends to all employees on the project site.[2] Washington courts have held that such “expansive liability is justified because ‘a general contractor’s supervisory authority is per se control over the workplace.’”[3] Thus, the non-delegable duty requires general contractors to ensure care is exercised by anyone, even an independent contractor to whom the performance of the duty is entrusted. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ceslie Blass, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Ms. Blass may be contacted at ceslie.blass@acslawyers.com

---