National Engineering and Public Works Roadshow Highlights Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston
April 29, 2024 —
Engineering and Public Works RoadshowCHARLESTON, SC — On Thursday, the nationwide Engineering and Public Works Roadshow stopped at the Low Battery Seawall Restoration Project in Charleston. The event highlighted the role engineers and public works professionals play in infrastructure projects like the local seawall improvements that increase coastal resiliency along the historic urban shoreline.
The event, which took place along the newly constructed battery wall section between King Street and Battery Place along Murray Boulevard, marked the latest stop of the Engineering and Public Works Roadshow – a joint effort by the American Council of Engineering Companies, the American Public Works Association, and the American Society of Civil Engineers to bring public attention to the essential role engineers and public works professionals play in making our modern world possible.
The battery project underscores the importance of innovative engineering solutions in addressing the challenges of climate change and rising sea levels. Thursday's event was also a chance to spotlight the engineering, construction, and public officials involved in the project, whose work often goes unrecognized.
About the Engineering and Public Works Roadshow: The Engineering and Public Works Roadshow is a series of nationwide events highlighting critical infrastructure projects and the skilled professionals who make them possible. It is an opportunity to learn about the importance of infrastructure investment, showcase the work of engineers and public works professionals, and celebrate these projects' positive impact on our communities. Learn more at www.infrastructureroadshow.org.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Despite Increased Presence in Construction, Women Lack Size-Appropriate PPE
September 26, 2022 —
Robin Marth - Construction ExecutiveFit. Functionality. Comfort. These are absolute musts for any employee wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) for work. Yet for many women in the workplace, finding PPE that fits well remains a challenge.
In 2021, women comprised 11% of construction workers, 7.9% of truck drivers and 29% of manufacturing employees (Bureau of Labor Statistics), and their numbers in these fields continue to increase. Unfortunately, their options for proper-fitting PPE are not growing.
"It's difficult to find PPE that fits women, because there is limited availability of these products, or suppliers do not offer them at all," says Brandy Bossle, owner and principal consultant at Triangle Safety Consulting LLC. "We really need suppliers to go out of their way to offer PPE that's cut for both men and women."
Private fleet driver and Women in Trucking Image Team member Carol Nixon agrees, saying, "You can find men's hats, gloves, jackets and safety vests everywhere, but not with a female fit."
Women can be shaped differently from head to toe—their faces, shoulders, waists, fingers and toes are often narrower, and they often have shorter torsos, among other differences.
In order for PPE to fit many women comfortably and properly, these proportions need to be taken into account. In fact, OSHA states on its website that PPE used by women should be based on female body measurement data and that employers should offer PPE in sizes suitable for women.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robin Marth, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Marth may be contacted at
media@jjkeller.com
FEMA Fire Management Assistance Granted for the French Fire
July 08, 2024 —
The Federal Emergency Management AgencyOAKLAND, Calif. – The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Region 9 Administrator authorized the use of federal funds on July 4 at 11:37 p.m. PDT / 2:37 a.m. EDT to assist the state of California to combat the French Fire burning in Mariposa County.
On July 4, the state of California submitted a request for a Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG). At the time of the request, the fire threatened approximately 1,019 homes in and around Mariposa, CA, population 1,300. 95% of the threatened homes are primary residences and 5% are secondary residences.
The fire started on July 4, 2024 and had burned more than 790 acres of State and private land. The fire was 0% contained. There are five large fires burning uncontrolled within the State.
FMAGs provide federal funding for up to 75 percent of eligible firefighting costs. The Disaster Relief Fund provides allowances for FMAGs through FEMA to assist in fighting fires that threaten to become a greater incident.
Eligible costs covered by FMAGs can include expenses for field camps, equipment use, materials, supplies and mobilization, and demobilization activities attributed to fighting the fire.
For more information on FMAGs, visit https://www.fema.gov/assistance/public/fire-management-assistance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
JPMorgan Blamed for ‘Zombie’ Properties in Miami Lawsuit
June 18, 2014 —
Christie Smythe – BloombergJPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) engaged in a “pattern of discriminatory” lending that led to foreclosures, the city of Miami said in a lawsuit filed last week in federal court, the latest in a series of similar claims against the nation’s largest banks.
Last month, Banco Santander SA’s (SAN) U.S. unit was sued by the city of Providence, Rhode Island, over claims it stopped issuing mortgages in minority neighborhoods after the housing bubble burst. Santander Bank, previously named Sovereign Bank, pulled out of the neighborhoods and focused on white communities after being acquired by the Madrid-based lender in 2009, the city alleged.
Miami and Los Angeles are among cities to have filed similar lawsuits against Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. (C) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) for allegedly “red-lining” black and Hispanic areas as no-loan zones, and then “reverse red-lining,” flooding the areas with predatory mortgages even when minorities qualified for better terms.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christie Smythe, BloombergMs. Smythe may be contacted at
csmythe1@bloomberg.net
SunTrust Will Pay $968 Million to Resolve Mortgage Probes
June 18, 2014 —
Tom Schoenberg – BloombergSunTrust Banks Inc. (STI) agreed to pay $968 million to resolve federal and state claims that a unit misrepresented the quality of mortgages the bank originated and deceived homeowners on loans it serviced.
The agreement covers loans SunTrust Mortgage made from January 2006 through March 2012 that were backed by the Federal Housing Administration even though they didn’t meet agency requirements, the Justice Department said in a statement today. Atlanta-based SunTrust disclosed the agreement in an October regulatory filing and has already accounted for the payment.
“SunTrust’s conduct is a prime example of the widespread underwriting failures that helped bring about the financial crisis,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. “We will continue to hold accountable financial institutions that, in the pursuit of their own financial interests, misuse public funds and cause harm to hardworking Americans.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Schoenberg, BloombergMr. Schoenberg may be contacted at
tschoenberg@bloomberg.net
Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution
August 29, 2022 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWhile I have not performed exhaustive research into the origin of anti-concurrent causation (“ACC”) endorsements on insurance policies, or how or when they migrated from first-party property policies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, they have done so. The result for Colorado’s construction professionals may rear its ugly head as an unwelcome and surprise outright declination of coverage for construction defect claims.
ACC endorsements state that if there are two causes of damage: one of which is covered by a policy and one of which is not, the carrier can invoke the ACC endorsement to disclaim coverage for all of the damage. An exemplar ACC endorsement is ISO Form CG 21 67, entitled “Fungi or Bacteria Exclusion.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Depreciating Labor Costs May be Factor in Actual Cash Value
April 20, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Minnesota Supreme Court considered a certified question from the the U.S. District Court regarding consideration of depreciating labor costs in determining the actual cash value of a loss. Wilcox v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2016 Min. LEXIS 50 (Minn. Feb. 10, 2016).
The insureds' home was damaged by hail. State Farm provided a written estimate that calculated the actual cash value of the loss. To estimate the actual cash value of the damaged property, State Farm first calculated the replacement costs of individual items, such as roof flashing, siding, fascia, gutters, and window screens. Next, State Farm subtracted the pre-loss depreciation of some, but not all, individual items. For example, State Farm depreciated the cost of removing and replacing certain materials, such as siding. State Farm did not depreciate the cost of the new siding separately from the cost of the labor required to install the new siding on the home. Instead, State Farm calculated the removal and replacement of the siding as a single cost, then depreciated the removal-and-replacement cost as a whole. The cost of labor to repair or replace the damaged property was referred to by the court as "embedded labor costs."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
