Timely and Properly Assert Affirmative Defenses and Understand Statutory Conditions Precedent
August 05, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case serves as a reminder to TIMELY and PROPERLY assert affirmative defenses and to understand statutory conditions precedent to construction lien claims. Failing to do one or the other could be severely detrimental to the position you want to take in a dispute, whether it is a lien foreclosure dispute, or any other dispute.
In Scherf v. Tom Krips Construction, Inc., 2024 WL 3297592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024), the president of a construction company and his wife were building a residence. They orally accepted the proposal from the concrete shell contractor and asked for invoices to be submitted to the president’s construction company. No written contract was memorialized. The president and his wife did not pay the concrete shell contractor and the contractor recorded a lien and sued to foreclose on the lien. Years later (the case had been stayed because the president and his wife filed for bankruptcy and the shell contractor had to get leave of the automatic bankruptcy stay to pursue the lien foreclosure), the shell contractor moved for summary judgment. The president and his wife moved for leave to file an amended answer and affirmative defenses. They claimed the oral contract was with the construction company and the shell contractor was required to serve a Notice to Owner under
Florida Statute s. 713.06. Alternatively, they argued that if the oral contract was with the president and his wife, the shell contractor was required to serve a Final Contractor’s Payment Affidavit at least 5 days before filing its lien foreclosure claim, and did not, as required by s. 713.06.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Inspired by Filipino Design, an Apartment Building Looks Homeward
May 22, 2023 —
Sarah Holder - BloombergAusterity and efficiency aren’t the first words that come to mind when you see the angled sawtooth bays of Tahanan Supportive Housing, or catch a glimpse of a rainbow through its lobby. But the dramatic exterior and joyful interior of this San Francisco building are both products of their constraints.
When David Baker Architects was approached to design the six-story development, the goal was aggressive: Produce 145 units of permanent supportive housing at under $400,000 a unit, and have the operation up and running in less than three years. The firm accepted the challenge, and by 2022, Tanahan was fully leased to residents, all of whom are San Franciscans who have struggled with chronic homelessness.
In a city where affordable units typically cost $600,000 to $700,000 each to construct, keeping in budget and meeting the deadline meant turning to the modular building company Factory OS. It also meant keeping variation at a minimum. The studios are identical, like Lego blocks; instead of being mirrored across a hallway, they’re just rotated 180 degrees. But nothing else about the building feels utilitarian.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah Holder, Bloomberg
Is the Construction Industry Actually a Technology Hotbed?
August 19, 2024 —
Andrew Silver - Construction ExecutiveTechnology has always been a driving force behind progress, and the construction industry is no exception. Over the years, technological advancements have revolutionized the way companies design, plan and build structures, leading to increased efficiency, safety and sustainability. From virtual-reality simulations to drones and 3D printing, technology has transformed every aspect of the construction process. However, the construction trades still lag behind other sectors in adoption of digital technologies. With a lack of skilled labor continuing to be an impediment to growth and profitability in the construction industry, technological developments could have significant implications for successful adopters.
Already, the industry is seeing a huge difference in valuation between traditional engineering and construction firms and construction software companies. As labor shortages continue to hinder growth in the industry, consolidation is likely, as is the probability that companies with the greatest tech capabilities will be the most highly valued. There are several areas of technology that are of the greatest interest in the current marketplace.
BIM
Building information modeling with computer-aided design software now allows architects and engineers to create detailed and accurate 3D models of buildings and infrastructure projects, integrating data about every aspect of the building, from materials and costs to energy efficiency and maintenance schedules. These models not only help in visualizing the final product; they also enable better communication and collaboration among project stakeholders.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Silver, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal District Court Dismisses Property Claim After Insured Allows Loss Location to Be Destroyed Prior to Inspection
September 29, 2021 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn BMJ Partners LLC v. Arch Specialty Insurance Co., No. 20-CV-03870, 2021 WL 3709182 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 20, 2021), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed, with prejudice, a coverage action filed by an insured based on a failure to comply with a request to inspect the involved property under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The loss at issue involved a hail-damaged building in Carpentersville, Illinois. During the discovery phase of the litigation, the property insurer served a request to inspect the subject property under FRCP Rule 34. After ignoring numerous requests to schedule the inspection, the insurer filed a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, to compel an inspection. After the motion was filed, a status hearing was conducted where the insured’s counsel advised the Court of his intention to file a motion to withdraw from representation of the insured. After the date set to file the motion to withdraw passed without anything being filed, the Court entered an order directing the insured to show cause why the matter should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution.
In response to the order to show cause, the insured advised the Court that instead of responding to the property insurer’s discovery requests, the insured sold the property to a buyer who subsequently tore down the building. In light of what the Court described as the insured’s “flabbergasting admission”, the Court was compelled to grant the motion to dismiss and do so with prejudice. In support of the “extreme sanction” of dismissing the matter with prejudice, the Court first noted that the insured had not come close to justifying a discharge of the pending show-cause order. Rather, the insured’s responsive filing refers to the Court's show cause order only indirectly and does not deny, or offer any justification for, disregarding case-related communications for several months. Even if that were not enough, the Court further held that the insured’s spoliation of evidence likewise provides sufficient basis for dismissal given that Courts have inherent authority to sanction parties for failure to preserve potential evidence. According to the Court, dismissal with prejudice was the only appropriate sanction in light of the insured’s violation of the obligation to preserve the property. Not only did the insured ignore multiple requests from the insurer to inspect, but during the same time frame the insured found time to allow inspections of the building as part of the sale by both the Village of Carpentersville and the property's buyer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Viewpoint: A New Approach to Job Site Safety Reaps Benefits
June 30, 2016 —
Jimmy Morgan & Eric Pfeiffer – Engineering News-RecordEvery organization that participates in the construction and manufacturing industries understands that safety is critical to success and strives to end each day injury-free and incident-free.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jimmy Morgan & Eric Pfeiffer, Engineering News-RecordComments or questions regarding this story may be submitted to
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Cogently Written Opinion Finds Coverage for Loss Caused By Defective Concrete
November 07, 2012 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiIf ever in need of a concise, well-reasoned opinion on “occurrence,” “property damage” and applicability of the business risk exclusions, turn to Pamperin Rentals II, LLC v. R.G. Hendricks & Sons Construction, Inc., 2012 Wis Ct. App. LEXIS 698 (Wis. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2012).
A contractor was hired to install concrete during construction of seven gas stations. Red-D-Mix provided the concrete. The contractor and Red-D-Mix were eventually sued by the gas stations, based upon allegations that the concrete was defectively manufactured and installed. The gas stations alleged that Red-D-Mix supplied concrete that was defective and resulted in damages, including the need to repair nearby asphalt.
Red-D-Mix tendered to its insurers, who denied coverage. Suit was filed and the insurers moved for summary judgment. The trial court determined there were no allegations of either “property damage” or an “occurrence.” Therefore, there was no duty to defend or indemnify Red-D-Mix.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
BOO! Running From Chainsaw Wielding Actor then Falling is an Inherent Risk of a Haunted Attraction
December 10, 2015 —
Laura C. Williams, R. Bryan Martin & Lawrence S. Zuckerman – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel, Inc. (filed 10/23/15; certified for publication 11/20/15), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendant haunted attraction operator holding that the risk of a patron being frightened, then running away and falling is inherent in the fundamental nature of a haunted house attraction. The Court further determined there was no evidence the operator acted recklessly or unreasonably increased such risks beyond those inherent in the attraction.
In October 2011, Plaintiff attended The Haunted Trail attraction, which featured actors in costumes jumping out holding prop weapons to scare patrons walking along a trail through Balboa Park. The Haunted Trail also employed a scare tactic known as the “Carrie” effect, in which the patrons walk through a fake exit and suddenly a chainsaw wielding actor appears and charges at the patrons for one final jolting scare.
It was during this final scene of The Haunted Trail’s “Carrie” effect that Griffin became frightened by an actor brandishing a chainsaw causing him to suddenly run away in fear. As he was fleeing, Griffin fell and injured his wrist.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Laura C. Williams,
R. Bryan Martin and
Lawrence S. Zuckerman
Ms. Williams may be contacted at lwilliams@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NJ Supreme Court Declines to Review Decision that Exxon Has No Duty to Indemnify Insurers for Environmental Liability Under Prior Settlement Agreement
November 29, 2021 —
Patricia B. Santelle & Laura Rossi - White and WilliamsOn November 1, 2021, in a single-sentence Order, the Supreme Court of New Jersey denied a request for review of a decision that ExxonMobil Corporation (Exxon) did not have to indemnify certain of its insurers over environmental liabilities as required by a previous settlement agreement. The case, entitled Home Insurance Company v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Incorporated, et al., has a unique and convoluted procedural history but, in short, the denial of review leaves standing a holding by the intermediate appellate court that the insurers’ “untimely notice actually prejudiced Exxon, violated the no-prejudice rule, and breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” The court declined to consider the question framed by the insurers: whether the importance of enforcing settlement agreements outweighs New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine.
The matter dated back almost thirty years, when the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection notified the Appearing London Market Insurers (ALMI) of the potential liability of Cornell-Dublier Electronics (CDE), a former indirect subsidiary of Exxon, for pollution at a site in New Jersey. Coverage litigation followed in New Jersey, which ALMI defended under policies issued to CDE. Exxon was not named in the CDE suit nor were the policies which ALMI issued to Exxon at issue in that case; Exxon instead had its own pollution coverage case pending in New York. In June 2000, Exxon and its insurers, including ALMI, entered into a settlement agreement which (a) required Exxon to indemnify the insurers for any environmental liability claims involving its subsidiaries, and (b) provided for application of New York substantive law and litigation in New York City court for any dispute between the parties under it.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams and
Laura Rossi, White and Williams
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
