Spreading Cracks On FIU Bridge Failed to Alarm Project Team
May 20, 2019 —
Scott Judy & Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordOn the morning of last year’s Florida International University pedestrian bridge collapse, when the engineer of record assured project team members that there were no safety risks related to cracks propagating across a part of the unusual single-truss structure, other project team members voiced mild concern, but no alarm. In hindsight, considering that the bridge had no inherent structural redundancy as it sat, incomplete, straddling a busy highway—and would suffer a sudden, catastrophic and deadly collapse just hours later—the team’s lack of urgency remains puzzling, say engineering experts contacted by ENR for comment.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Judy, ENR and
Richard Korman, ENR
Mr. Judy may be contacted at mailto:judys@enr.com
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Collapse Coverage Fails
March 22, 2018 —
Tred R. Eyerly.- Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the insured's claim for collapse coverage was rejected by the Supreme Court of New York. Parauda v. Encompass Ins. Co. of Am., 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 269 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 25, 2018).
The insureds submitted a claim to Encompass for damage to the brick siding, or façade, of their home, which was bulging near the front door. Encompass hired H2M Architects and Engineers to inspect the home and issue a report. H2M determined that the brick façade near the front door was separated from the house. Photos showed that the bricks had separated, the mortar joints were cracked, and there were cracks and deterioration in the mortar. H2M concluded that the brick façade was in poor condition and need repairs and/or replacement. H2M concluded that the separation of the brick façade was caused by water infiltration behind the wood trim and brick façade, occurring over a several year period. Encompass denied the claim based upon exclusions for "freezing, thawing," "wear and tear," and "inadequate maintenance."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Construction Law Client Advisory: What The Recent Beacon Decision Means For Developers And General Contractors
August 20, 2014 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic and Whitney L. Stefko - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court (the “Court”) came out with its decision in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, et al. The Beacon decision settled a long-standing dispute in California about whether design professionals such as architects and engineers owe a duty to non-client third parties. In finding that the plaintiffs in Beacon could state a claim against the architects of the Beacon project, the Court also sowed the seeds of change in the way contracts are structured between developers, architects, engineers, and even general contractors.
So, how will Beacon change the landscape for developers and general contractors? It is important to understand the factual background in Beacon to predict how the decision may alter the playing field. For a detailed analysis of the Amicus briefs in the Beacon matter from the AIA, the CBIA, and the Consumer Attorneys of California, please click here.
The Beacon case arose from a common development model in California: a developer conceives a multi-unit project, maps the project as a condo development but rents as apartments. Shortly after completion of the Beacon project, the developer sold the entire project and the new owner finalized the existing condominium map and placed the units on the market as condominiums. Although the architects always knew they had designed a residential structure, the project ultimately became a condominium development. The newly formed homeowners’ association filed a construction defect suit against the developers, general contractor, the subcontractors and the architects for design and construction defects.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefko, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What is a Personal Injury?
September 03, 2019 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPEssentially, a personal injury is when an individual is hurt during an accident. Whether driving on the road, walking down the street, or sitting in a chair, accidents happen. When there is an accident, medical treatment may be necessary. Individuals who sustain injuries usually seek compensation for their medical treatment and pain and suffering in the form of a personal injury lawsuit.
Personal injury lawsuits can result from a variety of claims including negligence, strict liability, or intentional torts. Yet, for the most part, personal injury lawsuits tend to arise from a claim of negligence. The individual or entity injured in the accident, “Plaintiff”, files a lawsuit against the individual or entity, “Defendant” who allegedly caused harm. Personal injury lawsuits resulting from claims of negligence tend to have two main components: liability and damages. Yet, in order to prevail in a suit for negligence, a Plaintiff must demonstrate the following: (1) a legal duty to use due care, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a reasonably close, causal connection between that breach and Plaintiff’s resulting injury, and (4) actual loss or damage to Plaintiff. Wylie v. Gresch (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 412.
First, a finding of negligence rests upon a determination that the actor has failed to perform a duty of care owed to the injured party. Ronald S. v. County of San Diego (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 887. This means that an individual or entity must act reasonably to avoid injuring others. When an injury occurs, a Plaintiff will generally argue that an individual or entity breached a duty owed to them.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
What The U.S. Can Learn from China to Bring Its Buildings to New Heights
November 15, 2022 —
Marc Gravely - Gravely PC“China’s history is marked by thousands of years of world-changing innovations: from the compass and gunpowder to acupuncture and the printing press. No one should be surprised that China has re-emerged as an economic superpower.” —Gary Locke
Westerners have often criticized China’s ‘creative’ interpretation of the concept of intellectual property, but even its harshest critics recognize the Asian superpower’s ability to build large-scale infrastructure projects at a breakneck pace. America does not want to emulate the absolute government control that has allowed China to build futuristic bridges and airports in record time. However, there are still some things we can learn from our biggest global competitor.
The White House itself has invoked China’s grand achievements in its quest to secure more infrastructure funding from Congress. The administration believes that the only way to compete with China is to spend
at least $2 trillion on upgrading bridges and mass transit, modernizing neighborhoods and airports, and making broadband access universal.
The skylines of China’s largest metropolises are nothing short of mesmerizing. Its grand airports and auditoriums amaze tourists and locals alike. Explore any important Chinese city on Google maps, and you will find a level of modernization in infrastructure that far surpasses American cities of similar size. Scholars have coined the phrase
“China envy” to refer to the effects of this phenomenon.
According to urban planning historian Thomas J. Campanella, China is doing the kind of things America used to do: amazing the world with grand structures that push engineering and architecture forward. The question is, if China has emulated us, can we now emulate China?
China Envy
There are some basic differences between the two nations which make emulation difficult. On the one hand, China has leapfrogged from rudimentary infrastructure to suborbital spaceships and bullet trains. America is at a different stage and moves at a different pace. Chinese leaders don’t need approval from the opposition in Congress; they have total control. If the Chinese administration wants to build a bridge, they just go ahead and do it. Democracy is a bit more complicated, but we naturally welcome the complexities, considering how stifling the political atmosphere is under communist rule.
Another difference some analysts have pointed out is that the current Chinese President and his predecessor both studied engineering, so they were naturally keen on innovation in their field. Meanwhile, U.S. presidents have seldom had such backgrounds. The American public has more often elected lawyers to rule over our nation.
China envy is understandable. Our competitor is home to
49 of the planet’s 100 tallest skyscrapers. It also boasts a million bridges. While the U.S. spends 2.4 percent of GDP on infrastructure,
China spends 8 percent. This was an important selling point for the White House’s ambitious infrastructure plan.
Located in a mountainous region with over 1,500 rivers, China has built bridges of fantastic proportions to keep urban centers and important agricultural areas connected.
The Pingtang Bridge in Guizhou province links two sides of a canyon that are 7,000 feet apart. The spectacular, 7-mile-long Hutong Yangtze River Bridge efficiently provides railway and highway access to Shanghai from Jiangsu province.
As climate change forces us to reevaluate Americans’ preference for private cars and the neglect of our railway systems, the inferior car ownership that was once a disadvantage for China is now an advantage. By 2025, high-speed trains will service
98 percent of Chinese cities. Subways are common in many of them. Today, the country boasts a high-speed rail network totaling more than 23,500 miles, or
eight times the distance between New York and LA. Chinese workers travel on bullet trains at 215 miles per hour, much faster than their American counterparts.
The gap between China and the U.S. when it comes to infrastructure is one of astronomic proportions. A few years ago, Bill Gates announced that China had used as much cement in three years as the U.S. in 100 years. China currently produces 14 times more steel than the U.S. and about 2.2 gigatons of cement per year, roughly half of the
4.5 gigatons our country used in the 20th century. In China, city planners have not focused on short-term return on investment, but on broader societal benefits. For example, World Bank officials were not enamored with the idea of creating a subway in Shanghai; the region’s geology made the project far too complex. The World Bank suggested buses would be a better solution for the city’s transit, but Chinese officials
didn’t listen and went ahead. Thirty years later, the Shanghai subway has become an example of efficiency, transporting more than 10 million people every day. It is as if China followed a different logic, one that often pays off.
According to Mr. Campanella, “We need a bit of China to be stirred into our game. . . We’re over privileging the immediately affected residents. What we don’t do is give requisite weight to the larger society.” China’s modernization has, however, not been without cost. Accelerated construction creates pollution, and not all the country’s massive structures are green or energy efficient. President Xi’s country is conscious about pollution, and it has poured significant resources into green infrastructure projects like wind and solar farms.
There is a boldness in China’s infrastructure planning, a pioneering spirit that we would do well to imitate. What American jurisdiction would spend billions on a new state-of-the-art airport only 50 miles away from a recently modernized one? China has done it in Beijing. In a way, it seems that China is seeing beyond the here and now, planning for tomorrow, and this is something we can learn from our competitors.
Marc Gravely is the founder and lead attorney at Gravely PC and author of Reframing America’s Infrastructure: A Ruins to Renaissance Playbook.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Preserves Subrogation Rights
September 06, 2023 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistThe insurer’s right of subrogation is equitable in nature, even if not based in contract. However, since the insurer steps into the shoes of its insured and is limited to the rights of its insured, an integral part of the investigation process is determining what rights the insured has. Whether or not the insured can settle with the tortfeasor and that whether the settlement would also apply to the subrogated carrier is a question the Supreme Court of New York, a trial court, recently addressed.
In Utica First Ins. Co. v. Homeport I LLC, et al., No. 150448/2022, 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3087 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), the plaintiff insurance carrier’s insured, SI Waterfront Management Inc. (SI Waterfront), owned and operated a restaurant called Wynwood at 24 Navy Pier Court in Staten Island, New York. The owner of the property was Homeport I LLC (Homeport). Significant construction work pertaining to plumbing and draining lines at the property was done by Ironstate Holdings, LLC (Ironstate), the plumbing portion of which was conducted by subcontractor Claire Construction Corp. (Claire). As a result of the construction work, on June 8, 2021, SI Waterfront allegedly sustained property damage from flooding.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Economic Loss Rule Bars Claims Against Manufacturer
November 02, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe economic loss rule lives to bar a claim against a product manufacturer in a real estate transaction. In a products liability action, there needs to be personal injury or property damage, other than to the property itself, in order to recover economic damages. Otherwise, the economic loss rule will bar the recovery of such economic losses when the economic losses deal to the product itself. This is important to keep in mind in any product liability action against a manufacturer.
In a recent case, 2711 Hollywood Beach Condominium Assoc’n, Inc., v. TRG Holiday, Ltd., 45 Fla. L. Weekly D2179a (Fla. 3d DCA 2020), a condominium association purchased the condominium from the developer. Subsequently, it noticed leaks with the fire suppression system in the condominium and sued multiple parties for damages for repairs due to the leaks and the replacement of the fire suppression system. One of the parties sued in negligence and strict liability was a manufacturer of pipe fittings used in the fire suppression system. The manufacturer moved for summary judgment based on the economic loss rule and relying on the 1993 Florida Supreme Court opinion in Casa Clara Condominium Assoc’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244 (Fla. 1993), holding “the economic loss rule limited a defendant’s tort liability for allegedly defective products to injuries caused to persons or damage caused to property other than the defective product itself.” 2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra. The trial court agreed with the manufacturer and granted summary judgment. On appeal, the Third District affirmed based on the economic loss rule:
The Association bargained for, purchased and received a building; [the manufactuer’s] fittings were only a component of the FSS [fire suppression system], incorporated into the building. Applying the rule set forth in Casa Clara, the Association purchased a completed building from the developer. [The manufactuer’s] fittings were “an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure ‘other’ property.” Injury to the building itself is not injury to “other” property because the product purchased by the Association was the building. See Casa Clara, 620 So. 2d at 1247. The economic loss rule therefore bars the Association’s recovery as to [the manufacturer] to the extent that it sought damages to replace the FSS [fire suppression system] and repair damage to the building.
2711 Hollywood Beach Conominium Assoc’n, supra (internal citations omitted).
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
In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence
October 02, 2015 —
Edward Jaeger & William Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So.3d 256 (Fla. 2015), the Supreme Court of Florida considered whether a party to a contract, in order to be released from liability for its own negligence, needs to include an express reference to negligence in an exculpatory clause. The court held that, unlike an indemnification clause, so long as the language in an exculpatory clause is clear, the absence of the terms “negligence” or “negligent acts” in an exculpatory clause does not, for that reason alone, render the exculpatory clause ineffective.
Background
Give Kids the World, Inc. (“GKW”) is a non-profit organization that provides free vacations to seriously ill children and their families at GKW’s resort village. To use the resort, vacationers have to fill out an application. Stacy and Eric Sanislo filled out an application to bring their seriously ill child to the village for a vacation and GKW accepted their application. Upon arriving at the resort, the Sanislos filled out a liability release form.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward Jaeger, White and Williams LLP and
William Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
