What To Do When the Government is Slow to Decide a Claim?
October 02, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorYou may know this situation all too well. You’ve submitted your certified claim to the contracting officer and there it sits. You ask for a decision and they say soon, but it’s not soon. And pretty soon, several months have gone by. Since the Court of Federal Claims’ decision in Rudolph and Sletten, Inc. v. U.S., the government may have to decide in 60 days or your claim will be deemed denied which would allow you to file your claim in the Court of Federal Claims.
Background
Rudolph and Sletten (R&S) were awarded a contract to construct the La Jolla Laboratory. On August 20, 2013, R&S submitted a certified claim seeking $26,809,003 as compensation for costs due to alleged government-caused delays and disruption, additional consultant costs and extra work.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners
October 15, 2014 —
Henry Goldman and Allyson Versprille – BloombergA political battle is brewing at the apex of New York’s property market.
The real-estate industry is mobilizing to kill a proposed levy on non-resident owners of apartments valued at more than $5 million, seeking to ensure the world’s biggest city doesn’t follow London, Hong Kong and Singapore in extracting extra cash from trophy properties.
The industry’s lobbying arm, the Real Estate Board of New York, says the measure will scare off investors who fuel a business supporting more than 500,000 jobs and generating 40 percent of the five boroughs’ revenue. Brokers warn of economic calamity if officials slap a luxury tax on apartments owned by someone who lives in the city less than half the year.
Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net; Ms. Versprille may be contacted at aversprille1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Henry Goldman and Allyson Versprille, Bloomberg
Insurer Has Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claim
January 22, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe magistrate judge recommended a determination that the insurer owed a defense to the subcontractor sued for faulty workmanship. Hanover Lloyds Ins Co. v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180877 (W.D. Texas Oct. 5, 2023).
Poe Investments, Ltd. entered into an agreement with Jordan Foster Construction, LLC for construction of an auto sales and service facility ("Facility"). Jordan hired multiple subcontractors, including Texas Electrical Contractors, LLC ("TEC"). Subsequently, Poe sold the Facility to 6330 Montana, LLC ("Montana").
Montana filed suit against Jordan for breach of express warranties, breach of contract, and negligence. Jordon filed a third-party complaint against its subcontractors, including TEC. Jordan alleged that TEC provided "defective and negligent construction work" while carrying out the provision and installation of electrical and fire alarm systems at the Facility.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Beyond the Disneyland Resort: World Class Shopping Experiences
May 03, 2018 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIf you don’t want to venture far from the Disneyland Resort, consider heading to
the Outlets at Orange. Formerly known as the Block of Orange, this open air shopping center features outlet stores such as Neiman Marcus Last Call, Nordstrom Rack, and Sax Fifth Avenue’s Off Fifth, as well as an AMC movie theater, restaurants, Lucky Strike Bowling Alley, and Dave and Buster’s.
For another local option, head to
the Brea Mall, where you can find department stores such as Macy’s and Nordstrom’s and a host of other stores like Apple, Guess, and Tommy Bahama.
For a more exclusive shopping experience, travel to south Orange County's
Fashion Island of Newport Beach. Their department stores include Bloomingdale’s, Macy’s, Neiman Marcus’s, and Nordstroms, and the shopping center also contains many boutique shops and eateries.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief
April 15, 2015 —
Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick, and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property.
In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control.
The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Valerie A. Moore,
Christopher Kendrick and
Colin T. Murphy
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com.
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Indemnity After Insured Settles Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claims
June 09, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiApplying Illinois law, the federal district court ruled that there was no coverage for the insured's settlement of claims based upon breach of the implied warranty of habitability. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Metro North Condo. Ass'n, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43452 (E.D. Ill. March 31, 2016).
Metro North sued the developer of its condominium and a number of its contractors and subcontractors for defective construction that caused various problems, including water infiltration. One subcontractor, CSC, was to provide window and glazing services. After a rainstorm, water infiltrated the project due to CSC's work. Metro North claimed that CSC was liable for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Diggerland, UK’s Construction Equipment Theme Park, is coming to the U.S.
January 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThis summer, Sahara Sam’s Oasis, located in West Berlin, New Jersey, will open Diggerland Adventure Park, a new 14-acre construction equipment themed amusement park, according to Equipment World. The United Kingdom currently has Diggerlands in four locations: “There, the parks use primarily JCB backhoes, excavators, and skid steers in a variety of ways.” Machines are used as rides, including “Spindizzy, in which an excavator takes a bucket full of people on a 360 degree spin.” Diggerland is currently owned by Allsafety Ltd.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
