Florida High-Rise for Sale, Construction Defects Possibly Included
October 30, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe owners of One Bal Harbour in Bal Harbour, Florida have filed for bankruptcy and are seeking to sell off the luxury condominium and hotel building. There have been problems with the building, including flooding and allegations of structural defects. The original developer went bankrupt and sold before the construction defect lawsuits begain. The building’s opening price of $13 million won’t wipe out Elcom’s $20 million in debt.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: J. PAUL ALLEN
May 28, 2024 —
Jessica Knox - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Fischer Homes
Email: paul@jpaulallen.com
Law School: Chase College of Law at Northern Kentucky University (JD 1992)
States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Missouri, Florida
Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel.
A: I started at a large Cincinnati firm straight out of law school. I moved in-house for a client of the firm after about 8 years and have remained in-house ever since. The in-house experience has been rewarding and varied over the last 24 years. I have worked for a Fortune 500, publicly traded steel company, a private equity led construction products company, and, finally, a family-owned residential homebuilder. I had the good fortune to be General Counsel at the last 2 in-house companies and was able to establish a legal department from scratch at Fischer Homes. As time went on and I gained experience, I stayed in-house because of the ability to work for a single client and have a greater impact on the business side of things.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Knox, Stinson LLPMs. Knox may be contacted at
jessica.knox@stinson.com
A Proactive Approach to Construction Safety
February 20, 2023 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsThe number of injuries and illnesses in the construction industry is trending downward, but companies need to continue making worker safety a priority – especially as they address the ongoing labor shortage.
According to the most recent data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the incident rate of nonfatal injuries and illnesses in the construction industry was 2.5 per 100 full-time employees.1 The total number of cases of nonfatal injuries and illnesses in the industry was 174,100.2 These numbers are lower than the incident rates and total cases in 2019 and 2018.3, 4, 5, 6
Despite the declining trend of injuries, professionals at The Hartford believe construction firms need to keep worker safety at the forefront as they address the ongoing talent and
labor shortage in construction. Companies are getting creative to find workers. From recruiting veterans to working closely with trade schools, construction firms are trying to find skilled laborers to meet project deadlines.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
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
A Court-Side Seat: Clean Air, Clean Water, Endangered Species and Deliberative Process Privilege
April 19, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe federal courts have issued some significant environmental law rulings in the past few days.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club, Inc.
On March 4, 2021, the court held that the deliberative process privilege of the Freedom of Information Act shields from disclosure in-house draft governmental biological opinions that are both “predecisional” and deliberative. According to the court, these opinions, opining on the Endangered Species Act (ESA) effects on aquatic species of a proposed federal rule affecting cooling water intake structures—which was promulgated in 2019—are exempt from disclosure because they do not reflect a “final” agency opinion. Indeed, these ESA-required opinions reflect a preliminary view, and the Services did not treat them as being the final or last word on the project’s desirability. The Sierra Club, invoking the FOIA, sought many records generated by the rulemaking proceeding, and received thousands of pages. However, the Service declined to release the draft biological opinions that were created in connection with the ESA consultative process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
#3 CDJ Topic: Underwriters of Interest Subscribing to Policy No. A15274001 v. ProBuilders Specialty Ins. Co., Case No. D066615
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFMichael R. Vellado and
Nicole R. Kardassakis of
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP analyzed the appeals case that “reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of ProBuilders Specialty Insurance Company (“ProBuilders”) and held that the ‘other insurance’ clause in the ProBuilders policy did not relieve it of its duty to participate in the defense of its insured, Pacific Trades Construction & Development, Inc. ('Pacific Trades')."
Read the full story...
Another discussion of the ProBuilders appeal ruling occurred on the
California Construction Law Blog, written by
Yas Omidi of
Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP. Omidi explained the appeal’s court decision: “In reversing the trial court’s decision, the appellate court characterized ProBuilder’s ‘other insurance’ clause as an ‘escape clause’—i.e., a clause that attempts to have coverage, paid for with the insured’s premiums, evaporate in the presence of other insurance.” Furthermore, she noted that “California public policy disfavors such clauses.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Recognized as 2022 New York – Metro Super Lawyers®
October 17, 2022 —
Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that seven Partners from the Hawthorne, NY Office have been selected to the 2022 New York - Metro Super Lawyers list.
2022 New York – Metro Super Lawyers
- Copernicus Gaza – Insurance Coverage
- Jonathan Harwood – Professional Liability
- Lisa Rolle – Construction Litigation
- Christopher Russo – Professional Liability
- Lisa Shrewsberry – Professional Liability
- Stephen Straus – Insurance Coverage
- Richard Traub – Insurance Coverage
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman
Examination of the Product Does Not Stop a Pennsylvania Court From Applying the Malfunction Theory
June 28, 2021 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistPennsylvania recognizes the malfunction theory in product liability cases. This theory allows a plaintiff to circumstantially prove that a product is defective by showing evidence of a malfunction and eliminating abnormal use or reasonable, secondary causes for the malfunction. The malfunction theory is available to plaintiffs as an alternative to proving a traditional strict product liability case in those circumstances where direct evidence of a product defect is not found. In Pa. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sam’s East, Inc., 727 MDA 2020, 2021 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 752, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Superior Court) considered whether the plaintiffs could avail themselves to the malfunction theory if the plaintiffs’ expert was able to examine the product.
The Sam’s East, Inc. case arose from a February 2015 fire at the residence of Gerald and Michelle Thompson (the Thompsons). The fire caused injuries to the Thompsons, as well as significant damage to their residence. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (Insurer) provided homeowners insurance coverage for the property and made payments to the Thompsons as a result of the fire. Insurer retained a fire investigator to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator determined that the fire originated at an electric space heater that was purchased from defendant Sam’s East, Inc. (Sam’s East) in December 2011. Insurer and the Thompsons filed a lawsuit against Sam’s East in early 2017 for their respective damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
