Commencing of the Statute of Repose for Construction Defects
November 08, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesFlorida has a ten-year statute of repose which applies predominantly to construction defect claims. This can be found in Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c). After ten years, any rights relative to a construction defect claim are time-barred. However, the statute of repose date has been watered down and can be made to be more of a factual question due to the lack of objectivity as to the date that starts the ten-year repose clock. The watering down of the statute of repose date benefits parties asserting construction defect claims provided they strategically appreciate the question of fact that can be created when up against the statute of repose. Stated differently, when up against the clock to assert a construction defect claim, strategically develop those facts, evidence, and arguments to maximize creating a question of fact as to when the statute of repose clock commenced. Conversely, as a defendant sued for construction defects, you want to maximize the facts, evidence, and arguments to fully establish the date the statute of repose clock had to commence for purposes of a statute of repose defense.
The recent opinion in Spring Isle Community Association, Inc. v. Herme Enterprises, Inc., 46 Fla. L. Weekly D2306b (Fla. 5th DCA 2021) demonstrates the factual question associated with the clock that starts the statute of repose date. This factual question is created by Florida Statute s. 95.11(3)(c) that provides:
[T]he action [founded on the design, planning, or construction of an improvement to real property] must be commenced within 10 years after the date of actual possession by the owner, the date of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the date of abandonment of construction if not completed, or the date of completion or termination of the contract between the professional engineer, registered architect, or licensed contractor and his or her employer, whichever date is latest.
Spring Isle Community Association, supra. (Note, see also current s. 95.11(3)(c) version in effect per hyperlink above.)
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
New York's De Blasio Unveils $41 Billion Plan for Affordable Housing
May 07, 2014 —
Henry Goldman – BloombergNew York Mayor Bill de Blasio presented plans to build and preserve 200,000 units of affordable housing in the next decade by increasing rent protections for the poor and requiring developers to include below-market apartments in newly zoned areas.
The $41.1 billion program, paid for with city, state, federal and private funds, would focus 60 percent on preservation and 40 percent on new construction. About $8.2 billion of the cost would be borne by the city, according to a 116-page report detailing the plan, which de Blasio called the “largest, fastest” affordable-housing program ever attempted at the local level.
De Blasio, 52, a self-described progressive and the city’s first Democratic mayor in 20 years, took office in January after describing income inequality as the most serious issue facing the most populous U.S. city. He turned his attention to housing today after pushing the state legislature in March to grant the city $300 million to institute universal all-day pre-kindergarten.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Henry Goldman, BloombergMr. Goldman may be contacted at
hgoldman@bloomberg.net
Trump Administration Announces New Eviction Moratorium
October 12, 2020 —
Zachary Kessler - Gravel2GavelWith the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic continuing to be felt by the American public, the Trump Administration has taken steps to try to allay a coming eviction crisis by enacting a moratorium on evictions through the end of 2020. With the first eviction moratorium instituted by the CARES Act expiring, lawmakers have been pushing to include eviction protections in the next COVID-19 relief package. However, with Congressional leaders still far from an agreement on the next bill, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has now used its emergency pandemic powers under the Public Health Service Act to temporarily halt residential evictions.
Under the Order, a landlord, owner of a residential property, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction or possessory actions will not be permitted to evict any covered person through December 31, 2020. Under the Order, “covered persons,” are any tenant, lessee, or resident of a residential property who meets the five-part test included in the order and delivers the executed declaration to their landlord. The five requirements in the declaration, which must be certified under the penalty of perjury are:
- The individual has used best efforts to obtain all available government assistance for rent or housing;
- The individual either (i) expects to earn no more than $99,000 in annual income for Calendar Year 2020 (or no more than $198,000 if filing a joint tax return), (ii) was not required to report any income in 2019 to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or (iii) received an Economic Impact Payment (stimulus check) pursuant to Section 2201 of the CARES Act;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zachary Kessler, PillsburyMr. Kessler may be contacted at
zachary.kessler@pillsburylaw.com
From Singapore to Rio Green Buildings Keep Tropical Tenants Cool
June 07, 2021 —
Andrew Janes & Shawna Kwan - BloombergOn a typically hot and humid afternoon in Singapore, a fresh breeze blows beneath the canopy of the South Beach development, keeping temperatures several degrees cooler than on the surrounding streets.
The rippling 280-meter (919 feet) wave of steel-and-aluminum runs the length of the Norman Foster-designed complex, funneling prevailing winds over outdoor patrons of restaurants and bars and saving on air conditioning for the mixed-use complex. The canopy is covered with solar panels and catches rainwater to irrigate the gardens.
Offices and apartment blocks designed to be green are springing up all over the world as architects reverse almost a century of trying to insulate workers from nature and instead try to adapt structures to their natural surroundings. The change is being driven by stricter building codes, a desire to cut energy costs and, in particular, demands from corporations and startups that need to show shareholders and customers they are meeting environmental standards.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Janes, Bloomberg and
Shawna Kwan, Bloomberg Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Court of Appeal Vacates $30M Non-Economic Damages Award Due to Failure to Properly Apportion Liability and Attorney Misconduct During Closing Argument
February 08, 2021 —
Krsto Mijanovic, Peter A. Dubrawski, Arezoo Jamshidi & Catherine M. Asuncion - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn January 20, 2021, the California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Six (Ventura), in Plascencia v. Deese (B299142), vacated a $30 million non-economic damages award in a highway fatality case because: (1) the award did not properly apportion non-economic damages among everyone at fault in violation of Proposition 51; and (2) the amount of the award appeared to have been influenced by plaintiffs’ counsel’s misconduct and prejudicial remarks during closing argument.
In Plascencia, the plaintiffs sued several defendants for the wrongful death of their daughter arising from a highway fatality accident. All the defendants settled or were dismissed before trial except the trucking defendants. The highway fatality was caused when one defendant driver made an illegal U-turn on a highway as she left another defendant’s fruit stand. The plaintiffs’ daughter swerved to avoid the U-turn driver, lost control of her car, and crashed into the back of the trucking defendants’ diesel tractor-trailer. The truck driver had parked the truck on the side of the highway near the fruit stand, which the trucking defendants’ expert conceded fell below the standard of care.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Peter A. Dubrawski, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP,
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Catherine M. Asuncion, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Dubrawski may be contacted at pdubrawski@hbblaw.com
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Ms. Asuncion may be contacted at casuncion@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion
March 01, 2021 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”.
The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Burg Simpson to Create Construction Defect Group
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFBurg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C. has announced that the attorneys of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Perczak & Nuss, P.C. will be joining them as S2SPN Construction Defect Group of Berg Simpson. The group will be headquartered at Burg Simpson’s Engelwood offices.
The combined firms will comprise 55 attorneys. Michael Burg, founding shareholder at Burg Simpson, said that “in Colorado for the past 29 years, these lawyers have provided the highest level of construction defect representation.” His counterpart, Scott Sullan of Sullan2, Sandgrund, Perczak & Nuss said that he and his colleagues are “delighted to be a part of the Burg Simpson team.” The two firms join forces effective January 1, 2014.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
DC Circuit Upholds EPA’s Latest RCRA Recycling Rule
September 23, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of California Communities Against Toxics, et al. v. EPA. In this decision, the court rejected the latest petition to strike or vacate EPA’s 2018 revisions to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste recycling rules. In 1985, EPA promulgated a new regulatory definition of “solid waste,” which is the linchpin of the agency’s very stringent hazardous waste management rules. (See the rules located at 40 CFR Sections 260-268.) Unless a material is a “solid waste” as defined by the rules, it cannot also be a hazardous waste.
The 1985 rules grappled with the challenges posed by recycling practices, and attempted to distinguish between legitimate recycling which is not subject to hazardous waste regulation, and other more suspect forms of recycling. The rules are complex and replete with nuance. In doing so, EPA was adhering to RCRA’s statutory mandate that it develop appropriate rules to govern the treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste, while also promoting “properly conducted recycling and reuse.” The DC Circuit reviewed the 1985 rules in the seminal case of American Mining Congress v EPA, 824 F.2d 1177 (1987), (AMC) and stressed that only those materials that were truly discarded could be regulated as solid waste; for instance, those materials that were destined for immediate recycling or recovery in an ongoing production process were not discarded and hence were not solid waste. Over the years, the court has struggled to clarify the basic holding of AMC in numerous cases while EPA has frequently revised and amended the RCRA rules, and in particular the definition of solid waste, in an attempt to balance the policies mandated by the statute.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
