COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Deterioration Known To Insured Forecloses Collapse Coverage

January 28, 2019 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The insurer properly denied coverage for collapse of a building when the insured knew from an expert’s examination that the walls of his house were deteriorating. Jaimes v. Liberty Ins. Corp., 2018 U. S. Dust. LEXIS 198224 (D. Colo. Nov. 21, 2018). The insured discovered a crack in the wall of his home. He hired Anchor Engineering to inspect. Anchor found a large bulge in the south wall. Several problems with deterioration were noted in the basement. The structure of the house was unstable and dangerous. The insured filed a claim with his homeowners insurer, Liberty. The claim was denied because damage to the wall was the result of deterioration. The south wall of the house later collapsed. The insured submitted a second claim. Liberty again denied the claim because the collapse was the result of deterioration of the wall. The insured sued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

The Anatomy of a Construction Dispute Stage 3- The Last Straw

January 28, 2015 — Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law Musings
Over the past two weeks here at Construction Law Musings, I’ve discussed the first two stages of a typical construction dispute (if such a thing exists): the claim, and how to bring heat short of litigation/arbitration. As promised, this week I’ll be discussing the next step or “last straw” in a construction dispute, namely, arbitration or litigation to enforce all of those rights that you preserved in the first two stages. Construction litigation is expensive, time consuming, and, quite frankly, a pain in the neck. Because of this fact, I almost always recommend that my construction clients exhaust all of the non-litigation methods (including mediation of course) of resolving their disputes prior to “going nuclear” and filing suit. Unfortunately, even the most diligent attempts at less formal resolution means can be unfruitful and more formal means become necessary. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Holds that Nearly All Project Labor Agreements are Illegal

February 18, 2019 — Wally Zimolong - Supplemental Conditions
In what is nothing short of a monumental decision, on January 11, 2019, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in Allan Myers L.P. v. Department of Transportation ruled that nearly all project labor agreements in Pennsylvania are illegal under the Commonwealth’s procurement code. What are Project Labor Agreements? In short, Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) are pre-hire agreements that set the working conditions for all employees of contractors working on a construction project. Typically, a PLA is entered into between an public or private construction project owner and certain local building trade unions. PLAs require the use of union labor that is to be hired exclusively through the hiring halls of the unions who are parties to the PLA. PLAs are controversial because, among other reasons, while not expressly excluding non-union contractors from performing work on the project, they require non-union firms to use union members instead of their regular employees. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLC
Mr. Zimolong may be contacted at wally@zimolonglaw.com

---

New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues

November 30, 2020 — Paul A. Briganti - Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter
On October 9, 2020, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decided an appeal from a trial court’s 2018 summary judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising out of asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 396 CA 18-02292, Mem. & Order (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 4th Dep’t Oct. 9, 2020). The Fourth Department reversed the trial court’s ruling that, under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit as a matter of law. The parties agreed that, because the policy language at issue required personal injury to take place “during the policy period,” “the applicable test in determining what event constitutes personal injury sufficient to trigger coverage is injury-in-fact, ‘which rests on when the injury, sickness, disease or disability actually began.’” Id. at 3 (quoting Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., 609 N.E.2d 506, 511 (N.Y. 1993)). The Fourth Department concluded that, in resolving the issue, the trial court erred by relying on inapposite decisions in other cases where: (1) the parties had stipulated or otherwise not disputed that first exposure triggered coverage[1]; or (2) the issue had not been resolved on summary judgment, but rather at trial based on expert medical evidence[2]. The Fourth Department further explained that, even if plaintiffs here had met their initial burden on summary judgment by submitting admissible evidence that asbestos-related injury actually begins upon first exposure, the defendant-insurer’s opposition – which included affidavits of medical experts contradicting that evidence and averring instead that “harm occurs only when a threshold level of asbestos fiber or particle burden is reached that overtakes the body’s defense mechanisms” – raised a triable issue of fact. Id. at 4. The Fourth Department also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant-insurer was collaterally estopped on the “trigger” issue by a California appellate court’s decision in Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). The Fourth Department reasoned that the issues litigated in the two cases were not identical because, among other things, California and New York “apply different substantive law in determining when asbestos-related injury occurs.” Carrier, Mem. & Order at 4. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Condominium Association Wins $5 Million Judgment against Developer

July 31, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Belgravia Condominium Association, a group of condo owners in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have secured a $5.05 million judgment against the contractor who converted their 1902 building into condominiums. The suit alleged that the developers and engineers failed to disclose structural problems to the condominium buyers. One issue at hand was the maintenance of the building’s façade which has historic status. Repairs to the façade alone are expected to require $2 million. Ronald Williams, the lawyer for the association, noted that the iron canopy at the entrance had begun to break away and fall even before the condominium association came into being. The decision isn’t yet final, as the developer has an opportunity to appeal. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer Returns to Newmeyer Dillion as Partner in Newport Beach Office

September 14, 2020 — Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer - Newmeyer Dillion
Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer has rejoined the firm as a partner in the Newport Beach office. Schotemeyer will expand the firm’s Real Estate Litigation, Construction Litigation, Business Litigation and Labor & Employment practices and strengthen the firm’s legal offerings for companies operating without a dedicated in-house legal counsel. “We are thrilled to be welcoming Dutch back to Newmeyer Dillion. He brings a wealth of litigation experience and has served as a trusted advisor to companies facing myriad complex legal disputes,” said the firm’s Managing Partner, Paul Tetzloff. “His experience as in-house counsel will greatly complement Newmeyer Dillion’s business-first mindset when it comes to providing legal counsel to our clients. He is an invaluable asset to the team.” Prior to rejoining Newmeyer Dillion, Schotemeyer was Vice President and Associate General Counsel for William Lyon Homes, Inc. and Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Taylor Morrison. His experience as a corporate attorney has strengthened his ability to work with in-house counsel and serve as a relationship attorney that assists clients in managing legal needs by building the right team of legal specialists. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com

---

California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws

June 06, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
It’s been a rollercoaster. But the ride appears to be over. In United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., Case No. S231549 (May 14, 2018), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a direct contractor can withhold payment from a subcontractor based on the “good faith dispute” exception of the state’s prompt payment laws if the “dispute” concerns any dispute between the parties or whether the dispute must be directly relevant to the specific payment that would otherwise be due. California’s Prompt Payment Laws California has a number of construction-related prompt payment laws scattered throughout the state’s Civil Code, Public Contracts Code and Business and Professions Code. Their application depends on the type of construction involved, whether public or private; the type of payment involved, whether a progress payment or retention; and who is paying, whether it’s a private owner, public entity, direct contractor, or subcontractor. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

EPA Fines Ivory Homes for Storm Water Pollution

June 26, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
“Utah’s largest home builder [Ivory Homes] has agreed to a $250,000 fine and to take several steps…to comply with Clean Water Act requirements to control pollution associated with storm-water runoff from construction sites,” reported The Salt Lake Tribune. David Broadbent, Ivory Homes’ chief operating officer, stated in an email to The Salt Lake Tribune: “We are proud of our environmental record, particularly our storm-water compliance record. We are the first and the only home builder in Utah to implement a robust, companywide program to safeguard against sediment from entering Utah waters as a result of home-building activities.” Furthermore, Broadbent declared that the “inspections that led to the violations notices” did not yield any evidence that their “home-building practices resulted in any sediment discharge in any amount, let alone harm, to Utah waters.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---