Builder Survey Focuses on Green Practices of Top 200 Builders
October 01, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBuilder magazine reported that the 2013 Builder 100/Next 100 survey provided data on how many builders constructed homes using a certified third-party green rating system. They discovered that nearly half of the 200 top U.S. builders constructed 100% of its homes to a third-party standard, while 38.5% reported that some of the homes were constructed using a third-party standard, while 12.5% stated that none of their homes were built to a third-party standard.
“The decision to offer homes that are high-performance, energy-efficient, non-toxic, sustainable--whatever the preferred term--involves many considerations and builders must weigh expenses and impediments against potential benefits,” according to Builder magazine.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas A. Thede Joins Ball Janik LLP
October 02, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAs of September 1st, Nicholas A. Thede, an insurance recovery litigator, joined Ball Janik LLP’s Insurance Recovery, Construction Defect, and Litigation practices. According to the release, Mr. Thede “has advised clients in a wide variety of insurance disputes, including claims arising under general liability, professional liability, directors and officers, employee dishonesty, homeowners, and automotive insurance policies. Thede has successfully represented clients in trials, arbitrations, and appeals, and has obtained numerous favorable settlements for his clients. He has handled insurance disputes throughout Oregon and Washington, along with several other jurisdictions. Mr. Thede has substantial experience litigating claims for insurance ‘bad faith’ and recovery of attorney fees in a variety of settings.”
Ball Janik LLP is headquartered in Portland, Oregon.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Manufacturer of Asbestos-Free Product May Still Be Liable for Asbestos Related Injuries
July 30, 2015 —
Kristian B. Moriarty, R. Bryan Martin and Lee Marshall – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Sherman v. Hennessy Industries, Inc. (No. B252566, filed June 18, 2015), the Court of Appeal, Second District, reversed a trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of a manufacturer of a brake grinding machine. The Court cited an exception to the general rule that manufacturers may not be held liable, under a strict products liability theory, where the plaintiff’s injuries arise from other products that are used in conjunction with the defendant’s product.
Plaintiff and appellant, Michael Sherman, was an automobile mechanic from 1962 to 1977. Mr. Sherman alleged that during this period he used an arcing machine, which abraded brake linings by means of sand paper moving at high speeds. Sherman alleged the machine released asbestos dust, which he then brought home, exposing his wife Debra Sherman to asbestos. Ms. Sherman developed mesothelioma and passed away from exposure to the asbestos dust carried home by her husband.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristian B. Moriarty,
R. Bryan Martin and
Lee Marshall of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Mr. Marshall may be contacted at lmarshall@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
You Don’t Have To Be a Consumer to Assert a FDUTPA Claim
February 22, 2018 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA few years ago, the Fourth District Court of Florida rendered an opinion in
Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Business Bureau of Palm Beach County, Inc., 169 So.3d 164 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) regarding
Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (referred as to “FDUTPA”) (Florida Statute s. 501.201et seq.).
This case held that a party can assert a FDUTPA claim even though the party is NOT a consumer. The party still has to prove there was an injury to consumers in filing such claim, but again, the party can bring the claim even though it is NOT a consumer. Caribbean Cruise Line, 169 So.3d at 169 (“[W]hile the claimant would have to prove that there was an injury or detriment to consumers in order to satisfy all of the elements of a FDUTPA claim, the claimant does not have to be a consumer to bring the claim.”).
See also Cemex Construction Materials Florida, LLC v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 2018 WL 905752, *15 (M.D.Fla 2018) (relying on
Caribbean Cruise Line to find that even though the plaintiff does not need to be a consumer, the plaintiff still must prove an injury to consumers to satisfy elements of a FDUTPA claim).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
California Fire Lawyers File Suit Against PG&E on Behalf of More Than 50 Wildfire Victims
November 15, 2017 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.Digital Journal reports that the California fire lawyers are comprised of four law firms, Baron & Budd, Singleton Law Firm, Dixon Diab & Chambers LLP, and Thornes Bartolotta McGuire. These firms filed suit against PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company) on October 27th alleging that the brutal wildfires that swept through Northern California started when electrical infrastructure encountered vegetation.
According to Digital Journal, more than 50 plaintiffs are being represented in this case who endured damages including “wrongful death, personal injuries, damage to or destruction of property, loss of cherished possessions, medical bills, evacuation expenses and lost wages.”
John Fiske, an attorney at Baron & Budd stated, “through our team’s investigation to date, we believe that PG&E may have played a role in causing these fires.” Holding PG&E accountable for the 40 people killed, 8,400 structures destroyed, and 210,000 acres burned is their goal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How California’s Construction Industry has dealt with the New Indemnity Law
October 22, 2014 —
Mark S. Himmelstein, Esq. - Newmeyer & DillionIt has been almost two years since the California legislature enacted changes to the state’s indemnity law affecting commercial construction contracts. Although we do not yet have any court opinions analyzing the new statutes, the attorneys at
Newmeyer & Dillion now have real world experience in negotiating such indemnity provisions. It is time to evaluate how the construction community has reacted to the changes. In this article, we examine the practical applications of the new law to various construction agreements.
Enacted on January 1, 2013, the new legislation was the latest in a series of efforts by subcontractors and their insurers to eliminate “Type I” indemnity clauses. Under a Type I provision, a subcontractor has a duty to indemnify the developer or general contractor for the negligence of the developer or general contractor or other subcontractors, in addition to the negligence of the subcontractor itself. In 2006, the law was changed to preclude Type I provisions regarding “For Sale” residential construction defect claims. At that time, there was no such restriction enacted for commercial construction contracts. However, since then, commercial subcontractors have been seeking similar legislation. Their efforts culminated in the 2013 revisions regarding commercial contracts.
Commercial Subcontracts
Pursuant to the new indemnity statute — Civil Code section 2782.05 — we have revised our clients’ commercial subcontracts to:
(a) Eliminate the requirement that the subcontractor indemnify the general contractor for the general contractor’s “active negligence;” and
(b) Include the subcontractor’s options for defending claims for which they have an indemnity obligation.
Many subcontractors have responded: “Hey, wait a minute, the new legislation eliminated Type I indemnity so you (general contractor) cannot still require any indemnification for the general contractor’s negligence”. Well, that might be the rumor in subcontractor circles, but the new statute does not eliminate indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. In addition, the Civil Code lists 13 instances where the new indemnity restrictions do not apply.
Residential Subcontracts
The legislature did not make anyone’s job easier by drafting a different indemnity provision for commercial subcontracts than for residential subcontracts. In fact, the residential and commercial statutes are different in several critical respects. First, the restrictions on indemnity in the residential statute apply only to construction defect claims in newly constructed “For Sale” houses. The statute does not preclude Type I indemnity provisions for any other claims arising out of residential subcontracts. In contrast, the indemnity restrictions in the commercial statute apply to all claims arising out of commercial subcontracts. In addition, the commercial statute allows indemnity for the general contractor’s passive fault. Since some subcontractors on “residential” projects perform off-site “commercial” work as well, we have amended even residential subcontracts to address the subcontractors’ various indemnity obligations for different parts of their work (e.g., residential work versus commercial work).
Owner-Contractor Agreements
The January 1, 2013 new indemnity provisions apply not only to subcontracts, but also to owner-contractor agreements. Civil Code section 2782(c)(1) precludes indemnity for an owner’s active negligence. Interestingly, the exclusions contained in Civil Code section 2782.05 for subcontracts do not apply, and the statute does not provide contractors with the option of defending claims set forth in the sections concerning subcontracts. Therefore, we have revised the indemnity provisions in owner-contractor agreements to exclude indemnity for the owner’s active negligence.
Design Professional Agreements
The 2007 revisions with respect to “For Sale” residential contracts (discussed above), and the 2013 revisions for commercial contracts do not apply to design professionals. The new indemnity statute concerning commercial subcontracts specifically excludes design professionals from the “anti-indemnity” benefits provided to subcontractors. Therefore, Type I indemnity provisions are fair game and can still be included in design professional contracts.
Conclusion
In sum, Civil Code sections 2782 et seq. now contain an increasingly complex framework for indemnity rules in construction contracts. For example, there is one set of rules for “For Sale” residential construction defect claims (no indemnity for the developer’s active or passive negligence), another for any other claims arising out of residential construction (Type I indemnity is permitted), another for commercial subcontracts (no indemnity for the general contractor’s active negligence, but indemnity for the general contractor’s passive negligence unless any of the exceptions apply, in which case Type I indemnity is permitted), and yet another for commercial owner contractor agreements (no indemnity for the owner’s active negligence, but indemnity for the owner’s passive negligence with no exceptions).
California’s indemnity laws are complex, and rumors as to the impact of the new legislation have made it even more difficult to negotiate these provisions. It is imperative that indemnity clauses in construction contracts clearly delineate the obligations for the specific type or types of work contemplated by the contract. The legislature’s attempt to simplify indemnity obligations has actually made such provisions lengthier and more cumbersome. As experienced construction attorneys, our task is to draft indemnity provisions that comply with the laws, address potential claims, and are understandable.
Mr. Himmelstein is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion and practices in the areas of construction, real estate, business and insurance litigation. He also specializes in drafting and negotiating construction and real estate contracts. Mark can be reached at mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chimney Collapses at South African Utility’s Unfinished $13 Billion Power Plant
November 21, 2022 —
Paul Burkhardt - BloombergSouth Africa’s newest coal-fired power plant, which has been under construction since 2008 and will cost an estimated 232 billion rand ($12.7 billion), shut one of its six generating units after a duct collapsed.
The unit at the Kusile plant could remain offline “for a few months” although a clearer estimate will be known over coming weeks, state-owned utility Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. said in a statement late Wednesday. The outage comes as the country endures record blackouts -- locally known as loadshedding.
The duct appeared to have sheared off from the unit’s main structure, a photo posted on Twitter by Anton Eberhard, a professor at the University of Cape Town’s Graduate School of Business, showed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul Burkhardt, Bloomberg
Athens, Ohio, Sues to Recover Nearly $722,000 After Cyber Attack
January 21, 2025 —
Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-RecordIn November, Athens, Ohio, officials sent nearly $722,000 to a bank account they believed was set up by its contractor, Pepper Construction, to receive payment for its work on a fire station headquarters. The request was actually a sophisticated cyber attack that took advantage of a construction payment system that often does not allow clients processing invoices to directly know those behind the email addresses making the requests.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeff Yoders, ENRMr. Yoders may be contacted at
yodersj@enr.com
