Toronto Skyscraper With $1.2 Billion of Debt Has Been Put in Receivership
November 16, 2023 —
Ari Altstedter - BloombergA landmark condominium project in one of Toronto’s ritziest neighborhoods has been put into receivership after construction delays and cost overruns.
Construction of the 85-story tower will be taken over by a court-appointed receiver after its owners, developer Sam Mizrahi and investor Jenny Coco, defaulted on part of the project’s nearly C$1.7 billion in debt ($1.2 billion), according to a Wednesday order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
Two funds run by South Korea-based IGIS Asset Management Co. applied for the receivership. Another IGIS fund will extend at least another C$315 million to continue work on the project, court documents said.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ari Altstedter, Bloomberg
Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)
February 27, 2019 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. SquillarioIn Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”
Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
More Reminders that the Specific Contract Terms Matter
January 24, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIf there is a theme I have pounded upon here at Construction Law Musings in the over 13 years of posting, it is that the specific terms of your construction contracts will make a huge difference. While there have been reminders galore, a case from the Eastern District of Virginia presented another wrinkle on this theme. The wrinkle? A factoring company.
In CJM Financial, Inc. v. Leebcor Services, LLC et. al., the Court examined this scenario (though it went into more detail than I will here): Leebcorp hired a subcontractor, Maston Creek Services to provide certain construction services under two separate contracts. Maston then hired CJM, a factoring company, and assigned CJM its receivables and the right to collect those receivables. We wouldn’t be discussing this case if all had worked out as planned, so you likely anticipate at least some of what came next. The short story is that Matson failed to pay some of its suppliers and Leebcorp exercised its termination rights under those contracts when Matson refused to cure. In the interim, CJM had paid part of certain payment applications to Matson in compliance with the factoring agreement. When Leebcorp failed to pay CJM for Matson’s work, CJM exercised its assigned rights to collect the receivables and sued Leebcorp for breach of contract. In response, Leebcorp counterclaimed for, among other counts including civil conspiracy, breach of contract based on Matson’s failure to perform. CJM moved to dismiss the counterclaims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
COVID-izing Your Construction Contract
December 21, 2020 —
Frederick E. Hedberg - Construction ExecutiveThe global COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world forever, disrupting many industries, as well as creating unprecedented challenges that threaten many businesses. The construction industry is no different. Projects throughout the country have been adversely affected by unplanned work stoppages, delays, disruptions to the supply chain, price escalations and other unanticipated events.
It is critical that owners, developers, contractors and suppliers learn from their experiences over the past year and account for the COVID-19 pandemic when drafting and negotiating contracts for their projects.
First and foremost, parties should clearly define their rights and responsibilities to properly manage risks due to COVID-19 and its impacts. COVID-19 and other key related terms should be defined, relying on the CDC and state governments for guidance, to eliminate any uncertainties. The contract should also identify executive orders, guidelines and regulations that have been issued concerning COVID-19 by states, municipalities and other authorities that have jurisdiction where the project is located.
Reprinted courtesy of
Frederick E. Hedberg, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Hedberg may be contacted at fhedberg@rc.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cooperating With Your Insurance Carrier: Is It a Must?
January 02, 2024 —
Susana Arce - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A majority of insurance policies require the insured to cooperate with the insurer. The cooperation clause generally states, “the insured agrees to Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or defense of the suit.”
The “cooperation clause” is often an afterthought because once litigation has ensued an insured is focused on other important considerations. However, insureds should not forget that complying with the cooperation clause can make the difference between the insurer covering or denying a claim.
The Cooperation Clause in Action
The Court in
HDI Glob. Specialty SE v. PF Holdings, LLC,1 highlighted the importance of cooperating with an insurance carrier. In the underlying litigation, residents of an apartment complex sued four entities, all insured by the same insurance policy: two were named insureds and two were additional insureds. The primary insurer provided a defense for the named insureds.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Susana Arce, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Arce may be contacted at
SArce@sdvlaw.com
Court Rules on a Long List of Motions in Illinois National Insurance Co v Nordic PCL
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe case Illinois National Insurance Co. v Nordic PCL, et al. “involves a dispute about whether insurance benefits are available to a general contractor who built structures that allegedly have construction defects. Plaintiffs Illinois National Insurance Company (‘Illinois National’) and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (‘National Union’) (collectively, the ‘Insurers’), commenced this action for declaratory relief against Defendant Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction, Ltd. ("Nordic"), on August 23, 2011.”
The court was asked to rule on a long list of motions: “Counterclaim Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Their (1) Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim and (2) Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim, ECF No. 16 (‘Request for Judicial Notice’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 14 (‘Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim’); Counterclaim Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of the Counterclaim Filed October 24, 2011, ECF No. 15 (‘Motion to Strike’); Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 33 (‘Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay’); Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc., f/k/a Nordic Construction Ltd.’s Substantive Joinder to Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Stay Proceedings in Favor of Pending State Action, ECF No. 36 (‘Nordic’s Joinder’); and Third-Party Defendant Marsh USA, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Counts V and VI of Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff Nordic PCL Construction, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint, ECF No. 29 (‘Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings’).”
In result, the court reached the following decisions: “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice to the extent it covers matters relevant to these motions; GRANTS IN PART the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, but gives Nordic leave to amend the Counterclaim in certain respects; DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike; DENIES Marsh’s Motion To Dismiss Or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder; and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.”
The court provides a bit of background on the case: “This action arises out of alleged construction defects involving two projects on which Nordic acted as the general contractor. Nordic is a defendant in a pending state court action with respect to one of the projects and says it spent more than $400,000 on repairs with respect to the other project. Nordic tendered the defense of the pending state court action to the Insurers and sought reimbursement of the cost of repairs already performed. The Insurers responded by filing this action to determine their rights under the insurance policies issued to Nordic.”
Furthermore, the court presented a brief procedural history: “The Insurers commenced this declaratory action in this court on August 23, 2011. The Complaint asserts two claims, one seeking a declaration that the Insurers have no duty to provide a defense or indemnification regarding the Safeway Action, the other seeking such a declaration regarding the Moanalua Claims. Along with its Answer, Nordic filed a Counterclaim against the Insurers. The Counterclaim asserts breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact, and bad faith, and seeks declaratory relief against the Insurers.”
The procedural history continues: “Nordic also filed a Third-Party Complaint against Marsh, the broker that had procured the Policies from the Insurers for Nordic. Nordic alleges that it reasonably believed that the Policies would provide completed operations insurance coverage for the types of construction defects alleged in the Safeway Action and Moanalua Claims. The Third-Party Complaint asserts breach of contract, negligence, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duties, implied indemnity, and contribution and equitable subrogation.”
In conclusion, “The court GRANTS IN RELEVANT PART the Insurers’ Request for Judicial Notice. With regard to the Insurers’ Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim, the court GRANTS the motion as to Count I (breach of contract), Count II (duty of good faith and fair dealing), Count III (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation), the portion of Count IV (bad faith) premised on fraud, and Count IV (declaratory relief). The court DENIES the motion as to Count IV (bad faith) that is not premised on fraud. Except with respect to the "occurrence" issue, which the court disposes of here on the merits, and Count V, which concerns only a form of relief, Nordic is given leave to amend its Counterclaim within three weeks of the date of this order. The court DENIES the Insurers’ Motion to Strike, DENIES Marsh’s Motion to Dismiss or Stay and Nordic’s Joinder, and GRANTS Marsh’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to Counts V and VI of the Third-Party Complaint.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Google’s Floating Mystery Boxes Solved?
March 12, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFGarret Murai, on his California Construction Law blog, reported how “a four story structure made up of shipping containers” had been mysteriously erected on a barge in the middle of San Francisco Bay. Later, it was determined that Google was behind the strange structure, though they were keeping silent as to what the building-on-the-barge would be used for.
Construction stopped after the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission determined that the mysterious barge required a permit—which would require Google to file “publicly available documents.” Google chose to move the barge to Stockton, California rather than obtain a permit.
Google finally released a comment stating that they are “exploring using the barge as an interactive space where people can learn about new technology.” However, Murai believes that this statement may be a “distraction device” and the true use of the barge has yet to be revealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will On-Site Robotics Become Feasible in Construction?
April 13, 2017 —
Aarni Heiskanen – AEC BusinessOver the last few years we’ve seen concepts and pilot projects for construction site robotics. Peter Novikov, Enrico Dini, Wolf D. Prix, and others have shown what on-site robotics can already accomplish. There are still hurdles to overcome, but the convergence of several technologies is making the automated construction site look attainable.
Construction robotics is not a fad. In his keynote at AEC Hackathon Munich in April 2017, Professor Thomas Bock showed examples of construction robotics beginning in the early 1970s. The first construction robots were designed in Japan for manufacturing prefabricated modular homes. Already in the late 1970s, plans were made for extensive use of on-site construction robots.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aarni@aepartners.fi
