An Increase of US Metro Areas’ with Normal Housing & Economic Health
February 05, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the National Association of Home Builders’ (NAHB) Eye on Housing, 63 (out of 351) US metropolitan areas have returned to or exceeded their last normal level of housing and economic health—that’s up from 60 last quarter.
NAHB reported that “The Leading Markets Index measures a market’s proximity to normal as defined by the level of single-family housing permits, home prices and employment.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Virginia Families Hope to Sue over Chinese Drywall
October 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAlthough Virginia isn't in the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, some Virginia homeowners ended up with a case there. And now the court has to decide whether Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. can be sued in American courts for defects in its products. The case made its way to Louisiana after the courts consolidated cases from across the country. If the court decides that the homeowners can’t sue, they could appeal to the Supreme Court, although that’s likely a longshot. Or, the homeowners could sue in the Chinese courts, also not likely.
More than 300 homes in Virginia are affected by fumes from the Chinese-made drywall, but only seven residents in the town of Hampton Roads are at the heart of the current case. They were chosen as representative of the entire group. Those seven have been collectively awarded $2.6 million, but the drywall manufacturer is appealing the judgement. If Taishan is victorious, then the damages already awarded will be overturned and there won’t be an option for the others.
The drywall emitted gases which corroded metals in the homes. One couple, Steve and Liz Heischober went through seven air conditioning coils in three years, along with problems with corrosion of appliances and electrical systems. If the current suit succeeds, the Heischobers, and the other, will be compensated for their damages, including the costs of repair and relocation. If Taishan loses, they could be responsible for about $1 billion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Mechanics’ Lien Case Treads Both Old and New Ground
July 27, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogPeople do the darnedest things. The next case, Carmel Development Company v. Anderson, Case No. H041005, 6th District Court of Appeals (April 30, 2020), involving a 10-plus year oral design and construction contract, inconsistent accounting practices, two mechanics liens, and side-agreements, takes us down some well traveled paths but also covers some new ground.
Carmel Development Company v. Anderson
Carmel Development Company, Inc. provided design and construction services at a luxury subdivision known as Monterra Ranch located in Monterey under an oral contract with developer Monterra LLC which spanned over more than a decade.
Between 1996 and 2008, Carmel was involved in the infrastructure design and construction of the subdivision including lot design and layout, the location of building envelopes on each lot, water and sewage system layout and design, and roadway design, construction and repair. When roughly half of the lots were developed and sold Monterra ran out of money and Carmel sued.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida District Court Finds That “Unrelated” Design Errors Sufficient to Trigger “Related Claims” Provision in Architects & Engineers Policy
March 02, 2020 —
Jason Taylor - Traub LiebermanMost professional liability polices include some form of a “related claims” provision that generally provides where two or more claims or wrongful acts are causally or logically related, they will be deemed to constitute a single claim. Importantly, these provisions typically provide that those “claims” are then deemed to have been “first made” at the time the first claim or act was committed for purposes of the policy’s claims-made and reporting requirements. Understandably, these provisions provide insurers and insureds with some clarity over the number and timing of claims that could involve multiple errors or omissions, and potentially aggregate all related claims or acts into a single policy period. While reasonable in principle, application of such provisions, especially involving large scale design and construction projects, is not always so easy.
Nova Southeastern University, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 18-cv-61842 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2019), involved such an insurance coverage dispute with a design project gone wrong. DeRose Design Consultants, Inc. (“DeRose”) was hired as a structural engineer to design “ice tanks” to store and chill water for an energy efficient air conditioning facility constructed on the campus of Nova Southeastern University (“NSU”). An early water test on one of the tanks determined the walls of the ice tank deflected, leaked, and cracked when the tank was filled with water. DeRose later discovered that the problems with the ice tank were caused by a structural design error.
The first errors were discovered in early 2009, and reported under DeRose’s professional liability policy with Evanston. DeRose then created a remedial design to repair the tanks, which involved strengthening repairs. Additional leaking and an early indication of corrosion involving the Remedial Design arose as early as October 25, 2009. Several field investigation reports were prepared in 2011 and 2012 confirming these issues with the Remedial Design. A third report in February 2012, however, identified a new error involving the concrete slab under the ice tanks also designed by DeRose. The third report concluded that the concreate slab was overstressed and could not handle the loads of the ice tanks. The report also concluded, however, that the design defects in the concrete slab were “unrelated” to the original design defect of the ice tank walls or Remedial Design.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Tenth Circuit Finds Appraisal Can Decide Causation of Loss Under Colorado Law
November 29, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Tenth Circuit determined that the Colorado Supreme Court would agree with other state courts that appraisers can decide the causation of a loss. Bonbeck Parker, LLC v. The Travelers Indem. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 29607 (10th Cir. Oct. 1, 2021).
A hailstorm damaged three buildings owned by BonBeck. A claim was submitted to Travelers under BonBeck's commercial property policy. Travelers acknowledged that some hail damage occurred to all the buildings except for the roofs. Travelers paid $34,200 for damage to the buildings. Coverage for the roof damage was denied because it resulted not from the hail damage but from uncovered events like wear and tear, deterioration, and improperly installation.
BonBeck requested an appraisal. Travelers insisted that the appraisal would only determine the amount of loss of covered claims. BonBeck rejected these conditions and Travelers filed suit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Real Estate & Construction News Round-Up (06/29/22)
July 11, 2022 —
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogHousing market activity is on the downtick, the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment launches, the SEC proposes a climate rule that signals a new era for real estate, and more.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pillsbury's Construction & Real Estate Law Team
Standard of Care
December 16, 2019 —
Jay Gregory - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogOne of the key concepts at the heart of Board complaints and civil claims against a design professional is whether or not that design professional complied with the applicable standard of care. In order to prevail on such a claim, the claimant must establish (typically with the aid of expert testimony) that the design professional deviated from the standard of care. On the other side of the coin, to defend a design professional against a professional malpractice claim, defense counsel attempts to establish that – contrary to the claimant’s allegations – the design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. Obviously, it becomes very important in such a claim situation to determine what the standard of care is that applies to the conduct of the defendant design professional. Often, this is easier said than done. There is no dictionary definition or handy guidebook that identifies the precise standard of care that applies in any given situation. The “standard of care” is a concept and, as such, is flexible and open to interpretation. Traditionally, the standard of care is expressed as being that level of service or competence generally employed by average or prudent practitioners under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locale. In other words, to meet the standard of care a design professional must generally follow the pack; he or she need not be perfect, exemplary, outstanding, or even superior – it is sufficient merely for the designer to do that which a reasonably prudent practitioner would do under similar circumstances. The negative or reverse definition also applies, to meet the standard of care, a practitioner must refrain from doing what a reasonably prudent practitioner would have refrained from doing.
Although we have this ready definition of the standard of care, in any given dispute it is practically inevitable that the parties will have markedly different opinions as to: (1) what the standard of care required of the designer; and (2) whether the defendant design professional complied with that requirement. The claimant bringing a claim against a design professional typically will be able to find an expert reasonably qualified (at least on paper) who will offer an opinion that the defendant failed to comply with the standard of care. It is just as likely that the counsel for the defendant design professional will be able to find his or her own expert who will counter the opinion of the claimant’s expert and maintain that the defendant design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. What’s a jury to think?
The concept of standard of care is intertwined with the legal concept of negligence. In the vast majority of law suits against design professionals, a claimant (known as the plaintiff) will assert a claim for negligence against the design professional now known as the defendant.1 As every first year law student learns while studying the field of “Torts,” negligence has four subparts. In order for a defendant to be found negligent, the claimant must establish four elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. In other words, to establish a claim against a defendant design professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care but breached that duty and, as a result, caused the plaintiff to suffer damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jay Gregory, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Gregory may be contacted at
jgregory@grsm.com
