Why Being Climate ‘Positive’ Is the Buzzy New Goal of Green Building
December 10, 2024 —
Olivia Rudgard - BloombergThe three buildings, dotted around Norway, couldn’t look more different: a soaring timber-and-concrete obelisk in Porsgrunn; a squat, two-story Montessori school on the edge of a forest in Drøbak; and a concrete and glass wedge-shaped office in Trondheim, just a few hundred miles from the edge of the
Arctic Circle. But they share a distinctive feature. Each has a roof perfectly tilted to squeeze out every possible drop of solar energy.
They are called
Powerhouses, and the initiative behind them claims they are all “energy positive”: The upfront energy “cost” of each building, and that of later demolition and disposal, is expected to be made back over the building’s lifetime. Powerhouses sometimes draw from the grid, especially in winter, but in the long Nordic summer days they give back many times over, overspilling excess solar energy into surrounding homes and businesses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Olivia Rudgard, Bloomberg
Keep it Simple with Nunn-Agreements in Colorado
June 28, 2021 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationOn May 24, 2021, the Colorado Supreme Court published its decision in Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Ass'n.[1] There, the Colorado Supreme Court was tasked with answering whether an insurer, who is defending its insured under a reservation of rights, is entitled to intervene as of right under C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2) where the insured enters into a Nunn agreement with a third-party claimant, but rather than entering into a stipulated judgment, agrees with the third party to proceed via an uncontested trial to determine liability and damages. Interestingly, however, while the Court ultimately answered the above question in the negative, the real lesson from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision is that Colorado litigants should not seek a trial court’s blessing as to liability and damages through non-adversarial proceedings when using Nunn-Agreements. Or, as articulated in Justice Carlos Samour’s vociferous dissenting opinion, Colorado litigants desiring to enter into a Nunn-Agreement should not proceed with a non-adversarial hearing, as doing so is “offensive to the dignity of the courts,” constitutes a “bogus,” “faux,” “sham” and “counterfeit” proceeding, and the hearing provides “zero benefit.”
By way of background, the case arrived in front of the Colorado Supreme Court based on the following fact pattern. A homeowner association (Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc.) (“Association”) brought construction defect claims against a variety of prime contractors and those contractors subsequently brought third-party construction defect claims against subcontractors. One of the prime contractors assigned their claims against a subcontractor by the name Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra”) to the Association. The other claims between the additional parties settled. On the eve of trial involving only the Association’s assigned claims against Sierra, the Association made a settlement demand to Sierra for $1.9 million. Sierra asked its insurance carrier, Auto-Owners Insurance, Co. (“AOIC”), which had been defending Sierra under a reservation of rights letter, to settle the case for that amount, but AOIC refused. This prompted Sierra to enter into a “Nunn-Agreement” with the Association whereby the case would proceed to trial, Sierra would refrain from offering a defense at trial, the Association would not pursue any recovery against Sierra for the judgment, and Sierra would assign any insurance bad faith claims it may have had against AOIC to the Association.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Georgia Supreme Court Limits Damages Under Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act
March 01, 2017 —
Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPOn January 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of Georgia issued a decision determining whether the Georgia Computer Systems Protection Act (“GCSPA”) provides for punitive damages. While not directly related to construction, the GCSPA can be a potential mechanism for asserting claims against former employees that use company information stored in computers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Reynolds may be contacted at
reynolds@ahclaw.com
In Colorado, Repair Vendors Can Bring First-Party Bad Faith Actions For Amounts Owed From an Insurer
December 20, 2012 —
BRADY IANDIORIO, HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELLWith the aftermath of Sandy still being felt up and down the Eastern seaboard, the question of many victims turns to how they can rebuild their lives and homes. One of the first things many people do is call on their insurance carriers to help rebuild whatever damaged property they have. In a recent case here in Colorado, those rebuilding efforts got reaffirmed by a Court of Appeals case, Kyle W. Larson Enterprises, Inc., Roofing Experts, d/b/a The Roofing Experts v. Allstate Insurance Company, --- P.3d ----, 2012 WL 4459112 (Colo. App. September 27, 2012).
The facts of the case are pretty straightforward and could describe many repair vendors in numerous situations. Roofing Experts contracted with four homeowners insured by Allstate to repair their damaged roofs. The contracts provided that repair costs would be paid from insurance proceeds. The contracts also allowed Roofing Experts full authority to communicate with Allstate regarding all aspects of the insurance claims. Before work began, Roofing Experts met with adjusters from Allstate to discuss the four homes and the amount of each claim. After receiving approval for the claims, Roofing Experts began the repairs. During construction, Roofing Experts discovered additional repairs were necessary to maintain certain manufacturer’s warranties and to conform to applicable building codes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady Iandorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Iandorio can be contacted at
iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
Green Investigations Are Here: U.S. Department of Justice Turns Towards Environmental Enforcement Actions, Deprioritizes Compliance Assistance
January 10, 2022 —
Karen C. Bennett, R. Morgan Salisbury, Sean P. Shecter & Rose Quam-Wickham - Lewis BrisboisWashington, D.C. (January 4, 2022) - Two high-ranking Department of Justice (DOJ) officials announced that the Biden Administration is prioritizing environmental regulatory enforcement over compliance assistance. Todd Kim, Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), and Deborah Harris of the DOJ’s Environmental Crimes Section, indicated in mid-December 2021 that companies and individuals should expect more “vigorous enforcement,” with an emphasis on criminal enforcement. This new policy is in contrast to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)'s previous emphasis on compliance and pollution mitigation instead of enforcement actions under the prior administration.
DOJ’s new policy of promoting enforcement actions is consistent with the Biden Administration’s overall efforts to prioritize environmental justice. In April 2021, as explained in a previous Lewis Brisbois Client Alert, OECA released two memoranda directing enforcement teams to consider a variety of tools to resolve enforcement actions, including increased inspections, restitution, and reparation for victims of environmental crimes and overstepping state regulators where necessary.
Reprinted courtesy of
Karen C. Bennett, Lewis Brisbois,
R. Morgan Salisbury, Lewis Brisbois,
Sean P. Shecter, Lewis Brisbois and
Rose Quam-Wickham, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Salisbury may be contacted at Morgan.Salisbury@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Shecter may be contacted at Sean.Shecter@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Quam-Wickham may be contacted at Rose.QuamWickham@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban
September 14, 2020 —
Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & AbramsonIn our previous
alert, we discussed the expansion on the Section 889(a)(1)(B) ban on certain Chinese telecommunications equipment and services to contractors and subcontractors who use the equipment and services in their internal operations. Effective August 13, 2020, federal agencies were prohibited from procuring, obtaining, extending, or renewing a contract with a contractor that uses equipment, systems, or services that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component or as critical technology, unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted. Since then we have received feedback from contractors, complaining about the difficulties in determining whether their internal operations use covered telecommunications equipment and services and the need for additional time to become compliant or even obtain enough information to submit a waiver request.
Now it seems that Department of Defense (DoD) contractors and subcontractors may be getting a temporary reprieve. The DoD Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment requested a waiver that would allow DoD to continue to execute procurement actions providing supplies, equipment, services, food, clothing, transportation, care, and support necessary to execute the DoD mission. The Director of National Intelligence granted the temporary waiver until September 30, 2020 pending a further review of waiver request. Depending upon the outcome of this additional review, the temporary waiver may be continued beyond September 30, 2020 if it is in the national security interests of the United States.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and
Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com
Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nomos LLP Partner Garret Murai Recognized by Super Lawyers
September 05, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogNomos LLP Partner Garret Murai has been selected to the 2023 Northern California Super Lawyers list in the area of Construction Litigation. This is the tenth consecutive year that he has been recognized by Super Lawyers.
Garret was also also featured in this year’s Northern California Super Lawyer’s magazine’s 20th anniversary cover story “Built Different” where he talks a bit about his practice and changes he has seen over the past 20 years as a construction lawyer. The following is an excerpt from the article:
“The New Reality of Work”
Garret Murai, whose father was an architect, is a founding partner of Nomos LLP, an Oakland-based construction law firm. Concentrating in both commercial and public works, Murai’s clients run the gamut from contractors and subcontractors to owners and developers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
New York Court of Appeals Finds a Proximate Cause Standard in Additional Insured Endorsements
June 15, 2017 —
Geoffrey Miller - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In The Burlington Insurance Company v. NYC Transit Authority, et al., No. 2016-00096, the New York Court of Appeals issued a landmark decision with regard to the meaning of “caused, in whole or in part, by” in the additional insured context. In a split decision, the court rejected Burlington Insurance Company’s argument that the language implied a “negligence” standard, but held that coverage was provided to the additional insured only where the named insured’s acts or omissions were the proximate cause of the injury:
While we [the majority] agree with the dissent that interpreting the phrases differently does not compel the conclusion that the endorsement incorporates a negligence requirement, it does compel us to interpret ‘caused, in whole or in part’ to mean more than ‘but for’ causation. That interpretation, coupled with the endorsement’s application to acts or omissions that result in liability, supports our conclusion that proximate cause is required here.[1]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey Miller, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Miller may be contacted at
gjm@sdvlaw.com
