COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

FIFA May Reduce World Cup Stadiums in Russia on Economic Concern

July 16, 2014 — Tariq Panja – Bloomberg
FIFA may reduce the number of stadiums used to host the 2018 World Cup in Russia on concern that their economic viability after the monthlong event ends. FIFA President Sepp Blatter said a day after Germany’s 1-0 win over Argentina in the final that a delegation from soccer’s governing body will meet Russian tournament organizers in September to discuss plans for the next edition. Blatter gave a mark of 9.25 out of 10 to an “exceptional” Brazil World Cup, which cost $11 billion to stage. The tournament is a difficult challenge for organizers, Blatter said, illustrated by construction delays at almost all of the 12 arenas used for the 64 games in Brazil. “The World Cup has taken such a dimension that the organization is hard work for the organizing country and also for FIFA,” Blatter told reporters at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana stadium, where Germany claimed a fourth title and became the first European country to win the tournament in South America. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tariq Panja, Bloomberg
Mr. Panja may be contacted at tpanja@bloomberg.net

---

Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise

October 08, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Daily Business Review reported that Florida “attorneys anticipate lawsuits over construction defects, workmanship, change orders and warranties.” "We construction lawyers know this wave of litigation is coming, and we are getting ready," said attorney Jason Kellogg, a partner at Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman in Miami, told the Daily Business Review. Kellogg also stated that “there is a shortage of skilled workers in areas such as plumbing, electrical and other specialities that almost inevitably will lead to subpar work and defect litigation.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Insurers Get “Floored” by Court of Appeals Regarding the Presumptive Measure of Damages in Consent Judgments

May 13, 2014 — Mark Scheer and Brent Williams-Ruth – Scheer & Zehnder LLP
CASE: Miller v. Kenny, 68594-5-I, 2014 WL 1672946 (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2014). Snapshot Synopsis: $21 million bad faith consent judgment verdict upheld. $4.15 million underlying stipulated consent judgment was the “floor,” and additional damages allowed. ISSUES: 1. Can a jury award damages for an insurer’s bad faith in excess of the amount of the stipulated covenant judgment? YES 2. Can a trial court admit evidence of insurance liability reserves in a bad faith action? YES 3. *Note: Other evidentiary and procedural issues were addressed by the court in its decision but not analyzed in this summary* FACTS: This appeal arose out of an automobile accident on August 23, 2000. Patrick Kenny was driving a 1994 Volkswagen Passat owned by one of the passengers, when he rear-ended a cement truck. The accident severely injured his three passengers: Ryan Miller, Ashley Bethards, and Cassandra Peterson. Kenny was covered for liability under the insurance policy issued to Peterson's parents by Safeco Insurance Company. Safeco defended Kenny without a reservation of rights. Reprinted courtesy of Mark Scheer, Scheer & Zehnder LLP and Brent Williams-Ruth, Scheer & Zehnder LLP Mr. Scheer may be contacted at mscheer@scheerlaw.com; Mr. Williams-Ruth may be contacted at bwilliamsruth@scheerlaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Contractors Pay Heed: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Two Important Issues For Bid Protestors

September 13, 2021 — Andrew Balland - ConsensusDocs
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) recently decided two cases that are relevant to many disappointed offerors considering a bid protest. One decision rendered in March 2021 confirmed the authority of the United States Court of Federal Claims (COFC) to hear a protest based on an agency’s breach of an implied-in-fact contract. A second decision issued in February 2021 reversed a COFC decision from last year regarding the timeliness requirements to obtain a CICA stay and their interplay with Department of Defense (DoD) enhanced debriefing regulations. Federal Circuit Confirms The Court Of Federal Claims’ Jurisdiction Over Procurement-Related Implied Contract Claims When a contractor’s bid protest is denied by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the unsuccessful protestor may challenge the GAO’s decision as arbitrary and capricious in an action before the COFC. While 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) authorizes the COFC to hear such procurement-related challenges, § 1491(a) also permits the court to adjudicate claims against the United States based on any express or implied contracts. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Andrew Balland, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP

---

Is Your Design Professional Construction Contract too Friendly? (Law Note)

July 09, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law North Carolina
My husband often travels the back roads between Chapel Hill and Fuquay Varina to visit friends. En route (a circuitous route that goes past Sharon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, among other places), he passes by the “Friendly Grocery.” [Sign] No *Loitering*Littering*Alcoholic Beverages on Premises*Bike*Skateboard* *10 minutes Parking Limit*Towing Enforced* I’m not sure which is the “friendly” part of that sign. In fact, the sign seems to be the antithesis of friendly. What does this have to do with your construction contracts? Sometimes, in an effort to please the client and/or secure the project, architects and engineers have the habit of being too friendly in their contract language. That is, you make promises or proposals that may promise too much of a good thing for the client. This can cause big problems. Bigger than being towed away from a rural grocery store in the middle of nowhere. You could be putting your insurance coverage at risk. Have you ever promised to use “best efforts” in your design or plans? Promised to design to a specific LEED standard? Guaranteed 100% satisfaction? You might be putting your errors & omission coverage at issue. By warrantying or guaranteeing something, you are assuming a level of liability well beyond the standard of care required by law. By law, you only need to conform to the standard of care, and your insurance will only provide coverage up to that standard of care. In other words, if you make guarantees or promise “best efforts,” you are contracting to something that will *not* be insured. If something goes wrong, you will be without the benefit of your professional liability coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com

---

First Suit to Enforce Business-Interruption Coverage Filed

April 20, 2020 — Lorelie S. Masters & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
On Monday, Oceana Grill, a restaurant in New Orleans, Louisiana, became the first to file a lawsuit over coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. The lawsuit, styled Cajun Conti, LLC, et al. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, et al. (La. Dist. Court, Orleans Parish), seeks a declaratory judgment that an “all risks” property insurance policy issued by Lloyd’s of London must cover losses resulting from the closure of the restaurant following an order by the Governor of Louisiana restricting public gatherings and the Mayor of New Orleans’ order closing restaurants. The Lloyds’ policy, like most first-party property insurance policies, affords coverage for business- interruption losses and contains an “extension of coverage in the event of the businesses closure by order of Civil Authority.” Specifically, the lawsuit seeks a declaration that “the policy provides coverage to plaintiffs for any future civil authority shutdowns of restaurants in the New Orleans area due to physical loss from Coronavirus contamination and that the policy provides business income coverage in the event that the coronavirus has contaminated the insured premises.” Furthermore, according to the complaint, “[t]he policy does not provide any exclusion due to losses, business or property, from a virus or global pandemic.” As the complaint implies, an important issue will be whether the novel coronavirus constitutes the requisite “direct physical loss or damage” under the policy. Understanding COVID-19, its manner of transmission and its ability to live beyond a host organism helps support a conclusion that COVID-19 does indeed amount to the required direct physical loss or damage. Reprinted courtesy of Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth and Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Justice Didn’t Ensure Mortgage Fraud Was Priority, IG Says

March 19, 2014 — Tom Schoenberg and Phil Mattingly – Bloomberg
The U.S. Justice Department failed to pursue mortgage fraud in the years following the 2008 financial crisis with the same level of commitment that it publicly touted, an internal watchdog said. While Attorney General Eric Holder said mortgage-fraud cases were among the department’s top priorities, the Federal Bureau of Investigation internally ranked them the lowest of six criminal threats, according to a report released today by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The FBI devoted fewer resources to such cases even though Congress allocated $196 million for fiscal years 2009 to 2011 to pursue such conduct. The Justice Department has been criticized by lawmakers and judges for not bringing more criminal cases against individuals following the collapse in housing prices and ensuing market turmoil. In August, Holder retracted a public statement after Bloomberg News reported that the department had inflated its track record of mortgage-fraud prosecutions. Mr. Schoenberg may be contacted at tschoenberg@bloomberg.net; Mr. Mattingly may be contacted at pmattingly@bloomberg.net Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tom Schoenberg and Phil Mattingly, Bloomberg

---

Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards

September 29, 2021 — Krsto Mijanovic, Jeffrey C. Schmid & John M. Wilkerson - Haight Brown & Bonesteel
In Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021 WL 3671594) (“Gonzalez”), the Supreme Court of California held that a landowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor or its workers to remedy or adopt other measures to protect them against known hazards on the premises. The Court applied the Privette doctrine which establishes a presumption that a landowner generally delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to its independent contractor. (See generally Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590.) As such, the independent contractor is responsible for ensuring that the work can be performed safely despite a known hazard on the worksite, even where the contractor and its workers are unable to take any reasonable safety precautions to avoid or protect themselves from the known hazard. In Gonzalez, the landowner, Mathis, had hired an independent contractor, Gonzalez, to clean a skylight on his roof. To access the skylight, Gonzalez needed to utilize a narrow path between the edge of the roof and a parapet wall. While walking along this path, Gonzalez slipped and fell to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. Gonzalez alleged this accident was caused by several dangerous conditions on the roof, including a slippery surface, a lack of tie-off points to attach a safety harness, and a lack of a guardrail. Gonzalez was aware of all of these hazards prior to the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel, Jeffrey C. Schmid, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and John M. Wilkerson, Haight Brown & Bonesteel Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Schmid may be contacted at jschmid@hbblaw.com Mr. Wilkerson may be contacted at jwilkerson@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---