Illinois Town Sues over Construction Defects at Police Station
October 08, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Chicago suburb of Northlake has filed a lawsuit against the designers and builders of its police station, claiming that the building leaks due to design and construction flaws. The building was finished in 2009 and flooded in 2010, 2011, and 2013. Northlake mayor Jeffrey Sherwin said that “a building that’s flooded three times in three years is kind of extreme.”
In addition to requiring the replacement of carpet and drywall, the flooding disrupted police service and damaged both police and personal property. Mr. Sherwin noted that the city has tried to settle with the architects and contractors, but no settlement had been
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Smart Home Products go Mainstream as Consumer Demand Increases
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFGigaom reported that Wal-Mart announced yesterday that they will begin selling Insteon gear, one of the Smart Home products, in 1,500 of its stores across the country. "The products in store will include a starter kit, motion sensors, dimmers, IP cameras, LED bulbs, leak sensors and door/window sensors among others. Wal-Mart also sells Chamberlain gear and a few other connected devices on its web site." According to Builder, a Savant survey demonstrated that "Americans are eager for home automation, proving that technology is a great way for builders to distinguish their new homes from the rest of the market."
In another article, Gigaom announced that Netgear will be introducing a line of Smart Home products under the name Arlo.
Read the full story, Gigaom, Wal-Mart now sells Insteon gear...
Read the full story, Gigaom, Netgear launches its Arlo smart home brand with a camera...
Read the full story, Builder... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument
October 12, 2020 —
Gregory D. Podolak & Christine Baptiste-Perez - Saxe Doernberger & VitaLate last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.”
The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada Supreme Court Holds That Insureds Can Use Extrinsic Evidence to Prove Duty to Defend
February 28, 2022 —
Bethany L. Barrese - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe recent Nevada Supreme Court ruling in Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company1 benefits insureds seeking to establish an insurer’s duty to defend. As a matter of first impression, the court clarified that insureds have the burden to prove that an exception to a policy exclusion applies in order to trigger the insured’s duty to defend. However, while the policyholder may use extrinsic evidence to establish the insurer’s duty to defend, the insurer may not use extrinsic evidence to deny that duty.
The facts of the underlying claim are set in the 2000s when the insured subcontractors worked to build thousands of homes in Nevada. The subcontractors were insured by Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) during that period. After the homes were complete, the subcontractors switched from Zurich to Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”). Between 2010 and 2013, homeowners brought claims against the subcontractors alleging that the properties were damaged due to construction defects. The subcontractors tendered the claims to Zurich as the insurer at the time of construction. Zurich then sought defense and indemnification from Ironshore. Ironshore denied coverage under a “continuing and progressive” policy exclusion, claiming that the property damage occurred due to faulty work that predated the Ironshore policy. Notably, an exception to the exclusion applied if “sudden and accidental” property damage occurred within the Ironshore policy period. Given that the underlying lawsuits did not include specific allegations describing when or how the property damage occurred, Ironshore and Zurich disagreed on whether the exception to the exclusion was triggered..
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany L. Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Barrese may be contacted at
BBarrese@sdvlaw.com
Understand Agreements in Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provisions
June 06, 2022 —
Jeffrey Cavignac - Construction ExecutiveOne of the most important provisions in a construction contract is the indemnity provision. An indemnity provision, which usually includes a requirement to hold harmless and defend another party, is included in nearly all construction contracts. Generally speaking, the upstream party (a general contractor or owner, for example) is attempting to shift risk to a downstream party (the general contractor or a subcontractor). In simple terms, subject to certain parameters, the downstream party is agreeing to be responsible for the upstream parties’ mistakes.
DEFINING INDEMNIFICATION
Insurance brokers focused on development and construction businesses get asked frequently: “If we sign this, are we insured?” It would be great if this could be answered “yes” or “no,” but life is rarely that straightforward. To understand whether a specific indemnification is insurable, we have to drill down on the actual provision. Let’s look at a typical indemnification below:
“To the fullest extent permitted by law the Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the owner, architect, architect’s consultants and agents and employees of any of them from and against any claims, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to attorneys’ fees, arising out of or resulting from performance of the work whether caused in whole or in part by the contractor, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey Cavignac, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat: Butterflies, Salt Marshes and Methane All Around
November 16, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOur latest summary of some recent developments in the courts and the federal agencies includes a unique case involving salt marshes adjacent to San Francisco Bay.
THE FEDERAL COURTS
A Wolf Among the Butterflies
On October 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided the case of North American Butterfly Association v. Chad Wolf, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The National Butterfly Center is a 100-acre wildlife sanctuary located in Texas along the border between the United States and Mexico, and in 2017, the DHS exerted control over a segment of the sanctuary to construct facilities to impede unauthorized entry into the United States. It was alleged that the government failed to provide advance notice to the sanctuary before it entered the sanctuary to build its facilities. The Association filed a lawsuit to halt these actions for several reasons, including constitutional claims and two federal environmental laws (NEPA and the Endangered Species Act), but the lower court dismissed the lawsuit because of the provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). That law forecloses the applicability of these laws if the Secretary of DHS issues appropriate declaration. On appeal, the DC Circuit held, in a 2 to 1 decision, that the lawsuit should not have been dismissed. The plaintiffs had standing to file this lawsuit, but the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the IIRIRA, when invoked, required that the statutory claims be dismissed as well as a constitutional Fourth Amendment search and seizure claim. However, the plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment claim that the government’s actions violated their right to procedural due process must be reviewed. The Center was given no notice of the government’s claims and no opportunity to be heard before these actions were taken. The dissenting judge argued that the court was being asked to review a non-final decision, which it should not do.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
The World’s Largest 3D-Printed Neighborhood Is Here
March 20, 2023 —
Todd Woody - BloombergAmid the tech boom-fueled sprawl in Austin, Texas, Wolf Ranch at first appears to be another colorfully named but architecturally unimaginative suburban subdivision. Until, that is, you turn a corner and stumble across giant robots building homes resembling waves frozen in concrete.
This 100-house addition to the 2,500 homes planned for Wolf Ranch is called “the Genesis Collection,” and as the world’s largest 3D-printed community, it is indeed sui generis. A collaboration between Lennar Corp., the US’s second-biggest home builder, and 3D-printing startup Icon, Genesis represents perhaps the most significant innovation in residential construction in decades. If it can scale, 3D-printed construction promises to deliver energy-efficient homes that can be built faster and more affordably, in novel designs and with minimal waste. The concrete structures are also more resilient to increasingly intense climate-driven hurricanes, wildfires and heat waves.
“I think we'll look back and say this was a pretty pivotal moment in the history of construction,” says Jason Ballard, Icon’s cowboy hat-wearing co-founder and chief executive officer. “I do think 3D printing and robotic construction are necessary to end the global housing crisis.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd Woody, Bloomberg
Supreme Court Overrules Longstanding Decision Supporting Collection of Union Agency Fees
July 02, 2018 —
Amy R. Patton, Blake A. Dillion, & Eric C. Sohlgren - Payne & FearsIn a 5 to 4 opinion, the United States Supreme Court overruled a longstanding decision which required government employees who are represented by but do not belong to a union, to pay a fair share or agency fee to cover the union's costs for collective bargaining activities. In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court found that requiring such fees from nonconsenting public sector employees violates the First Amendment: "[n]either an agency fee nor any other form of payment to a public-sector union may be deducted from an employee, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay."
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys
Amy R. Patton,
Blake A. Dillion and
Eric C. Sohlgren
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com
Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
