Amazon Urged to Review Emergency Plans in Wake of Deadly Tornado
June 20, 2022 —
Spencer Soper - BloombergAmazon.com Inc. should better prepare workers for extreme weather events, according to federal regulators who investigated a deadly tornado strike on a company warehouse in Edwardsville, Illinois.
The storm ripped through the facility in December, killing six workers and injuring several others, prompting the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to launch a probe. At the time, Amazon said the facility complied with all construction regulations and that proper safety procedures were followed when the tornado struck. But several workers told Bloomberg that training for such events was minimal and mostly entailed pointing out emergency exits and assembly points.
An OSHA report released on Tuesday echoed those concerns. The agency said a bullhorn that was supposed to be used to tell workers to take cover was locked up in a cage and inaccessible. In interviews with investigators, some employees couldn’t recall ever participating in emergency drills and said they mistakenly took shelter in a bathroom on the south side of the building rather than in designated restrooms on the north side.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Spencer Soper, Bloomberg
White and Williams Celebrates 125th Anniversary
March 04, 2024 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams LLP, a global-reaching law firm headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, is celebrating its 125th Anniversary. Since its founding in 1899, the Firm has grown to two hundred lawyers with offices in Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania.
“We are proud to celebrate our 125th anniversary. We are grateful to all of our clients for the trust that they place in our firm to handle their important litigation and transactional matters. The partnership we enjoy with our clients is special and a source of great pride to all of us at White and Williams. We are deeply committed to the success of our clients' goals and objectives,” stated Tim Davis, Managing Partner. “We look forward to celebrating this historic milestone with our clients, attorneys, staff and alumni throughout 2024,” added Davis.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFOne of the odder twists of the Las Vegas construction defect scandal was the charge that Nancy Quon’s boyfriend helped her in an initial suicide attempt. Quon, implicated by not charged in the case of taking control of homeowner boards in order to profit from construction defect settlements. William Webb was alleged to have bought the drug GBH in order to allow Quon, his girlfriend, to commit suicide. Ms. Quon later overdosed on a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.
In addition to pleading guilty to the drug charges, Webb also made a plea bargain with prosecutors in which he did not admit guilt in an insurance fraud charge, but acknowledged that prosecutors would likely be successful at obtaining a conviction. Webb will be sentenced February 7 and is expected to receive a sentence of six years imprisonment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Court of New York Denies Motion in all but One Cause of Action in Kikirov v. 355 Realty Assoc., et al.
April 28, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFIn the construction defect suit Kikirov v. 355 Realty Associates, LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted a dismissal of the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, but denied the defendants’ motion in all other respects. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract, among other claims. “355 Realty was the sponsor of 355 Kings Highway Condominium, a condominium project located at 355 Kings Highway, in Brooklyn, New York. The condominium units were allegedly marketed as ‘ultra luxury condos,’ and a ‘Manhattan style condominium building,’ which would be the ‘epitome of luxury and quality.’ The construction of the six-story 28 unit residential condominium building began in approximately November 2003. […] Plaintiff entered into a purchase agreement, dated December 21, 2005, with 355 Realty (which was executed on behalf of 355 Realty by Michael Marino, as its member) for the purchase of Unit 2G in the building.”
The plaintiff alleged that construction defects emerged soon after moving into the unit: “After taking occupancy of his condominium unit, plaintiff allegedly experienced serious leakage and moisture problems in his unit, which caused a dangerous mold condition to develop, in addition to causing actual damage to the structural elements of his unit. According to plaintiff, the walls, moldings, and wood floors of his unit are constantly wet and moist, and there is severe buckling of the wood floors. Plaintiff claims that these problems have caused his unit to be uninhabitable. Plaintiff alleges that he has been forced to remove all of his personal belongings from his unit and has been unable to occupy his unit.”
According to the plaintiff, Foremost attempted to repair the defects, but only made the situation worse: “Specifically, plaintiff asserts that Foremost’s contractors opened his walls to remove the stained drywall, but never corrected the cause of the leaks, destroyed the walls, and never properly taped and painted the sheet rock. Plaintiff alleges that Foremost repaired the openings in a defective manner. Plaintiff also claims that his floor was repaired at that time by a subcontractor hired by Foremost, but the basic structural problem was never resolved and the leaks continued, compromising the beams and causing the mold conditions, in addition to all of the physical damage present in the unit. On or about July 16, 2009, plaintiff allegedly sent a notice of the defects to 355 Realty and to the managing agent designated by the condominium board, by certified mail, return receipt requested. Plaintiff asserts that defendants have failed and refused to repair and remedy the defective condition, and that the damage is extensive and requires major structural repairs.”
The plaintiff filed suit on May 4, 2010, and the original complaint asserted eight causes of action. “By decision and order dated September 13, 2010, the court granted a motion by defendants to dismiss plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, his third cause of action for breach of implied warranties, his fifth cause of action for negligence as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his seventh cause of action for negligence as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ, and his eighth cause of action for violations of General Business Law § 349 and § 350, and granted plaintiff leave to replead his first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, his fourth cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and his sixth cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ.”
The plaintiff amended their complaint on October 18, 2010, and “has repleaded these three causes of action by asserting a first cause of action for breach of contract as against 355 Realty, Michael Marino, Anthony Piscione, Ahron Hersh, and Toby Hersh, a second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, and a third cause of action for breach of contract as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ. In addition, plaintiff, in his amended complaint, has added a fourth cause of action for fraud.”
The defendants, on the other hand, “argue that each of the four causes of action alleged by plaintiff in his amended complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and that plaintiff’s amended complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). Defendants also cite to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), and (5), asserting that dismissal is also required based upon documentary evidence and the Statute of Limitations contained in the limited warranty.” The defendants’ motion to dismiss the first cause of action, breach of contract against 355 Realty, was denied: “While defendants dispute that the alleged defects are actually structural in nature, plaintiff’s allegations as to their structural nature are sufficient, at this juncture, to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, dismissal of plaintiff’s first cause of action must be denied.”
Next, the court reviewed the second cause of action, which was breach of statutory warranties: “Defendants’ motion also seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s second cause of action for breach of statutory warranties, which alleges that, under applicable law, including General Business Law § 777-a, et seq., the sponsor warranted to purchasers of units that the units would be constructed in a skillful, careful, and workmanlike manner, consistent with proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices, and free of material latent, design, and structural defects. Defendants argue that General Business Law § 777-a, known as the housing merchant implied warranty, is inapplicable to this case because it is limited to the construction of a ‘new home,’ defined in General Business Law § 777 (5) as ‘any single family house or for-sale unit in a multi-unit residential structure of five stories or less.’ As noted above, the building in which plaintiff’s condominium unit is located is a six-story building.”
The motion to dismiss the second cause of action is denied. The court provided this reasoning: “the full text of the offering plan has not been provided, the court is unable to examine the entire written agreement so as to determine the purpose of the inclusion of the text of General Business Law § 777.”
In the third cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “a breach of contract claim as against Vision, Foremost, and MMJ based upon their contract with 355 Realty, pursuant to which they agreed to be the general contractors/construction managers for the condominium, to undertake oversight responsibility for the design and construction of the condominium, to prepare and/or review drawings, plans, and specifications for the condominium, and to otherwise manage and oversee the project. Plaintiff alleges that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ breached their contractual obligations in that the condominium units were improperly and inadequately designed and constructed, and completed in an incompetent and unworkmanlike manner, with material design and construction defects.”
The motion to dismiss the third cause of action was denied as well: “Plaintiff alleges, in his amended complaint, that Vision, Foremost, and MMJ have acknowledged notice of the defects and have not denied that they are responsible for providing a warranty to plaintiff. Plaintiff also refers to this warranty, in his amended complaint, by noting that paragraph 16 of the purchase agreement stated that the ‘[s]eller shall not be liable to . . . the [p]urchaser for any matter as to which an assignable warranty . . . has been assigned . . . to [p]urchaser and in such case the sole recourse of such . . . [p]urchaser . . . shall be against the warrantor . . . except that in the event a contractor or subcontractor is financially unable or refuses to perform its warranty . . . [s]eller shall not be excused from its obligations enumerated in the [offering p]lan under Rights and Obligations of Sponsor.’ Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s third cause of action as against Foremost and MMJ must also be denied.”
In the fourth cause of action, the plaintiff alleges “that defendants made false statements and representations orally, in advertisements, and in the purchase agreement, that the condominium was properly and adequately designed and constructed and completed in a competent and workmanlike manner, in accordance with the condominium plans and specifications and proper design, engineering, and construction standards and practices consistent with applicable standards for a first class, luxury condominium in Brooklyn.”
The court dismissed the fourth cause of action stating, “it must be dismissed because it is duplicative of his first cause of action for breach of contract.” Therefore, “defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint is granted to the extent that it seeks dismissal of plaintiff’s fourth cause of action, and it is denied in all other respects.”
Read the court’s decision… Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
MSJ Granted Equates to a Huge Victory for BWB&O & City of Murrieta Fire Department!
May 30, 2022 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBWB&O Partner Tyler D. Offenhauser and Senior Associate Kevin B. Wheeler prevailed on their Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) on behalf of a public entity, the City of Murrieta Fire Department today!
As a matter of background, authorities were first called to a residence in Murrieta after a report of a gas line rupture. Firefighters and Southern California Gas Company responded to the call. As a crew from SoCalGas was trying to shut off the gas an explosion happened, leveling the home and killing 31-year-old SoCalGas employee Wade Kilpatrick. 30 surrounding homeowners have now alleged personal injuries, including TBI, as a result of the explosion. News agencies reported that Plaintiff Anthony Borel sustained a severe head injury and was placed in a coma. Plaintiff’s injuries included an epidural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage, bilateral corneal abrasions, right orbital fracture, right temporal fracture, right maxillary fracture, frontal skull fracture, 18% partial-thickness burns to the face, abdomen, arms and legs, and a severe TBI with cognitive deficiencies. Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $20,000,000.00.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
DC Metro Extension’s Precast Supplier Banned from Federal Contracts
November 16, 2020 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordStowe, Pa.-based Universal Concrete Products, which supplied hundreds of defective precast panels for the $2.7 billion Silver Line light rail extension in northern Virginia, has received a three-year ban on participating in federally financed transportation projects. Imposed by the Federal Transit Administration, the ban makes Universal ineligible for contracts, grants, loans or other financial assistance from agency of the federal government until the end of 2023.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Drafting or Negotiating A Subcontract–Questions To Consider
June 21, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to drafting and negotiating a subcontract, there are provisions that should be important to you from a risk assessment standpoint. From the subcontractor’s standpoint, below are questions you should ask, or issues you should consider, as you go through the subcontract. These are the same questions and issues that are also important to a contractor as the contractor will want to ensure these issues are included in the subcontract. By asking yourself these questions, you can check to see how the subcontract addresses these issues, and how the risk should be negotiated. Hopefully, you are working with counsel to make sure you understand what risk you are assuming and those provisions you want to try to push back on. Asking yourself these questions, or considering these questions, will help you go through the subcontract with a purpose based on the risk profile of the project and certain risk you don’t want to assume.
- Prime Contract –> Does the subcontract incorporate the prime contract? Make sure to request the prime contract since the subcontract will identify the prime contract as part of the Subcontract Documents and will require you to assume towards the contractor the same obligations the contractor is required to assume towards the owner.
- Scope of Work –> What is the scope of work? Is it clear. Make sure the scope is clear and you understand the scope.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Changes in the Law on Lien Waivers
November 16, 2020 —
Alan Paulk - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPAmong many things to look forward to in 2021, we can add a new lien law to the list. Effective January 1, 2021, Georgia’s Lien Statute will be modified so that lien waivers and releases are limited to “waivers and releases of lien and labor or material bond rights and shall not be deemed to affect any other rights or remedies of the claimant.” O.C.G.A. 44-14-366(a). This would mean that lien waivers only waive lien or bond rights and do not waive contractual rights to collect payment.
The new law is in reaction to a decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals in ALA Constr. Servs., LLC v. Controlled Access, Inc., 351 Ga. App. 841 (2019). In that case, a contractor signed an interim lien waiver at the time it submitted an invoice. The contractor did not receive payment, and it failed to timely record an affidavit of non-payment or a claim of lien. Subsequently, the contractor filed suit for breach of contract. The Georgia Court of Appeals held that the statutory form lien waiver was binding against the parties “for all purposes” and not just the purpose of preserving the right to file a lien. By such sweeping logic, the contractor’s breach of contract claim was denied.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alan Paulk, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Paulk may be contacted at
paulk@ahclaw.com
