Flexible Seattle Off-Ramp Would Retain Shape in Quake
November 23, 2016 —
Tim Newcomb – Engineering News-RecordMoving from the lab to the field, a highway off-ramp bridge under construction in Seattle features memory-retaining metal rods and bendable concrete designed to provide the structure with flexibility sufficient to withstand a major seismic event.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tim Newcomb, Engineering News-RecordEngineering News-Record may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Packard Condominiums Settled with Kosene & Kosene Residential
August 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFResidents of the Packard Condominiums in Indianapolis, Indiana “have settled a two-year-old lawsuit with developer Kosene & Kosene Residential,” according to the Indianapolis Business Journal. The Homeowners association stated that “the agreement would lead to repayment of a construction loan and avoidance of a special assessment on residents.”
The association claimed to have spent “$3 million on ‘renovation and remediation’ of subpar construction of the condo building,” reported the Indianapolis Business Journal.
The article also declared that at least 25 subcontractors participated in the mediation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know
September 09, 2019 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPPremises liability is a relatively simple concept: landowners, lessors, and occupiers of land must keep their property safe and avoid causing harm to others. Premises liability lawsuits can arise from an array of circumstances including a slip and fall by an individual, a construction site accident, or an accident at occurs on a residential or commercial property. Under California law, everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property. California Civil Code 1714 (a). When an individual is injured on a property, the person harmed generally brings a lawsuit based upon a theory of negligence. Under this theory, an injured Plaintiff must prove the following:
- The defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property;
- The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
- The plaintiff was harmed; and
- The defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s harm.
California Civil Jury Instructions 1000.
When evaluating a negligence claim under the theory of premises liability, there are several key elements for both a Plaintiff and a Defendant to consider. First, the landowner, occupier, or lessor of a premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use or maintenance of the premises to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). Essentially, a landowner or occupier is required to take steps to keep individuals on the property free from harm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone
November 18, 2011 —
Derek J. Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn November 1, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the certified question of whether property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship is an “occurrence” for purposes of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011), the Tenth Circuit determined that because damage to property caused by poor workmanship is generally neither expected nor intended, it may qualify under Colorado law as an occurrence and liability coverage should apply. Id. at 2.
The short history of the Greystone case is as follows. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 2009), two contractors and one of their insurers brought an action against a second insurer after the second insurer refused to fund the contractors’ defense in construction defect actions brought by separate homeowners. Id. at 1215. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, relying on General Sec. Indem. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), granted summary judgment in favor of the second insurer on the basis that the homeowners’ complaints did not allege accidents that would trigger covered occurrences under the second insurer’s policies. Id. at 1220. Notably, the Greystone, General Security, and other similar decisions prompted the Colorado General Assembly to enact C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which was designed to provide guidance for courts interpreting perceived coverage conflicts between insurance policy provisions and exclusions. The statute requires courts to construe insurance policies to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible. C.R.S. § 13-20-808(5).
The Tenth Circuit began its analysis by determining whether C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which defines the term “accident” for purposes of Colorado insurance law, would have a retroactive effect, and thereby settle the question before the court. The Tenth Circuit gave consideration to several Colorado district court orders issued since the enactment of C.R.S. § 13-20-808 which have suggested that the statute does not apply retroactively, including Martinez v. Mike Wells Constr., No. 09cv227 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Mar. 1, 2011), and Colo. Pool. Sys., Inv. V. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 09cv836 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Oct. 4, 2010). The Tenth Circuit also attempted to ascertain the General Assembly’s intent behind the term “all insurance policies currently in existence...” Greystone, No. 09-1412, at 12. The Tenth Circuit determined that the General Assembly would have more clearly stated its intentions for the term if it was supposed to apply retroactively to expired policies, rather than those still running. Id. at 12-13. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit decided that C.R.S. § 13-20-808 did not apply retroactively, but noted that “the retrospective application of the statute is not necessarily unconstitutional.” Id. at 9, 11-14. As such, the Tenth Circuit advised that it was required to decide the question presented in the appeal under the principles of Colorado insurance law. Id. at 15.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Legal Matters Escalate in Aspen Condo Case
January 28, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFOn January 3rd of this year, Chad Abraham reported in the Aspen Daily News that the Ute City building—a condominium on Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado—“lacks proper entryways to apartments and a basement-level nightclub space for both tenants and the disabled.”
The owners, Michael Sedoy and Natalia Shvachko, have been sued by the city after refusing “to allow access to an eastside staircase and elevator for other building residents and disabled patrons of a basement restaurant,” according to the Aspen Daily News. “Their stance has forced the other tenants and the disabled to use a westside, alleyway service entrance, according to the city.”
Sedoy and Schvachko’s attorney retorts in court documents “that the city approved of a building map and declarations that allow access through the westside entry in the alley.”
Furthermore, in another article by Abraham published in the Aspen Daily News on January 25th, he relates that the owners had filed more than “more than 30 noise complaints with the police and the city’s environmental health department about eateries and bars around their home on Restaurant Row. That led to a trial for the Aspen Brewing Co., which a jury acquitted in about 10 minutes last week.”
In addition, the couple is being sued by Mountain Home Window Fashions, the Ute City building general contractor. According to the lawsuit as reported by the Daily Aspen News, Mountain Home claims they are owed $12,332. The owners have counter-sued, alleging “that there were defects in Mountain Home Window Fashions’ work” and that one of the employees “made unauthorized charges on Sedoy’s credit card.”
Read the full story, January 3rd article ...
Read the full story, January 25th article ...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Executive Orders Expedite the Need for Contractors to Go Green
August 22, 2022 —
Vince Calio - Construction ExecutiveThe importance of going green just became even more crucial for small construction companies, as President Joe Biden signed three executive orders on June 6, 2022, aimed at boosting clean energy construction projects and the use of domestically manufactured clean energy technology.
Specifically, the orders require the U.S. Department of Energy to deploy the use of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to expand American manufacturing of solar panel parts, environmentally friendly building insulation, heat pumps, equipment for making clean power-generating fuels and critical power grid infrastructure. Federal construction contracts will also require local contractors to use eco-friendly materials.
According to an announcement from the White House, the order will encourage the use of project labor agreements that offer wages “above and beyond the prevailing rate and include local hire provisions.” The order will also encourage clean construction projects in low-income areas burdened by legacy pollution.
Reprinted courtesy of
Vince Calio, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eastern District of Pennsylvania Confirms Carrier Owes No Duty to Defend Against Claims for Faulty Workmanship
April 05, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Marianne Bradley - White and Williams LLPOn March 17, 2021, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued its decision in Estate Chimney & Fireplace v. IFG Companies & Burlington Insurance Company, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50360 (E.D. Pa. March 17, 2021), finding that an insurance carrier had no duty to defend its insured where the allegations in the underlying litigation involved claims of faulty workmanship.
Estates Chimney & Fireplace, LLC (Estates Chimney) had performed inspections and replaced chase covers for a number of chimneys in a condominium complex. Chase covers are pieces of metal, which are placed over chimneys in order to keep out environmental elements. Several condominium owners sued Estates Chimney, alleging that Estates Chimney had improperly installed, then improperly replaced, their chimney caps, which caused their chimneys to cease working properly. As a result, the underlying plaintiffs allegedly incurred costs to repair or replace the chimney caps and chimneys.
Estates Chimney sought coverage from its carrier, who denied coverage based upon its determination that the claims in the underlying lawsuits arose out of faulty workmanship, which did not result in damage to the property of a third party. Estates Chimney filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it was entitled to coverage under the policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the Eastern District ruled in favor of the carrier.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Marianne Bradley, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Bradley may be contacted at bradleym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Coronavirus, Zoom Meetings and Now a CCPA Class Action
April 13, 2020 —
Jeffrey M. Dennis & Heather H. Whitehead - Newmeyer DillionWith the ongoing COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the Coronavirus) pandemic and orders to “stay at home” in place across the United States, most organizations have been and continue to utilize remote arrangements. The software program known as “Zoom Meetings”, has become immensely popular as a means to facilitate meetings amongst employees, team members and other consultants rather than meeting in person.
Despite such status, Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (Zoom) has been named as a defendant in one of the first, and certainly the most high-profile, class action lawsuits to be filed in California alleging violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA).
The Class Action
The complaint filed alleges that Zoom did not protect the personal information of its users as it collected personal information and then shared such information to third parties, including Facebook, without adequate disclosures to users. The allegations specifically refer to Zoom’s boasting about its maintenance of users’ privacy and that they can be trusted with user data. Further, it is noted that there is no disclosure provided in the Zoom Privacy Policy that disclosed that personal information was being shared with Facebook and other third parties.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeffrey M. Dennis, Newmeyer Dillion and
Heather H. Whitehead, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Dennis may be contacted at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com
Ms. Whitehead may be contacted at heather.whitehead@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
