This week’s round-up explores the cooling housing market and plummeting mortgage applications, potential tax-savings as a result of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and new developments in the multifamily sector.

• Rising interest rates are impacting affordability and cooling the U.S. housing market, driving mortgage applications to lowest levels in decades. (Nicole Friedman, The Wall Street Journal)
• A number of companies are going all out to entice workers back to the office, and as new data on New York City emerges, upscale offices might help do the trick. (Emily Peck, Axios)
• For real estate developers and investors across the U.S., tax-saving opportunities are popping up as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. (David Harlan & Laura Theiss, Dallas Business Journal)

The court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss because, although there was coverage for the property under the mortgagee's policy, the home owner was not a named or additional insured under the policy. Cart v. Great Am. Assur. Co., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6207 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023).

Plaintiffs' property was damage by Hurricanes Laura and Delta. Because Plaintiff failed to maintain homeowner's hazard insurance subject to the mortgage, Rushmore Management Services procured a force-placed lender policy on the property through Great American. Plaintiffs filed suit asserting breach contract claims. Great American moved to dismiss.

The Texas Dept. of Transportation and contractor Flatiron/Dragados LLC have “completely satisfied” four of the five main design safety concerns the state agency raised over the under-construction new Harbor Bridge in Corpus Christi, officials say.

Reprinted courtesy of James Leggate, Engineering News-Record

Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com

Read the full story...

Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that Partner, Jack Briscoe and Associate, Anoushe Marandjian obtained an order for summary judgment in a multi-theory liability action in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Plaintiff suffered severe injuries when he fell off a ladder while performing finish carpentry work at the home of BWB&O’s client. Plaintiff alleged various theories of liability against our client, the homeowner, including that: our client supplied a dangerous and defective ladder that, among other things, was unstable and not tall enough for the job; that the floor was covered with a slippery plastic sheeting hidden underneath construction paper which constituted a dangerous condition; that our client was his “employer” under the Labor Code; and that our client was civilly liable on the basis that he had directly hired Plaintiff, who was an unlicensed contractor. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleged that our client was vicariously liable for the conduct of his general contractor, who failed to maintain worker’s compensation insurance covering Plaintiff.

After several rounds of written discovery, which required extensive attempts to “meet and confer” over Plaintiff’s deficient responses, as well as the parties’ depositions, Mr. Briscoe and Ms. Marandjian filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on behalf of our client on various grounds, including that the Privette Doctrine precluded Plaintiff from recovery against our client and that our client was not negligent (there was no dangerous condition and if there was, our client did not create it or that it existed for a long enough time for our client to have discovered it and remedied it). Plaintiff’s Opposition to our Motion for Summary Judgment included a Declaration from an expert witness alleging various grounds upon which our client was liable.

Since last fall, news of layoffs in the technology sector have set off a ripple effect in a variety of other industries. Companies engaging in layoffs must be thoughtful and prepared when it comes to taking such action. While the construction industry generally has one of the highest layoff rates, and human resource personnel may be very knowledgeable with regard to related risks and exposure, there are a number of additional issues to consider when there are mass layoffs or closings. Further, expensive litigation awaits if companies are not meticulous in complying with state and federal laws regarding such large scale reductions in force.

Under federal law, the primary legislation governing mass layoffs and closing is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act which generally covers employers with 100 or more employees. This law was enacted to protect employees by requiring companies to provide 60 days’ notice to employees in advance of certain plant closings and mass layoffs. In addition, many states, such as California, Connecticut and New York, have enacted similar state laws, referred to as “mini-WARN” laws, which impose additional requirements, including increasing the length of the required advance notice and broadening the scope of employers to which the law applies.

Reprinted courtesy of Abby M. Warren and Sapna Jain, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.

Maryland’s controversial $7.6-billion plan to build tolled express lanes along two Washington, DC-area interstates has suffered a potentially fatal blow with the departure of the private development consortium from the project.

Reprinted courtesy of Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record

ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

Read the full story...

A recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, 58 F.4th 1250 (D.C. Circ. 2023), dealt with the issue of whether a subcontractor’s superintendent constitutes recoverable “labor” within the meaning of the Miller Act and compensable as a cost under the Miller Act that typically views labor as on-site physical labor.

The issue is that the Miller Act covers “[e]very person that has furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253 quoting 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(1). The Miller Act does not define labor. The subcontractor claimed labor includes actual superintending at the job site. The surety disagreed that a superintendent’s presence on a job site constitutes labor as the superintendent has to actually perform physical labor on the job site to constitute compensable labor under the Miller Act.

The subcontractor argued its subcontract and the government’s quality control standards required detailed daily reports that verified manpower, equipment, and work performed at the job site. It further claimed its superintendent had to continuously supervise and inspect construction activities on-site: “[the] superintendent had to be on-site to account for, among other things, hours worked by crew members, usage and standby hours for each piece of equipment, materials delivered, weather throughout the day, and all work performed. These on-site responsibilities reflected the government’s quality control standards, under which the superintendent as ‘the most senior site manager at the project, is responsible for the overall construction activities at the site…includ[ing] all quality, workmanship, and production of crews and equipment.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253-54.

This week’s round-up explores how Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funding is being deployed, mass timber is on the rise as decarbonization efforts continue, and commercial real estate remains distressed.

• With a flurry of high-profile projects, mass timber is gaining traction. (Jeffrey Steele, Commercial Property Executive)
• Commercial real estate is experiencing high levels of distress, with multiple owners defaulting on loans across the country. (Ted Glanzer, The Real Deal)
• Even with the recent downturn in cryptocurrency value, the metaverse real estate market is expected to continue to grow. (The Real Deal)

The court denied the insured's motion to dismiss after the insurer filed suit to compel an appraisal. Allied Trust Ins. Co. v. Tsang, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 352 (E.D. La. Jan. 3, 2023).

The insureds reported damage to their property arising from Hurricane Ida. The insurer, Allied Trust, investigated and determined that the covered damage was $1,978.18, which was less that the policy's deductible. The insureds estimated that the covered damage was $135,270.78.

Allied Trust invoked the appraisal provision. Allied Trust later filed suit alleging the insureds failed to comply and participate in the appraisal. The insureds moved to dismiss the complaint as moot. In their motion, the insureds argued that because they were now complying with the appraisal clause, all relief sought by Allied Trust had either already occurred or was currently underway.