Having lived in Philadelphia in 2013 when the four-story “Hoagie City” building collapsed during demolition and toppled the neighboring Salvation Army thrift store, killing seven people and injuring 12 others, I closely followed the recent civil trial that resulted in a $227 million settlement of the plaintiffs’ personal injury and wrongful death claims—a reported record
Stoel Rives is proud to have co-created and been the leading sponsor in the first annual “Oregon Women In Construction Conference” hosted by the University of Oregon last Thursday, April 27. The event was emceed by City of Portland construction attorney Molly Washington (who led all aspects of the event including topics, speakers, locale, etc.)
An anti-assignment provision in an insurance policy may prohibit the insured from assigning its rights under the policy. In my latest DJC article, I discuss a recent decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals, in which a claimant learned the hard way that Oregon courts will not hesitate to enforce an anti-assignment provision in an
Owners frequently require their contractors to name them as additional insureds. Owners and contractors often include requirements seeking to have the obligation to name them as additional insureds “flow down” to parties with whom they lack a direct contractual relationship (e.g., subconsultants, subcontractors, and suppliers). Despite the simplicity and appeal of this arrangement, contractual additional
An access easement is a key link in the legal chain when builders need to cross another’s land to develop property. A poorly drafted easement could hobble an entire development. Counsel should always be consulted to avoid the crippling impact of a development held hostage. Here are eight tips to remember in reviewing an access easement where the developer is seeking easement rights.
Many building developers utilize a single purpose entity limited liability company (an “LLC”) to purchase and develop property, such as an apartment complex, a subdivision, or a shopping center. Generally, an LLC’s debts, whether incurred or judicially imposed, belong only to the LLC, not to its members. However, an LLC’s individual member may be subject to personal liability under the doctrine of alter ego liability if (1) the individual and the LLC share a unity of interest and ownership such that the separate personalities of the two no longer exist, and (2) treating the debts as the LLC’s alone would impose an inequitable result that rewards the bad faith of the individual. A recent legal decision from Southern California highlights the dangers of disregarding an LLC’s corporate formalities during any construction project.
It is well known that under California law a real estate broker may act as a “dual agent” for both the seller and the buyer in a property transaction, provided both parties consent to the arrangement after full disclosure. In such representation, a dual agent owes fiduciary duties to both buyer and seller. Pursuant to a recent case, Horiike v. Coldwell Banker, these fiduciary obligations have now been expanded to also apply to “associate licensees” acting on behalf of a brokerage firm (or the salespeople of the given brokerage firm, as they are more commonly known). In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that when an agent representing a seller is working for the same firm as the agent representing the buyer, they are considered an “associate licensee” and must properly investigate and disclose all important information related to the property subject to the transaction.
In Horiike, the seller and buyer of a luxury Malibu mansion were represented by separate real estate agents. However, both of these agents were acting under the license of a single brokerage firm, Coldwell Banker. The seller’s agent had reason to know that residence’s square footage was significantly different than what was represented in the sales material. The buyer purchased the property and began making renovations. Upon reviewing a building permit previously obtained by the prior owner, the buyer discovered that the property had thousands of square feet less living space than what was disclosed in the marketing materials. Coldwell Banker claimed that because the seller’s agent exclusively represented the seller, there was no fiduciary duty to disclose information relating to the square footage to the buyer. The California Supreme Court thought otherwise.
The shared risk/reward concept of an integrated project delivery (IPD) arrangement is an increasingly attractive collaborative approach to construction projects. But IPD is still a relatively new concept with unique risks and challenges. In my recent article for the Daily Journal of Commerce, I discuss some key points that should be considered before undertaking
Following a presentation I made at a Seminar Group conference in Oregon on crane easements, one of my colleagues brought to my attention the recent NY case of Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co. The NY Court of Appeals found that damage caused to a tower crane when
At some point, almost every tenant of a commercial lease is asked to sign a Subordination, Non-Disturbance and Attornment Agreement (an “SNDA”). Generally, the SNDA comes from the landlord’s lender sometime after the tenant’s lease has been signed and the term has commenced. It can be a complex document with onerous provisions for a tenant, and, without adequate counsel early in the process, a tenant may have little room to negotiate or revise an SNDA.
At its core, an SNDA contains three key provisions. First, the tenant agrees that, notwithstanding that the lease may pre-date the lender’s mortgage, the lease is subordinate and junior to the mortgage. Second, the lender agrees that, so long as the tenant performs its obligations under the lease prior to the expiration of applicable cure periods, the lender will not disturb the tenant’s occupancy or terminate the tenant’s lease in the event of foreclosure or other enforcement by the lender. The third prong is attornment: the tenant’s agreement to accept the lender (or other purchaser at foreclosure or its successor or assign) as the landlord following foreclosure. This exchange of promises gives the lender a senior right to its collateral and gives the tenant security in its lease.