Premises Liability: Everything You Need to Know

Blue check mark

Premises liability lawsuits can arise from an array of circumstances.

September 9, 2019
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

Premises 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:

  1. The defendant owned, leased, occupied, or controlled the property;
  2. The defendant was negligent in the use or maintenance of the property;
  3. The plaintiff was harmed; and
  4. 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.


Know What You’ve Built: An Interview with Timo Makkonen of Congrid

Exterior of modern high rise

Congrid operates in Finland, Sweden, and the U.K.

September 9, 2019
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business

Construction contains thousands of big and small tasks. How can a client and contractor know if they have all been completed as intended? Congrid offers an answer to that question.

Congrid is a Finnish construction software developer. The company provides software for punch lists, quality and safety audits, and design document distribution. It operates in Finland, Sweden, and the U.K.

The company’s founding team members, collectively, offer a combination of expertise in construction management, software development, and marketing and sales. “I come from the electronics industry. I came into this business through my old schoolmates,” says Timo Makkonen, Congrid’s CEO. “My specialty is business development and leadership.”

Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi


White House’s New Draft Guidance Limiting NEPA Review of Greenhouse Gas Impacts Is Not So New or Limiting

Illustration of white house

The White House CEQ issued draft guidance clarifying the treatment of GHG.

September 9, 2019
Norman F. Carlin & Eric Moorman - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog

On June 21, 2019, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued draft guidance clarifying the treatment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in environmental impact reviews of federal projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Those wishing to comment on the draft must submit comments within 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

The draft guidance is part of the Trump Administration’s continuing efforts to streamline the permitting and environmental review process for infrastructure and energy projects. It replaces NEPA guidance on climate impacts issued in 2016 by the Obama administration, which was rescinded by President Trump’s Executive Order 13783 early in 2017. Although some initial reports suggest that the new draft guidance significantly pulls back from the Obama administration’s approach, on closer comparison it does not depart that much from the major recommendations of the rescinded guidance.

In general, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing to undertake, approve or fund a major federal action to evaluate its environmental impacts, including both direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects; to consider alternatives and mitigation; and to discuss cumulative impacts resulting from the incremental effects of the project when added to those of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The new draft and the rescinded 2016 guidance contain similar recommendations regarding an agency’s obligations to consider indirect and cumulative GHG impacts, as well as on the use of cost-benefit analysis and the contentious Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) metric.

Reprinted courtesy of Norman F. Carlin, Pillsbury and Eric Moorman, Pillsbury
Mr. Carlin may be contacted at norman.carlin@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Moorman may be contacted at eric.moorman@pillsburylaw.com


OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

Construction worker in site

Multiple employers, and their employees, on the same worksite can result in an increased risk of safety hazards.

September 9, 2019
Phillip C. Bauknight - Construction Executive

Multi-employer worksites are a frequent occurrence in the construction industry as employees from various companies often occupy the same site while a project is being completed. While the need for employees from different companies may be necessary to perform the various tasks required by a project, the presence of multiple employers, and their employees, on the same worksite can result in an increased risk of safety hazards.

Companies performing construction work should be, and generally are, aware of OSHA’s ability to issue citations for workplace safety violations. What many companies may not know, however, is that OSHA’s ability to cite employers is not limited to workplace conditions that are unsafe only to that employer’s direct employees. Rather, OSHA also has the ability to cite an employer, and often does issue such citations, for conditions that could result in injury or death to another company’s employees.

The policy which provides OSHA with this citation ability is CPL 02-00-124 and is called the Multi-Employer Citation Policy (the “Policy”). Under the language of the Policy, OSHA has the ability to cite multiple employers for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act for the same hazardous workplace condition. Critically, responsibilities under the Policy do not depend on the employer’s job title but are determined by the employer’s role.

Reprinted courtesy of Phillip C. Bauknight, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.

Mr. Bauknight may be contacted at pbauknight@fisherphillips.com


Amendments to California Insurance Code to Require Enhanced Claims Handling Requirements for Claims Arising Out Of Catastrophic Events

California palm trees over sunset

Senate Bill 240 - The Insurance Adjuster Act of 2019

September 4, 2019
Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq. & Ravi R. Mehta, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin

Senator Bill Dodd, who represents Napa County and surrounding areas in the California Senate, has recently introduced Senate Bill 240, known colloquially as The Insurance Adjuster Act of 2019. S.B. 240 would amend the California Insurance Code to streamline and organize claim processing, particularly during a state of emergency / catastrophic events. The proposal is in response to a series of devastating wildfires which ravaged the Sonoma County and Napa Valley wine country during the 2017 fire season (Atlas, Tubbs, and Nun fires). Many of Senator Dodd’s constituents reported difficulty in navigating the claim process due to multiple claim professionals handling a single claim, many of whom were outside of California, and many of whose capabilities were challenged.

S.B. 240 would direct the Department of Insurance to issue annual notices setting forth legal developments as they relate to property insurance policies, including best practices for evaluating damage caused by an emergency, and requires out-of-state claims professionals to certify, under penalty of perjury, that they have read these notices along with claim adjusting literature also prepared by the Department of Insurance.

S.B. 240 would also require insurers to designate a primary point of contact for their customers during a state of emergency until the claim is closed or litigation is initiated. While the proposed legislation would not prohibit multiple claims professionals handling a single claim, it would provide for training standards issued by the Department of Insurance on how best to handle claims in a state of emergency.

Further, S.B. 240 would require claims professionals who are not licensed in California (1) to be supervised by a licensed California claims professional, and (2) to read and understand the annual emergency claim adjusting literature issued by the Department of Insurance within 15 calendar days of beginning adjusting of claims in California.

The bill passed the Senate by unanimous vote and is pending in the Assembly. The bill is also supported by Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Accordingly, the bill is expected to pass the Legislature. Once enacted, S.B. 240 would significantly elevate claim adjusting requirements related to emergencies, such as natural disasters, by placing greater oversight in the Department of Insurance, and greater responsibility on claims professional within and outside of California. How pragmatic these requirements are and what practical impact they will have on the industry are developments which we will follow and provide further commentary as this bill makes its way through the California legislature and into the California Insurance Code.

Reprinted courtesy of Jon A.Turigliatto, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. A.Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com


This VC Firm Is Persuading Real Estate Rivals to Become Friends

September 4, 2019
Patrick Clark & Lily Katz - Bloomberg

Fifth Wall employed an unusual strategy to raise its second venture fund: It got rival real estate companies to pool resources to invest in property-technology startups.

Los Angeles-based Fifth Wall said Wednesday that it closed the $503 million fund by bringing together mall owners, hotel companies and office developers. Four major U.S. homebuilders invested in the fund -- D.R. Horton Inc., Lennar Corp., PulteGroup Inc. and Toll Brothers Inc. -- as well as competing brokerages CBRE Group Inc. and Cushman & Wakefield Plc.


From Duct Taping to Reinventing Construction – an Interview with Steve Holzer

September 4, 2019
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business

Construction tech is hot. The question is: Are the dollars are invested in contech reinventing the industry or are they merely adding patches to outdated processes? Steve Holzer, an industry expert and Product Evangelist at BIMobject, shares his views in this interview.

Steve Holzer’s LinkedIn profile details industry experience that starts from 1976 when he became the president and owner of Holzer Construction Company. Since then, he’s been on the cutting edge of AEC technology and, today, is an acknowledged tech expert and visionary.

Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi


Firming in the Construction Insurance Market

September 4, 2019
David Bowcott - Construction Executive

To manage risk, companies can draw on two key risk management areas. The first is the use of risk controls or those solutions that prevent and mitigate risk. The second is the use of risk finance solutions which provide capital in the event certain risks manifest and cause damage (financial loss) to organizations. These two risk management areas feed each other. Those solutions that are utilized to prevent and mitigate risk (the risk controls) reduce the likelihood and severity of claims against the risk finance solutions.

From a risk finance perspective, the claims made against the risk finance products are a rich source of data which can be utilized to create new and improved risk controls. The interplay between risk controls and risk finance is a virtuous cycle of risk management, and organizations involved in the construction sector may benefit by ensuring these two risk management areas are closely linked to improve the risk management platform their organizations and for projects they are part of.

Reprinted courtesy of David Bowcott, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.

Mr. Bowcott may be contacted at david.bowcott@aon.ca


CLSA North American Construction Law Symposium III

September 4, 2019
Beverley BevenFlorez – CDJ Staff

Attendees of this event will have the opportunity of speaking before and learning from peers in a small group setting. With only 14 speaker slots, the seminar is designed to allow for personal interaction and discussion on all of the presentations, as well as 14 additional slots for observers/contributors. Observers/contributors will participate in the discussions but will not present a topic of their own. A private dinner will be open to attendees and guests on the night preceding the symposium, on December 4th, which will coincide with the 2019 Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree Lighting.

December 5th, 2019
The Harvard Club of New York City
35 W 44th St
New York, NY 10036


Arizona Purchaser Dwelling Actions Are Subject to a New Construction

New word on newspaper illustration

Arizona recently amended its Purchaser Dwelling Action statute.

September 4, 2019
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation Strategist

Arizona recently amended its Purchaser Dwelling Action statute to, among other things, involve all contractors in the process, establish the parties’ burdens of proof, add an attorney fees provision, establish procedural requirements and limit a subcontractor’s indemnity exposure. The governor signed the bill—2019 Ariz. SB 1271—on April 10, 2019, and the changes go into effect and apply, retroactively “to from and after June 30, 2019.” The following discussion details some of the changes to the law.

Notice to Contractors and Proportional Liability

Under the revised law, a “Seller” who receives notice of a Purchaser Dwelling Action (PDA) from a residential dwelling purchaser pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-1363* has to promptly forward the notice to all construction professionals—i.e. architects, contractors, subcontractors, etc., as defined in A.R.S. § 12-1361(5)—that the Seller reasonably believes are responsible for an alleged construction defect. A.R.S. § 12-1363(A). Sellers can deliver the notice by electronic means. Once construction professionals are placed on notice, they have the same right to inspect, test and repair the property as the Seller originally placed on notice. A.R.S. § 12-1362(B), (C).

To the extent that the matter ultimately goes to suit, A.R.S. § 12-1632(D) dictates that, subject to Arizona Rules of Court, construction professionals “shall be joined as third-party defendants.” To establish liability, the purchaser has the burden of proving the existence of a construction defect and the amount of damages. Thereafter, the trier of fact determines each defendant’s or third-party defendant’s relative degree of fault and allocates the pro rata share of liability to each based on their relative degree of fault. However, the seller, not the purchaser, has the burden of proving the pro rata share of liability for any third-party defendant. A.R.S. § 12-1632(D).

Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com


Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Selected To The Best Lawyers In America© And Orange County "Lawyer Of The Year" 2020

3d stick figures crossing finishing line

10 Newmeyer Dillion attorneys were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020. 

September 3, 2019
Newmeyer Dillion

Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that ten of the firm's attorneys were recently recognized in their respective practice areas in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020. In addition, two attorneys have been named Best Lawyers ® 2020 "Lawyer of the Year." Greg Dillion was recognized by Best Lawyers as the 2020 Construction Law "Lawyer of the Year" award winner, while Thomas Newmeyer was recognized by Best Lawyers as the 2020 Litigation - Real Estate "Lawyer of the Year" award winner.

Attorneys named to The Best Lawyers in America, include:

Jason Moberly Caruso
Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs, Product Liability Litigation – Plaintiffs

Michael S. Cucchissi
Real Estate Law

Jeffrey M. Dennis
Insurance Law

Gregory L. Dillion
Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Insurance Law, Litigation – Construction, Litigation - Real Estate

Joseph A. Ferrentino
Litigation – Construction, Litigation - Real Estate

Jon Janecek
Real Estate Law

Thomas F. Newmeyer
Commercial Litigation, Litigation - Real Estate

John O'Hara
Litigation – Construction

Bonnie T. Roadarmel
Insurance Law

Jane Samson
Real Estate Law

Newmeyer Dillion is immensely proud of our lawyers, whose consistent recognition demonstrates their contributions to the firm, our clients and the legal profession.

With a history of over 35 years, Best Lawyers is the oldest peer review publication within the legal profession. Universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence, Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation in which leading lawyers confidentially evaluate their professional peers. Their listings are published in 77 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections. Only one lawyer for each specialty and location is recognized as the "Lawyer of the Year," an award given to the individual with the highest overall peer-feedback for a specific practice area and geographic region.

About Newmeyer Dillion

For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients' business growth. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.


As the Term Winds Down, Several Important Regulatory Cases Await the U.S. Supreme Court

Vintage American Flag with white border blurring it

The CEQ issued draft guidance clarifying the treatment of GHG emissions in environmental impact reviews of federal projects under the NEPA.

September 3, 2019
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel

The Supreme Court will be deciding some very important regulatory law cases in the new few weeks as the term winds down.

CERCLA Circled

Last week, the Court granted a petition to review a significant CERCLA case, Atlantic Richfield Company v. Christian, et al., decided by the Supreme Court of Montana on state law grounds. This case involves state litigation which could result in a cleanup whose scope is allegedly inconsistent with an ongoing and expensive federal CERCLA cleanup at the Anaconda Smelter site. CERCLA basically provides that no one may challenge an ongoing Superfund cleanup, yet this state common law proceeding seeking a cleanup of the plaintiff’s homes and properties arguably threatens the EPA-approved cleanup remedy. ARCO filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which the Court has now granted despite the Solicitor General’s brief which argued that the Court should wait to see the results of the Montana trial. (It is unusual for the Court to reject the advice of the Solicitor General.)

Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com


Bid Bonds: The First Preventative Measure for Your Project

Bid Bond contract peaking through hole in another paper

Bid bonds guarantee that the selected low-bidder will officially enter into the contract at a later date.

September 3, 2019
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings

For this week’s Guest Post Friday, Construction Law Musings welcomes Danielle Rodabaugh. Danielle is a principal for Surety Bonds.com, an agency that issues surety bonds to individuals and businesses across the nation. She writes articles to clarify bonding rules and regulations for those who have a stake in the surety bond industry–from contractors to telemarketers, and every professional in between.

In construction we often value performance and payment bonds when considering how to protect the financial investments put into a project. We do so because these bonds provide a legal financial guarantee that the selected contractor will fulfill the contract. However, a third, equally protective kind of construction bond is often overlooked.

Before an official contract has been agreed to and successfully executed, bid bonds guarantee that the selected low-bidder will officially enter into the contract at a later date. Bidders must submit a bid bond with their bid. Without doing so, the bidder becomes non-responsive–or an invalid candidate. Sometimes we overlook the benefits provided by this kind of Virginia surety bond, and yet they frequently act as the only legal protection for a project prior to groundbreaking.

Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com


The Importance of Preliminary Notices on Private Works Projects

Public and Private buttons

Did you serve the Notice within 20 days after first furnishing labor, service, equipment or materials to the job site?

September 3, 2019
William L. Porter - Porter Law Group

Time and time again I receive calls from subcontractors and suppliers who find themselves faced with a customer who is either unwilling or unable to pay for labor or materials supplied for a private works project. As an attorney, the first question I usually ask is “did you serve a Preliminary Notice?” The second question I usually ask is “did you serve the Notice within twenty (20) days after first furnishing labor, service, equipment or materials to the job site?” The answers to these questions will often determine the ability to collect on the claim.

The excuses for failing to serve the Preliminary Notice range from “for the last ten years the customer has always paid on time” to “I didn’t want to imply the contractor was not going to pay me” to “it is too much trouble to do on every job” or, simply, “I forgot”. Contractors and suppliers are well advised that any subcontractor or supplier who fails to properly and timely serve a Preliminary Notice is depriving itself of the most powerful tool available for compelling payment of construction related debt on a private works project. For all but the smallest contracts failure to serve the Preliminary Notice is also a violation of contractors’ license law and constitutes grounds for discipline by the Contractor State License Board, up to and including suspension of the contractor’s license.

Most of these rules are found in California Civil Code Section 8200-8216. The requirements of these sections are far too numerous to itemize here. Suffice it to say every contractor, subcontractor and construction material supplier to private construction projects should be familiar with these sections of the California Civil Code. They set forth most of the rules which relate to Preliminary Notices on private construction projects. Some of the most important features are as follows:

Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com


Traub Lieberman Partners Lenhardt and Smith Obtain Directed Verdict in Broward County Failed Repair Sinkhole Trial

Trophy sitting on hill with green background (illustration)

Michael Lenhardt and Burks Smith won a Directed Verdict at trial in a dispute over Sinkhole Loss coverage in Broward County Circuit Court.

September 3, 2019
Michael Francis Lenhardt & Burks A. Smith, III - Traub Lieberman

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, Traub Lieberman Partners Michael Lenhardt and Burks Smith won a Directed Verdict at trial in a dispute over Sinkhole Loss coverage in Broward County Circuit Court. The lawsuit arose out of a claim for Breach of Contract involving an alleged “failed repair” of a 2005 sinkhole at the insureds’ property. The Plaintiffs argued that their Policy Limits did not apply because the carrier allegedly undertook the subsurface repairs, relying on Drew v. Mobile USA Ins. Co., 920 So.2d 832 (Fla. 4thDCA 2006). The Plaintiffs asserted that because the insurance company allegedly hired the below ground repair company, a “new contract” was formed, and the Plaintiffs should be entitled to limitless repairs to their home, notwithstanding the Policy Limits. This argument obviously presented the carrier with very significant exposure.

Attorneys Lenhardt and Smith provided a vigorous defense for the insurance company at trial, during which they presented the jury with evidence that the carrier did not, in fact, hire the subsurface repair company. They further established to the jury that the insureds actually signed a contract with the repair company directly, and that the defendant did not invoke the Our Option repair clause of the Policy. After the Plaintiffs rested their case, Mr. Lenhardt and Mr. Smith moved the Court for entry of a directed verdict. The defense argued to the Court that the Plaintiffs could not prove their case to the jury based upon the facts presented as a matter of law, thus entitling the insurance company to a defense verdict.

Reprinted courtesy of Michael Francis Lenhardt, Traub Lieberman and Burks A. Smith, III, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Lenhardt may be contacted at mlenhardt@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Smith may be contacted at bsmith@tlsslaw.com


Crews Tested By Rocky Ground, Utility Challenges

Rocky landscape

The largest construction project in UTSA's history.

September 3, 2019
Louise Poirier - Engineering News-Record

Problematic utility locations and difficult ground conditions required the project team to develop innovative solutions on the University of Texas at San Antonio’s $95-million Science and Engineering Building.

Reprinted courtesy of Louise Poirier, Engineering News-Record

Ms. Poirier may be contacted at poirierl@enr.com


Garlock Five Years Later: Recent Decisions Illustrate Ongoing Obstacles to Asbestos Trust Transparency

Gold number five under spot light

Amy E. Vulpio discusses the results of In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC.

September 3, 2019
Amy E. Vulpio - Complex Insurance Coverage Reporter

In In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, 504 B.R. 71 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2014), the court confirmed what many asbestos defendants and their insurers long suspected: that “the withholding of exposure evidence by plaintiffs and their lawyers was significant and had the effect of unfairly inflating the recoveries against Garlock” and other defendants. This “startling pattern of misrepresentation” included plaintiffs’ attorneys who, out of “perverted ethical duty,” counseled their clients to file claims against multiple trusts without valid factual grounds for so doing. Such “double dipping” and other abuse not only harms asbestos defendants and insurers, but also dilutes recoveries for legitimate claims. Now – five years after Garlock – the Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a coordinated initiative to fight asbestos trust fraud and mismanagement. However, a series of recent bankruptcy court rulings suggests that this initiative stumbled out of the gate by focusing on the wrong issues. Asbestos defendants and their insurers can learn from the DOJ’s missteps.

In November 2017, invoking Garlock, 20 state attorneys general wrote to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to devote DOJ resources to fighting asbestos trust abuse. A September 13, 2018 DOJ press release announced an initiative to increase the transparency and accountability of asbestos trusts. Through its United States Trustee Program (UST), the DOJ objected to the debtors’ proposed legal representative for future claims (FCR) in several Chapter 11 cases involving asbestos liabilities: Lawrence Fitzpatrick in Duro Dyne and James L. Patton, Jr. in Maremont, Fairbanks and Imerys Talc.

Ms. Vulpio may be contacted at vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com


Power to the Office Worker

Two businessmen working late in office

For decades, Senate has been at the forefront of digitalizing construction and property management.

September 3, 2019
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business

Modern offices consist of variable spaces that cater to personal preferences and functional needs. The indoor air quality is typically not as adaptive to various tasks, which can lead to suboptimal worker performance and dissatisfaction. A pilot project led by Senate Properties used BIM and building data to develop an operational model that helps workers get a better grip on indoor conditions.

Around 55,000 government employees work in the 9,000 premises managed by Senate Properties, a Finnish, state-owned enterprise. For decades, Senate has been at the forefront of digitalizing construction and property management. They routinely use BIM both in new building projects and in retrofitting. Over the last few years, Senate Properties has developed and piloted the use of BIM for the purpose of maintenance and operations.

Testing BIM as a Property Management Platform

“We want to improve the work conditions of office users, and consequently employee satisfaction and work productivity,” says Esa Halmetoja, Senior Expert at Senate Properties. “In this pilot project, we wanted to demonstrate how to use a building information model as a platform for locating service requests and performance monitoring in a three-dimensional environment.”

Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi


Saudi Prince’s Megacity Shows Signs of Life

San Diego city skyline

It’s been two years since Mohammed bin Salman announced his $500 billion project.

September 3, 2019
Vivian Nereim & Donna Abu-Nasr - Bloomberg

The walls are covered with graffiti in the sleepy fishing village of Khurayba. There are supplications to God, advertisements for vacation rentals and house painters. Near the local school, there’s a scribbled plea: “Open the windows of hope and drive out the despair.”

It’s here in northwest Saudi Arabia that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman wants investors to put their money to realize his $500 billion vision for the region. Called “Neom,” it promises to be the most freewheeling part of the kingdom, with state-of-the-art resorts and smart technologies run by robots.

But it’s also here where the risks to the 33-year-old prince’s grand plan for his country are writ large. Neom is the boldest pillar of a social and economic transformation that so far has seen at least as many delays as successes. Indeed, the question since the prince announced the vast development at an extravaganza in 2017 has been whether it can become a reality.


Hudson River PCB Cleanup Lands Back in Court

River running through cave

NY asked the Albany U.S. District Court to vacate the certificate of completion.

September 3, 2019
Mary B. Powers - Engineering News-Record

As it previously had warned, New York state on Aug. 21 filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency seeking to reverse its certification that General Electric Co.'s removal of PCBs from the Hudson River was complete, despite the agency’s five-year review finding that the cleanup was not adequate to protect human health and the environment.

ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com



714.701.9180

Arrange No Cost Consultation

johnspringman

markchapman

johntolman

mattnardella

alansturm

davesuggs










Construction Defect News Channel - The Latest News and Video From The Construction Defect Journal

Construction defect and claims video channel.  For access to full construction defect channel content visit the construction defect channel homepage at... ConstructionDefectChannel
What is an Insurance Exclusion?

Andrew Witik of Christensen Hsu Sipes discusses the current trends in state courts’ interpretation of the defined term “occurrence” in a CGL policy.

Hurricane Dorian Leaves 'Apocalyptic' Damage in the Bahamas

John Yang of the PBS News Hour reports and joins Judy Woodruff from Nassau with an update on a disaster whose scope of destruction is still coming into focus.

Cracking Up: Investigating Australia's Apartment Building Crisis

ABC News In-depth Four Corners investigates Australia's apartment building crisis -- from shoddy workmanship to lax laws.

T-Shaped Dark Megalith Hosts Back-to-Basics Young Family Home

Kirsten Dirksen showcases how Tilemachos Andrianopoulos elevated a concrete prism freeing up the space below for indoor/outdoor living and dining rooms.

Construction Contracts - Part 1 (Contract Documents and Flow Down Provisions)

Edward Farrell of Cummins & White, LLP focuses on civil litigation in the areas of commercial and business disputes, real estate, construction law, and professional liability.

10 Unusual but Awesome Tiny Homes & Vacation Cabins

Minds Eyes Design explores 10 unusual but awesome tiny homes and vacation cabins.

Construction Defect Journal Archives - Recent CD News for Construction Claims Professionals

 

Construction Defect Journal is aggregated from a variety of news sources, article submissions, contributors, and information from industry professionals.

No content on this site should be construed as legal advice or expert opinion. By viewing this site you agree to be bound by its terms and conditions

 

Copyright 2019 - Construction Defect Journal – All Rights Reserved