Posted
by

Posted
by

Eager to get its share of the billions of dollars looking for infrastructure investments in the United States, Florida is set to be the next state to enact new public-private partnership legislation. Florida House bill 85 authorizes expanded opportunities for public-private partnerships to develop projects that have traditionally been public-sector only.

After clearing the Florida House by a wide margin, HB 85 received unanimous approval from the Florida Senate. This leaves the matter to Governor Scott, who has already voiced his support for the measure. Unless Scott vetoes the bill, it will become effective on July 1, 2013.

HB 85 promotes the private construction, financing, and/or operation of green or brown field projects that satisfy traditionally public sector obligations. The bill establishes procedures for those developments by the state and authorizes counties to use public-private partnerships to develop county assets. This latter aspect is a force-multiplier for the State, by vastly expanding the number and nature of viable projects that can be undertaken.

Those familiar with Florida’s key infrastructure needs believe that HB 85 could be a boost for those interested in the further development of the I-4 corridor (linking Tampa, Orlando, and Daytona Beach) and even offer a break-through in the discussions about a the renovation to Sun Life Stadium.

Posted
by

There are quite a few major development projects taking place in the Bay Area. Here are some highlights that are catching the attention of both the Bay Area development community and the public at large:

Posted
by
  • Demolition of “The Coop,” a 113-year-old building on Michigan State University’s campus, was delayed after a fire broke out on the building’s roof this week.

Posted
by

Last month New York’s Supreme Court, Appellate Division 1st Department affirmed the Supreme Court, New York County’s decision granting partial summary judgment in favor of an insured freezer manufacturer, I.J White Corp., which sought defense and indemnity under a CGL policy for claims against it brought by Hill Country Bakery for breach of contract, breach of warranties, and fraudulent inducement. See I.J. White v. Columbia Casualty Co., 2013 N.Y. Slip Op 02500 (NY A.D., 1st Dept., April 16, 2013). The court held that Hill Country’s underlying complaint against I.J. White seeking damages because of a defect in its freezer system alleged both an “occurrence “and “property damage” within the meaning of the policy, triggering the insurer’s duty to defend.

Hill Country, a maker and distributor of baked goods, bought a spiral freezer system from I.J. White which was to freeze freshly baked goods within 150 minutes to a temperature necessary for proper handling and packaging. Once installed, however, the freezer failed to freeze the cakes as required, which became evident when workers cut into the cakes as part of the packaging process.

Hill Country sued the freezer manufacture for damages, including for the eight months its $21 million facility (specifically constructed to house the freezer equipment) was out of use and for the additional $1.9 million it spent fixing the defective equipment.
I.J. White tendered the claim to its CGL insurer, Columbia Casualty Co., which took the position that the alleged defects in the freezer did not qualify as an “occurrence” and that there was no “property damage” within the meaning of the policy and denied coverage.

The Supreme Court and the 1st Department on appeal disagreed. As the appellate court explained, while CGL policies like the one at issue do not insure against faulty workmanship in the work product itself, they do insure against property damage caused by faulty workmanship to something other than the work product. And here, that something other was Hill Country’s cakes. Distinguishing George A. Fuller v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 200 A.D. 255 (NY AD 1st Dept 1994), in which the court said the insured contractor sought coverage for damage to its own work, the court said here the insured seeks coverage for damage to the cakes, not to its freezer. This damage, according to the court, “is precisely the kind that [the insurer’s] CGL policy contemplated, and therefore, the complaint properly alleges an ‘occurrence’ within the meaning of the policy.” Additionally, the damages for loss of use of the facility specifically built to house the freeze fall squarely within the policy’s definition of property damage, which includes “[l]oss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.” The court rejected the insurer’s argument that it was the act of cutting into the unfrozen cakes that ruined the product rather than the defective freezer itself as a distinction without a difference: “the fact remains that Hill Country’s product was rendered unusable as a direct result of the alleged defect in plaintiff’s freezer.”

Posted
by
THE QUESTION: (A question pondered as far back as October 1981.) What do you do when the only way for 16,000 cars to get from point A to point B each weekday is to go through congested streets of downtown Miami?

THE ANSWER: The Port of Miami Tunnel (POMT) – a $1 billion tunnel connecting I-395 to the Port of Miami.

POMTProjectSiteMapSMALL.jpg

THE DILEMMA: How exactly does one build a tunnel (twin tunnels actually) approximately 4,2000 feet long, almost 40 feet in diameter, and 120 feet below the surface of the water?

Enter “Harriet” – the $45 million German-built Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) that has spent the past 18 months digging through the earth near Miami, leaving twin tunnels in her wake. The massive TBM that would build this underground network was aptly named, by the Miami-Dade County Girl Scouts, after Harriet Tubman.

Harriet was built and tested by Herrenknecht in Germany, then disassembled and packed for her transatlantic voyage to the U.S. in the Summer of 2011. Harriet is the largest diameter soft ground tunnel boring machine in the United States. In an assembled state, she is 428.5 feet long and her cutter head has an outside diameter of 42.3 feet. That’s longer than a football field and as high as a 4 story building.

The process for excavating and building the twin tunnels is not an easy one – even for Harriet. The “Tunneling Process” is described as follows:

The cutter head rotates as a cutting wheel boring out the underground area, while the trailing gear contains the electrical, mechanical, guidance systems and additional support equipment. Excavated material is carried back through the trailing gear on an enclosed conveyor belt and deposited outside the tunnel entrance, or portal. It is moved off‐site to be used as fill material and is disposed in a manner consistent with applicable environmental rules and regulations. As the TBM moves forward it erects precast concrete liners (known as segments) that become the finished wall of the tunnel. Once the liners are in place, grout is pumped into the space between it and the excavated area to fill any voids or gaps.

And about those “segments” that become the finished wall of the tunnel – it takes 8 segments to construct each ring and Harriet can construct 3-6 rings per day. According to the POMT website, “Harriet launched from her home in the Watson Island pit on November 11, 2011, boring the first tunnel towards Dodge Island. Harriet emerged on Dodge Island on July 31, 2012 where she was disassembled, turned and reassembled.” EarthCam captured Harriet’s breakthrough on Dodge Island on video.

View_of_TBM_Cutterhead_and_Tunnel_Workers_Exiting_Machine.jpg

Yesterday, May 6, 2013, Harriet reached the end of her journey. After working 24 hours a day (with 4 hours being for daily maintenance) with up to 30 people inside and on the machine’s surface – Harriet has finally reached the light at the end of the tunnel. To quote Chris Hodgkins, V.P. of Miami Access Tunnel: “She’s dirty, she’s worn, she’s missing a lot of her teeth. She wants to breathe some fresh air. She served us well, and she’s ready to call it a day.”

The Port of Miami Tunnel is expected to open to traffic in May 2014. For more information, visit the Port of Miami Tunnel website.

Posted
by

A few weeks ago I posted about an Eighth Circuit case that once again illustrated how, despite the drafter’s precision carrying the day most of the time, sometimes a litigator’s creativity can trump it. Well, it’s happened again. And again the issue is whether a dispute between and insured and a carrier is subject to arbitration. And again, the carrier wanted to arbitrate but the court kept the case. This time it’s the Second District California Court of Appeal, in Diamond Blue Enterprises v. Gemini Insurance Company. Before I say more, let me caution all the lawyers preparing to cite the case that it’s unpublished.

(I chuckle to myself as I write that given the difference between “published” and “unpublished”. Sure, the case won’t end up in a bound reporter on a library shelf collecting dust, but other than that and the fact that the judges who wrote it not wanting it to be precedent, what’s the difference between a published and unpublished case?) But enough of my editorializing; on to the case.

The insureds were sued by a third party and tendered the case to the carrier, who initially declined to defend. The insureds then incurred nearly $400,000 in defense costs but the carrier then picked up the defense. The insureds sued the carrier for reimbursement of the defense costs and the carrier moved to compel arbitration based on this clause in the policy: “If we and the insured do not agree whether coverage is provided under this Coverage Part for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”

The word “coverage” was not defined in the policy, so the Court of Appeal looked at the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify and explained: “The duty to defend is triggered if a third party sues the insured seeking damages for a covered risk, but is not triggered if the lawsuit seeks damages for a risk ‘to which this insurance does not apply.’ Under the terms of the policy, coverage defines the risks and the duty to defend is triggered by the scope of coverage. Thus, the duty to defend and coverage are related by not synonymous.” The difference between the duty to defend and the duty to indemnify means that “there may ultimately be no coverage for a claim even though the insurer has an obligation to defend the claim.”

As a result, “[t]he arbitration clause is ambiguous as to whether it was meant to apply to a dispute over the duty to defend, and ambiguities in an arbitration agreement, like any other contract, are resolved against the party that drafted the agreement.”

Posted
by
  • New York is back and better than ever. Construction crews hoist a 408-foot spire atop One World Trade Center that once fully installed will stand a symbolic 1,776 feet high.

Posted
by

New Tappan Zee Bridge.jpgDon’t worry. That shaking you feel isn’t an earthquake. It’s the construction of the new Tappan Zee bridge across the Hudson River north of New York. I’m kidding of course. Construction on the $3.9 billion project hasn’t even started yet, but much of the geotechnical work, not to mention the design, has. Now they are planning on picking up good vibrations with highly sophisticated shoebox-sized sensors posted around the construction site. This is nothing new, but the plan to make the data available online 24/7 is–at least as far as I know. Check back here in a few weeks to see the monitoring page.

But lest you think that the only people interested in the movers and shakers at the bridge are the contractor and the nimbies and gadflies nearby, note this: Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Obversvatory is just downriver on the West side, home to gobs of the largest and most sophisticated earth measuring equipment you’ll find. My geotechnical engineer friends tell me that every year Lamont-Doherty hosts an open house, which is generally geared toward kids, but is fascinating for geeks (like me) of all ages. It’s usually in early October, so check their website if you’re anywhere near New York and take the kids. While you’re there you can swing by and see a pretty cool construction site at the new bridge.

Posted
by

OK, this post isn’t about construction. But it is about law–civil procedure, to be precise. Anyone who has been through a trial knows how much persuasiveness expert witnesses can have, particularly with juries, but with judges and arbitrators as well. It’s been 20 years since the U.S. Supreme Court started reining in slick experts with Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, putting trial judges in a gatekeeper role to only allow reliable expert opinions to reach a jury. The high court followed its Daubert decision with General Electric v. Joiner (1997) and Kumho Tire (1999) which clarified the standard of review for a trial judge’s decision whether to admit expert testimony and also that the Daubert standard applies to all experts — not just scientific experts. Daubert and its progeny are now well-established rules in federal courts. Not so much in state courts, but that’s about to change for at least one state.

Many states still follow the old Frye standard, which allows experts to testify as long their expertise was “generally accepted” — whatever that means. Actually, what that means is that the trial judge doesn’t play a gatekeeper role at all; anyone who calls himself an expert can testify. Florida is one of those Frye states. But not for long, at least, not apparently.

Late last week both chambers of the Florida legislature passed HB 7015, which writes the Daubert standard right into the Florida Evidence Rules, effective July 1, assuming it’s signed by the governor. The text of the bill is here and here:

90.702 Testimony by experts.
(1) If scientific, technical, or other specialized 25 knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the 26 evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified 27 as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if: (a) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (b) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (c) The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
(2) The courts of this state shall interpret and apply the requirements of subsection (1) and s. 90.704 in accordance with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997); and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) and subsequent Florida decisions applying or implementing Frye no longer apply 44 to subsection (1) or s. 90.704. All proposed expert testimony, including pure opinion testimony as discussed in Marsh v. Valyou, 977 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 2007), is subject to subsection (1) and s. 90.704.