We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 120

Chinese drywall: the “silent hurricane” or a manageable product exposure? Insurance coverage considerations

  • Jenner & Block
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 7 2010

A great deal has been written about Chinese, or imported, drywall, which was imported into the country and used in up to 100,000 homes between 2005 and 2007

Quirky liens Part 2

  • McMillan LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • April 15 2010

In law, there is the general rule, and then there are the exceptions

Homeowners liable to contractor in construction lien proceedings but not indemnified by their property insurer for additional costs under the guaranteed replacement cost endorsement of their policy

  • Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
  • -
  • Canada
  • -
  • May 10 2010

In TGA General Contracting v. Cirillo (October 15, 2009), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice gave judgment to a contractor (“TGA”) in construction lien proceedings for unpaid work and materials and concurrently dismissed the homeowners’ claim against their property insurer (“Wawanesa”) for those amounts pursuant to the guaranteed replacement cost (“GRC”) endorsement of their homeowner’s policy following fire damage to their home

Because of federal preemption, project owner cannot seek indemnity from architect for failure of design to meet Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disability Act accessibility requirements

  • Reed Smith LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 9 2010

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that federal preemption precluded a project owner from seeking indemnity from its architect based upon the failure of the architect's design to meet the accessibility requirements for the disabled imposed by the Fair Housing Act2 ("FHA") and the Americans with Disabilities Act3 ("ADA"

Beware! The Building Authority is changing the rules of the game in general building plans approval process, but did not conduct any consultation in advance

  • Mayer Brown LLP
  • -
  • Hong Kong
  • -
  • November 4 2010

From 21 October 2010, a developer is required to prove that it owns the land or has a realistic prospect of controlling the land before the Building Authority will process the building plans

Pointing to Gifford v. USGBC, British building scientist identifies global green building performance failures

  • Arent Fox LLP
  • -
  • Australia, USA
  • -
  • December 13 2010

A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that Henry Gifford's class action suit against USGBC has resonated not only domestically, but across global real estate markets as well

What the courts are saying

  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 23 2010

This month we have two cases from the Ohio Court of Claims both involving the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT

Kaye v Lawrence (2010)

  • RPC
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 15 2010

The High Court has confirmed that the requirement for security for expenses to be provided to adjoining owners under the Party Wall Act 1996 is not limited to work carried out on an adjoining owner's land

Eleventh Circuit rejects developer’s tortious interference claim against zoning officer

  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 12 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a real estate developer’s tortious interference claim against a zoning officer who “re-reviewed” and rejected the developer’s project applications

Resolutions of the Directorate-General of Registries and Notaries

  • Squire Sanders
  • -
  • Spain
  • -
  • July 22 2010

In the decision analysed below, regarding the direct action taken by the sub-contractor against the lead contractor for the amount that the latter owed to the contractor, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal decision by dismissing the appeal in cassation brought by two companies which, as the members of the Joint Venture (UTE) acting as the lead contractor, had lost the previous appeal