In a decision with implications for owners and lenders, the Appellate Division for New York State’s Fourth Department recently upheld a preliminary injunction in favor of the Destiny USA development in Syracuse based explicitly on the project’s green features.
According to an article that appeared last week in Eagle River, Wisconsin’s Vilas County News-Review, a group of local residents have filed a 125-page complaint with USGBC that challenges the award of LEED Gold certification to the Northland Pines High School.
In a piece that appeared both on her blog and at Greener Buildings, my colleague Shari Shapiro opines on why, as we rapidly approach the midpoint of 2009, there remains a dearth of reported lawsuits arising out of green building projects, despite much commentary suggesting the contrary to be imminent. Ms. Shapiro suggests four reasons: (1) a relative lack of green building practices generally as compared to overall construction; (2) owners who are “too afraid” to measure building performance and are thus unable (or unwilling) to assert a claim arising out of violated green building expectations; (3) a general reluctance to engage in costly litigation given the economic downturn; and (4) the green building movement’s relative infancy. However, over the course of 2009, and notwithstanding the lack of lawsuits filed to date, there has been an explosion in commentary on green building litigation across the legal community. Accordingly, I thought Ms. Shapiro’s piece was particularly timely and worthy of some additional discussion here at GRELJ.
In the aftermath of last year’s AHRI et al. v. City of Albuquerque litigation, there has been an increased level of discussion with respect to how municipalities and states should craft green building policy and legislation. Although I have not been following what’s been taking place in California all that closely, a recent article in the Sacramento Bee noting one California county’s reaction to a newly enacted piece of state-level green building legislation caught my eye. California’s Senate Bill 1473 took effect on January 1 and requires cities and counties in California to collect, on behalf of California’s Building Standards Commission, a building permit application fee. The fee is based on the building’s valuation as determined by the pertinent local building official and is assessed at $1.00 for every $25,000.00 of value. Cities and counties are entitled to keep up to 10 percent of the fee in order to cover their own administrative and enforcement costs; the rest of the funds are sent to a special revolving fund established by SB 1473 which the Commission will use to “fund development of statewide building standards, with emphasis on green building standards.” Officials in El Dorado County (which is about halfway between Sacramento and Lake Tahoe) believe that the fee is illegal, calling it “a tax without calling it a tax.”
Yesterday, I gave a presentation to a local architecture and interior design firm on current trends in green construction law. I was impressed at how willing the firm’s design professsionals were to listen to my thoughts on the emerging risks associated with green design. In addition to suggesting a number of other legal issues, I selected a handful of claims reported by Maryland-based attorney Frank Musica at the 2007 AIA National Convention in San Antonio to open up a discussion on form contract language – particularly from the AIA documents – and suggested how certain applicable provisions might be amended to reduce the architect’s risk when rendering green design services. The claim that made the biggest splash with my audience yesterday was where Musica reported how an architect failed to perform sufficient due diligence in crafting green building specifications for a particular project and specified what turned out to be a patented solar shading system. After the project was complete, the patent holder approached the owner and demanded a licensing fee for its use of the system. The owner pointed a finger at the architect and sought indemnification under the terms of the parties’ agreement.
Shaw Development, LLC – the developer of the Captain’s Galley condominium project in Crisfield, Maryland that was the subject of the Shaw Development v. Southern Builders litigation that I have discussed extensively both here at GRELJ and over at gbNYC – recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Since the development was completed back in 2006, only 3 of the 17 units available had proceeded to contract. In late December, a foreclosure auction was to take place for the remaining units, but Shaw filed for bankruptcy protection in order to restructure and allow the pending sales to ultimately proceed. Asking prices now start at $250,000.00 for the remaining units (apparently Shaw expects to close on a number of additional contracts by the spring), though all prices are off 50 percent from when the project came on line back in 2006. When I saw the article detailing Shaw’s Chapter 11 filing, I was curious to very generally consider whether the specter of a bankruptcy filing might allow us to add an additional twist to the discussion of the Shaw Development litigation.
Much of the discussion with respect to the liability issues surrounding sustainable building has focused on the commercial sector, so I was interested to see my friend Brian Anderson, a real estate partner in the Madison, Wisconsin office of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C, quoted in a brief article suggesting risk management best practices for home builders in a recent article posted by Professional Builder. The article suggests that LEED for Homes and NAHB’s National Green Building Program may soon open the doors for insurance claims and litigation arising out of green projects that do not perform as promised. In the article, Mr. Anderson actually describes a matter his office handled where a builder did not obtain the anticipated level of certification for a residential project. “We were struggling to determine the value of the certification when the claim settled,” he told PB. At least in the commercial context, a jumping off point for plaintiffs who assert these types of claims could be the studies- many of which are promulgated by the USGBC and its constituents- that tout the higher leasing and purchasing figures for LEED-certified buildings.
Over the past two years, I have written extensively over at gbNYC about the potential for litigation arising out of green construction projects. The country’s first reported green building litigation – Shaw Development versus Southern Builders – is an excellent example of how hidden green building risks can present unconventional legal issues to construction industry stakeholders and their counsel. It is critical to note that the case does NOT discuss the contractor’s failure to achieve LEED certification on behalf of the owner (as many articles referencing my original post at gbNYC have incorrectly asserted). Rather, it suggests the importance of accurately translating green building regulatory requirements into construction documents.
Back in early October, Chief District Judge Martha Vazquez of United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted a preliminary injunction in favor of a number of HVAC industry plaintiffs who are challenging the legality of certain Energy Conservation Codes in the city of Albuquerque. The suit alleges that applicable federal legislation already exists for the same equipment that the Codes purport to regulate, thereby preempting the proposed codes. Over at gbNYC, we frequently discuss the problems with green building regulatory schemes, many of which have been crafted quickly and without consideration of broader legal ramifications. Judge Vazquez’ opinion, in fact, noted this very issue, pointing out that “the drafters of the code were unaware of the long-standing federal statutes governing the energy efficiency of certain HVAC and water heating products and expressly preempting state regulation of these products when the code was drafted and, as a result, the code, as enacted, infringes on an area preempted by federal law.”
