Litigation-I Win, You Lose vs. Mediation-Win/Win

Image
  Litigation is a zero-sum game.  It destroys relationships and fosters enmity between the parties.  Parties rarely walk away happy.  Even if they win, the expense of litigation is enormous, and collecting on judgments is difficult. Disputes ultimately resolve, but the focus on winning at any cost can lead to prolonged legal battles.  Living with a lawsuit causes ongoing stress, which can distract you from your business and even have an effect on your health. In a courtroom, the final decision lies with a judge or jury who may not fully grasp the complexities of the case. Parties relinquish control over the outcome, potentially leaving them dissatisfied with the final judgment. Mediation has the opposite effect.   Rather than polarizing people, it enables the parties to attack the issues and not each other.     The process promotes open communication, collaboration and problem-solving, which enables parties to actively participate in crafting mutually beneficial solutions.   It res

LEED to Become More Stringent

http://southeast.construction.com/features/2009/1101_GreenDesignAndConstruction-1.asp#

This post is a good follow-up to my recent webinar for Professional Builder Magazine, "Legally Green: Deliver the Green You Promise." It discusses the latest requirement for LEED, which includes providing water and energy-usage data for five years after the building is complete. It means that a building could face de-certification.

From a legal standpoint, this could be a nightmare. Who would be liable? What sort of guarantees are now going to be required from contractors and construction companies? What about those who provide subsequent repairs and maintenance? The issues regarding causation alone could result in years of litigation.

I am going to be publishing a series of blog posts from my presentation that will elaborate on these issues, but I can't help wondering whether the powers that be should be planning more carefully before imposing these restrictions.

This kind of stringent requirement could result in builders pursuing other green certification programs and avoiding LEED altogether.

Popular posts from this blog

Eligibility Requirements for the LEED Green Associate Exam from Green Building Education and Training

What are the eligibility requirements for the LEED Green Associate exam? http://www.green-buildings.com/content/78626-what-are-eligibility-requirements-leed-green-associate-exam After March 31st, 2009, candidates for the LEED Green Associate (GA) credentials must fulfill eligibility requirements. LEED Green Associate candidates are required to do ONE (1) of the following: Option 1: You must be (or have previously been) employed in a sustainable field of work This is perhaps one of the more nebulous requirements posed by the GBCI, because no definition of a "sustainable field of work" is given. The USGBC does state that the company needs to "relate to environmentalism or the green building industry". If you are in any doubt that your profession would qualify, contact the GBCI at gbci.org or by calling 1-800-795-1746. Option 2: You must be (or have been) involved in a LEED Certification Project To prove eligibility by way of LEED project involvement, you must have bee
Read more

EPA Starts Assessing Fines for RRP Violations

From Mark Paskell's blog:  http://www.thecontractorcoachingpartnership.com/Blog-Contractor-Coaching--Construction-Business-Coach-EPA-RRP-Lead-Rule/ The press release below came from the EPA.  It has been hard to persuade contractors that they need to become certified when it did not appear that the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule was being enforced.  Now, there have been two substantial fines publicized: one in Connecticut last month ($30,700) and the one listed below.  It is time to have your contracts reviewed, insert clauses to protect you under the new law, and have your insurance policy reviewed for lead coverage! Kansas City, Kan., March 31, 2011) – Window World of St. Louis, Inc., has agreed to pay a $19,529 civil penalty to the United States to settle allegations that it failed to notify owners and occupants of at least 20 St. Louis area residential properties built before 1978 of lead-based paint risks prior to performing renovation work at those locations. Accordi
Read more

Should a Contractor Have the Homeowner Test for Lead?

I would like to learn more about the advisability of lead testing.  Homeowners might not want their homes tested for lead, because it becomes public record, and may interfere with the sale of a home or the ability to obtain a mortgage or homeowners insurance.  In addition, I strongly advise contractors not to do the testing themselves.  Let the homeowner pay an independent company to do it.  Otherwise if the GC brings a claim against a lead testing company for a false negative, the company might state that the GC did not use the test kit properly.  If the homeowner does have the house tested, consider refusing to do the work unless the homeowner has lead abatement work done.
Read more