Widow sues Eastman Chemical Co. after Alton Ray Zeigler died after being scalded by the superheated contents of a pipeline pump at DAK Americas in Gaston

Widow of worker killed in SC plant explosion files suit



Rachael Myers Lowe

COLUMBIA, SC



Alton Ray Zeigler, a retired master sergeant in the U.S. Army, died after being scalded by the superheated contents of a pipeline pump that he and two co-workers were attempting to repair Dec. 6, 2016.

The widow of the 63-year-old Richland County man filed a wrongful death suit in federal court against Eastman Chemical Co., a Mount Pleasant law firm handling her suit announced on Wednesday.

The former Carolina Eastman plant where the fatal accident occurred is located on the Congaree River near Sandy Run, a few miles northeast of Gaston. It employs 430 people and makes specialty plastics, site manager Mark Leaphardt said in December.

Leaphardt said at the time that the accident occurred during routine annual maintenance on a pipeline that carries polymer products but was not in operation at the time of the explosion.

The suit alleges that a fire during leak repair efforts on the pipeline several days earlier had “altered the chemical makeup of the pipeline’s contents and increased pressure within the pipeline by converting some liquid to gas.”

When Zeigler’s team loosened the pump bolts, the built-up pressure blew the nearly 300-pound pump nine feet into the air and spewed some 500 gallons of pipeline contents, heated to 300 degrees, over the work area, the suit alleges.

Zeigler died “a ghastly death,” the suit states.

The pump removal job assigned to Zeigler and his two co-workers was “a bomb waiting to happen,” said state Rep. Marlon Kimpson, attorney for the Zeigler family.

The suit contends that Carolina Eastman knew or should have known about the danger but failed to warn Zeigler of the “risks associated with the compromised pipeline.” 

==============


A person died and two others were injured in an industrial accident at DAK Americas in Calhoun County, Coroner Donnie Porth said Tuesday.

The person killed in the accident has been identified as 63-year-old Alton Zeigler of Columbia.

The two people who were injured were transported to Palmetto Health Richland hospital.

Calhoun County Administrator Lee Prickett said the news of the accident was a shock.

“While we wait for further details from the company, we want to offer our prayers and condolences to the families of the victims,” Prickett said in a prepared statement. “When one part of our Calhoun County family is hurting, we all hurt together.”

Prickett expressed his thankfulness to employees who were on the scene, including Calhoun County EMS, the Sandy Run Fire Department, Porth and the emergency officials from neighboring Lexington County.


“We will continue to stand with DAK Americas and provide whatever assistance they need to move forward from a horrible day,” Prickett said.


Calhoun County Development Commission Executive Director Pat Black echoed Prickett, noting all the county including “our industrial and economic development community grieves today.

“For now our thoughts prayers and support are with those directly affected by the incident today and we offer consolement to each and every individual and family who must bear this burden, particularly during this season of the year.”

Calhoun County Emergency Manager David Chojnacki said the department got the call about the incident at 12:14 p.m.

==============




CALHOUN COUNTY, SC (WIS) -

An industrial accident at DAK Americas in Calhoun County has claimed the life of one person Tuesday afternoon, according to the county coroner.

Calhoun County Coroner Donnie Porth identified the victim as 63-year old Alton Zeigler.

"Certainly, this is a shocker to all these employees, and again, our thoughts and prayers are with the employees that have been impacted," said DAK Americas Public Affairs Director Ricky Lane.

Coroner Donnie Porth said two others have been taken to Palmetto Health Richland Hospital in Columbia with chemical burns, but he believes they've since been transported to the Augusta Burn Center.

Porth said the incident happened around noon and was confined to one area of the plant.

"It was involving a line that produces polymer, which is the main product that we produce here, which goes into carbonated soft drink and water bottle containers," said Lane.

Porth said there was not an explosion at the plant.

"Something malfunctioned and the polymer escaped from its container and it spilled over three victims," said Porth.

According to the Associated Press, Site Manager Mark Leonhardt told reporters the three workers were doing annual maintenance on a pump that sends the solution used for the plastic through pipes when the accident occurred.

DAK Americas is located in the former Carolina Eastman plant, which is between Interstate 26 and the Congaree River near Old State Road.

The company also produces PET resins and polyester staple fibers, according to its website.

The investigation into the incident by the Calhoun County Coroner's Office is ongoing. Meanwhile, the company has grief counselors on site as it copes with what it calls a rare tragedy.

"Extremely rare," said Lane. "This is the worst incident we've ever had. We've been in operation since 2001 and this particular facility since 2007."



=========

The man killed in Tuesday’s industrial accident at DAK Americas died from asphyxia with a secondary cause being the inhalation of a foreign substance, Calhoun County Coroner Donnie Porth said Wednesday.

Alton Zeigler, 63, of Columbia died Tuesday as he and other members of his maintenance crew were working on a large industrial pump used for transferring liquid, molten polymers. The polymer line was down for annual maintenance.

Porth said the polymers escaped and came in contact with the three victims.

Two others were injured and were transferred to the Augusta Burn Center with serious injuries. Their conditions are unknown.

DAK Americas spokesman Ricky Lane said the facility has an excellent safety rating.

"This is a significantly tragic accident and has really caught this industry off guard. We have never had anything of this nature,” he said.

Lane said DAK's thoughts and prayers are with the employees impacted by the incident.

"We have an excellent workforce here," he said. “These employees are like family members."
Zeigler had worked at the plant for more than 20 years, Lane said.

The polymer line involved in the accident had been down for maintenance. Lane said the line will continue to remain down while the rest of the plant will continue to operate.

DAK purchased Carolina Eastman’s polyethylene terephthalate-manufacturing operations in Calhoun County in 2011. PET is a plastic used in drink bottles and other packaging.

Lane said the operation of the plant and the polymer lines is “highly technical.”

"We produce plastic materials for consumer goods," Lane said. "We don't make any products on-site, but we provide the raw materials."

The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control was informed that the incident occurred. The release was contained within a building and there was no environmental impact.

The S.C. Occupational Safety and Health Administration is investigating the incident. Investigations generally take about eight weeks to complete.

Lane said DAK Americas is also investigating the incident.

"We hope to have further information available in the future," Lane said.

Auto-Owners Insurance Company owed no duty to defend or to indemnify its insured, Ralph Gage Contracting, Inc. in the underlying lawsuit filed by the Kjellanders

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.


AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RALPH GAGE CONTRACTING INC., et al., Defendants, RICHARD KJELLANDER, KRESLEY KJELLANDER, Defendants - Appellants.
No. 16-15442
Decided: April 17, 2017 Before MARCUS, FAY, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

In this declaratory judgment action, Richard and Kresley Kjellander appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“Auto-Owners”). In granting summary judgment, the district court concluded that Auto-Owners owed no duty to defend or to indemnify its insured, Ralph Gage Contracting, Inc. (“Gage”), in the underlying lawsuit filed by the Kjellanders. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

In May 2013, the Kjellanders entered a contract to purchase a home, contingent on a satisfactory home inspection. The Kjellanders hired Gage, a licensed home inspector, to perform the inspection. Based on Gage's inspection report -- which identified no major defects -- the Kjellanders proceeded with the purchase of the home. Shortly after closing on the property, however, the Kjellanders discovered several property defects: defects which were not readily observable, but which materially affected the value of the property. These defects included water and mold damage and a faulty HVAC system.

The Kjellanders filed the underlying suit against Gage in Florida state court. They alleged that Gage performed negligently by failing to discover the defects that existed at the time of the home inspection. The Kjellanders said that, if they had known about the defective conditions, they would have exercised their option to cancel the purchase contract instead of closing on the sale of the property. The Kjellanders sought damages of over $1.7 million for repair costs, diminution in value, and for loss of use.

At the time of the inspection, Gage was covered under a Commercial General Liability insurance policy issued by Auto-Owners (“Policy”). The Kjellanders demanded payment under the Policy. Auto-Owners denied the claim, but provided a defense under a reservation of rights. Auto-Owners then filed this declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it owed no duty to defend or to indemnify Gage in the underlying suit. Auto-Owners and the Kjellanders filed cross-motions for summary judgment; the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Auto-Owners.

We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment, applying the same legal standards as the district court. Whatley v. CAN Ins. Cos., 189 F.3d 1310, 1313 (11th Cir. 1999). Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue of material fact and compels judgment as a matter of law. Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832, 836-37 (11th Cir. 2006).

We are bound by the substantive law of Florida in deciding this diversity case. See Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 58 S. Ct. 817 (1938). Under Florida law, an insurer owes a duty to defend its insured “when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.” Jones v. Fla. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, Inc., 908 So. 2d 435, 442-43 (Fla. 2005). “Any doubts regarding the duty to defend must be resolved in favor of the insured.” Id. at 443. If the alleged facts and legal theories asserted in the complaint fall outside a policy's coverage, no duty to defend arises. See, e.g., Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. CV Reit, Inc., 588 So. 2d 1075, 1075-76 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991). Where there exists no duty to defend, an insurer has no duty to indemnify. Wilshire Ins. Co. v. Poinciana Grocer, Inc., 151 So. 3d 55, 57 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014).

The interpretation of a provision in an insurance contract is a question of law subject to de novo review. Hegel v. First Liberty Ins. Corp., 778 F.3d 1214, 1219 (11th Cir. 2015). When an insurance policy's language is “clear and unambiguous,” it is construed according to its plain language. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 756 So. 2d 29, 33-34 (Fla. 2000). If the policy language is ambiguous, however, the policy is “interpreted liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the drafter who prepared the policy.” Id. at 34. “[I]n construing insurance policies, courts should read each policy as a whole, endeavoring to give every provision its full meaning and operative effect.” Id. The insured bears the burden of proving that a claim is covered by the insurance policy, and the insurer bears the burden to prove that an exclusion applies. LaFarge Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co., 118 F.3d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1997).

Under the terms of the Policy, Auto-Owners agreed to pay “sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’ or ‘property damage’ to which this insurance applies.” In pertinent part,1 the Policy provided coverage for “property damage” only if it was “caused by an ‘occurrence.’ ” The Policy defines “property damage” this way:

a. Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the physical injury that caused it; or

b. Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the “occurrence” that caused it.

An “occurrence” is defined as “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.” In a case like this one -- where the term “accident” is undefined by the Policy -- the Florida Supreme Court has said that “accident” means “not only ‘accidental events,’ but also damages or injuries that are neither expected nor intended from the viewpoint of the insured.” See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. CTC Dev. Corp., 720 So. 2d 1072, 1072 (Fla. 1998).

The plain language of the Policy requires unambiguously a causal link between the alleged “property damage” and an “occurrence.” Here, the only asserted “occurrence” is Gage's alleged negligent inspection. Thus, to show that their claim is within the Policy's coverage, the Kjellanders must demonstrate that Gage's negligent inspection caused “property damage” within the meaning of the Policy.

That the defects to the property pre-existed Gage's inspection is undisputed. And the Kjellanders do not allege that Gage's negligent inspection in itself caused physical injury to the property. Instead, all physical damage to the property -- including water and mold damage and the faulty HVAC equipment -- resulted from some prior event or series of events.2

The Kjellanders assert, instead, that their loss of use of the property constituted “property damage” under the Policy's second definition. About causation, the Kjellanders contend that, but for Gage's negligent inspection, they would not have purchased the home and would have suffered no loss of use of the property.

Even if we accept that Gage's inspection induced the Kjellanders to purchase the home and, thus, resulted in the Kjellanders' financial losses, that argument fails to establish coverage under the Policy. The alleged “property damage” itself -- the loss of use -- was caused by the pre-existing property defects, not by Gage's failure to discover those defects. Indeed, the property defects would have inevitably led to the loss of use of the property whether Gage had conducted an inspection or not. That it was the Kjellanders -- and not some other homeowner -- that ultimately experienced that loss of use does nothing to prove the requisite causal connection between Gage's negligence and the “property damage” for purposes of establishing coverage under the Policy.

Because the Kjellanders have failed to establish a causal connection between an occurrence -- Gage's negligence -- and the alleged property damage, they have failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating coverage under the Policy. Thus, the district court concluded correctly -- as a matter of Florida law -- that Auto-Owners owed Gage no duty to defend or to indemnify in the underlying state court action.3

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.  The Policy requires that the property damage be caused by an “occurrence” that took place in the “coverage territory,” that the property damage occurred during the policy period, and that the insured lacked knowledge of the damage before the policy period. The issues of coverage territory, policy period, and the insured's prior knowledge are not in dispute.

2.  Nothing evidences -- and the Kjellanders do not contend -- that these prior events occurred during the pertinent policy period. Thus, these prior events themselves can serve as no basis for coverage under the Policy.

3.  Notwithstanding their failure to establish causation, the Kjellanders also contend that an exclusionary clause -- added after the pertinent events in this case and which excluded expressly coverage for property damage resulting from inspections -- evidences that coverage in fact existed under the original policy for damages arising from Gage's home inspection. We reject this argument. Florida law makes clear that “exclusionary clauses cannot be relied upon to create coverage.” See CTC Dev. Corp., 720 So. 2d at 1075. More important, however, under Florida law we construe the Policy according to its plain meaning and interpret the Policy as a whole. Anderson, 756 So. 2d at 33-34. Because the Policy at issue in this appeal contains no inspection endorsement, we will not consider the language of the later-added endorsement in construing the Policy.We also reject the Kjellanders' public-policy-based argument that the Policy must be construed to provide coverage for a negligent home inspection, given Florida Statute § 468.8322 -- which requires home inspectors to maintain insurance coverage. That Gage failed to obtain the appropriate insurance coverage as required by Florida law does not render the terms of the Policy invalid as contrary to public policy or Florida statute.

Environmental Liability Claims are Rising

There is increasing potential for “larger liability claims to become more expensive, complex and international, demonstrating the pervasive and long-term nature of liability losses,” suggests a new global claims review released Thursday by Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS).

Industrial, environmental, product liability and financial lines claims in excess of US$1 billion – based on a 2015 Aon study that identified 86 corporate liability losses of that amount – “are more commonplace and are no longer confined to just the U.S. and Europe,” notes Global Claims Review: Liability in Focus – Loss trends and emerging risks for businesses.

The Aon report notes some 57 of the 86 losses were in excess of US$2 billion and 13 were more than $10 billion, “mostly from pollution incidents and regulatory actions,” the review states.

“While we have not necessarily seen an increase in the frequency of large liability claims, those that are filed are typically now more complex and with a higher spend than in the past,” Larry Crotser, head of AGCS chief claims office, North America, points out in the report.

“This can be seen in the cost of product liability claims, which have been rising, while we now also see a far bigger impact from environmental liability claims,” Crotser notes.

“The emissions testing issues in the automotive industry are an example of just how complex liability losses can become, giving rise to multi-jurisdictional regulatory investigations and litigation,” the review suggests. 
It notes that last October, Volkswagen agreed to a US$15 billion settlement with a group of U.S. federal and state regulators covering some 475,000 vehicle owners in the U.S. And this past December, the company “agreed to a further US$1 billion settlement to fix or buy back another 80,000 diesel vehicles sold in the U.S.,” the report adds.

“While very large liability losses can impact individual companies, they also can trigger systemic risks that can affect many companies within a given sector,” the review cautions, adding that large environmental liability claims, such as pollution, are increasing, particularly from the mining and construction sectors.

“Such claims can be complex, costly and take a long time to settle. They can be particularly challenging in emerging markets, given cultural differences, language and legal systems that may be different to U.S. and European courts,” the report explains.

Add to that that global class actions by consumers and investors are expected to become more significant, moving from a primarily U.S. affair to more international.

“The Americas region, driven by the U.S., continues to be the largest liability market in terms of number of claims generated, accounting for over half of all claims analyzed,” the report states.

The liability claims analyzed in the review have an approximate value in excess of 8.85 billion euros or US$9.3 billion, the report notes.

While claims payments can vary widely in scale – reflecting the widespread nature of the risk landscape – major liability losses (amounting to greater than 1 million euros), such as aviation, shipping or terrorism incidents, account for fewer than 1% of claims by number. That said, these claims represent 74% of the total value of claims analyzed.

“Collectively, the top three causes of loss account for over 60% of the value of all liability losses analyzed, while the top 10 causes of loss for global businesses account for over 80% of all liability losses,” AGCS reports.

The move toward becoming more complex, expensive and international demonstrates a real shift.

Although the Top 10 causes of liability loss by value from 2011 to 2016 are well-established, the frequency of some claims is declining. The list below is based on analysis of more than 100,000 claims from 100-plus countries over five years.



Consider that the impact of collision/crash and slips/falls/falling objects are the most frequent liability claims for insurers, accounting for 48% of all claims by number.

“However, the frequency of these claims has been declining in many major casualty markets, a reflection of improvements in risk management and better safety regulation, as well as a shift away from heavy industry,” the report explains.

That said, there are some common losses that perhaps show signs of extending their reach in future. Human error, for example, ranks as the third top cause of liability loss (19%), but accounts for just 1% of all claims received by insurers.

“While this loss category focuses on the impact of everyday employee errors in the workplace, it also includes the effect of much larger events where human error has been a factor, such as in aviation or shipping accidents,” the report explains.



Then there is the potential impact of future influencers like new technology in the form of autonomous driving, 3D printing and the sharing economy.

“Broadly speaking, the frequency of claims is expected to decline, although this will be accompanied by new threats, such as increasing cyber and product liabilities and recall risks,” the report points out.

“Business models in the digital economy are more complex and without borders, making liability harder to apportion and claims more complex to settle. Automation is likely to lead to increased product liability for machinery and component manufacturers and software providers in particular,” it states.

Related: Driverless cars to “revolutionize” motor insurance as liability shifts towards manufacturers: Fitch

With regard to new manufacturing techniques like 3D printing, this “could play a positive role in addressing rising business interruption exposures, but could also make it harder to trace products through the supply chain,” the report notes.

The new environment will require appropriate expertise, AGCS expects.

“With liability claims becoming more complex and technical, investing in claims expertise and knowledge is just as important for liability lines as it is for property and specialty lines,” the report advises.

“As businesses grow ever more sophisticated and connected, insurers need to ensure that their claims handling processes stay up-to-date,” it emphasizes.

====================
Source: https://reactionsnet.com, April 17, 2017

Environmental liability claims above $1bn are becoming more commonplace but coverage for the peril is still lagging.

According to Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty (AGCS), environmental damage can now cost insurers an average of €2.3m per claim.

According to Matt O’Malley, president of North America environmental at XL Catlin, the insurance penetration rate for environmental cover in the US, which is the largest environmental insurance market, is roughly 10%.

“Penetration for middle markets is much lower compared to Fortune 1000 companies, so there is definitely a growth opportunity for insurers there,” he said.

The shift in environmental claims was recently highlighted by a wide-reaching scandal in Europe and beyond, in which nearly every diesel-powered vehicle on the continent emitted more pollutants in real world driving scenarios than had been indicated during testing.

Whether through emission cheating devices or the creative interpretation of data results, such a scandal highlights how complex liability losses can become. Volkswagen’s involvement in the scandal ended up bringing numerous other automakers into the fold, including General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, Renault and Mitsubishi.

Losses to Volkswagen alone have been estimated at $21bn, according to Reuters.

In the US, electric company Duke Energy recently sued 30 of its former insurance companies including Allianz, Allstate, and Berkshire Hathaway for roughly $1bn in clean-up fees after it was discovered that coal ash which the company had disposed of over a period of decades was seeping into nearby groundwater.

According to O’Malley, mould has become increasingly problematic – particularly so in the hospitality sector – and led to some unexpected claims as high as seven figures.

Mid-stream energy, or the transportation of oil and other energy sources to their destination, has also become an issue on the US, as any pipe breach could cost thousands in a matter of minutes due to the sheer volume of oil or gas being pumped through an ageing system.

While O’Malley has not seen a rise in the total number of claims or claims inflation in the US as of yet, the individual limits being purchased by client are increasing.

“One broker has managed to get a tower between $350m and $400m together,” he said, a sizeable increase on the standard limits sought of circa $200m.

Environmental claims in Asia are expected to increase as the coverage becomes more widely purchased, AGCS has predicted.

Chinese authorities granted non-governmental organizations the ability to launch public interest litigation over violations of environmental law for the first time in 2014.

In Africa, mining operations have led to considerable issues with contamination, as governments step up efforts to combat pollution from ongoing operations.

One case currently ongoing in South Africa could set a legal precedent for all mining companies in the country after a trio of mining directors were arrested for leaving a polluted site in their wake.

They could face possible fines of more than $7m.

As governments gradually take steps to hold firms who pollute accountable, and the general public becomes increasingly concerned about environmental issues, insurers could have a potential business opportunity in a broader range of regions.

According to AGCS, environmental damage had the second highest average liability losses from 2011 to 2016, behind only to vandalism and terrorism, excluding financial lines.

Still, environmental damage only accounted for 10% of the value of all claims in the Americas, while not accounting for much in any other region, highlighting the relative novelty of the risk in emerging and established markets alike.

As far as individual lines of business, most industries carry some contamination risk.

Cargo trains can cause substantial damage if they derail, but if they do so while carrying hazardous materials near waterways, then the contamination risk is immense.

Such cargo trains routinely travel alongside the Hudson River in New York, where a single accident could lead to a large-scale environmental disaster.

In that space, rail insurers are usually not even insured enough for the immediate aftermath of a large-scale disaster, much less the clean-up costs, and are not required by law to carry insurance at all, although most do.

The amount of oil shipped by rail has also increased more than 40 times, according to the Insurance Information Institute, as the amount of oil from shale deposits has overwhelmed the pipeline delivery system.

Likewise, power plants, cargo ships, car manufacturers, and even retailers all have some form of contamination exposure.

Developer McKafka sues architect I.D.E.A., alleging construction delays and defects at the Crimson in Miami’s Edgewater neighborhood

Developer McKafka sues architect I.D.E.A., alleging construction delays and defects at the Crimson in Miami’s Edgewater neighborhood
Posted on April 18, 2017 by Sheryl Barr

Source: https://therealdeal.com, April 17, 2017
By: Francisco Alvarado

An Aventura-based architecture firm allegedly left McKafka Development Group hanging, delaying construction on its 90-unit high-rise called the Crimson in Miami’s Edgewater neighborhood, according to a lawsuit.

McKafka, through its limited liability company Alpine Estates, accuses International Design Engineering and Architecture, or I.D.E.A. for short, of breaching its contract and negligence, in the lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade Circuit Court last month.

Stephane L’ecuyer, I.D.E.A.’s principal, did not return two phone messages seeking comment. McKafka principal Stephan Gietl also did not respond to The Real Deal, but his lawyer Bruce King said, “We had several discussions to get a resolution and have been unable to do so.” He declined further comment.

According to the lawsuit, McKafka hired I.D.E.A. on Feb. 8, 2013 as the architect of record and Facchina Construction of Florida as the general contractor for the Crimson. However, the architecture firm performed poorly, the lawsuit alleges. The Crimson, at 601 Northeast 27th Street, remains unfinished today.

“I.D.E.A. failed to timely coordinate with or respond to Facchina, prepared incomplete or inconsistent drawings and specifications, and failed to perform in a manner consistent with the design schedule,” the lawsuit states.

McKafka alleges that I.D.E.A. also failed to timely respond to requests for information, change order requests, or provide staff to ensure continuity of service. In addition, according to the suit, I.D.E.A. improperly designed the garage ramps that led to substantial structural changes. The company also improperly designed the temperature control system, resulting in high humidity in the condo units, the lawsuit alleges.

Other significant revisions at the Crimson included the relocation of piles and beams and the redesigning of the height of the building’s stairs and the size of an emergency generator room, McKafka alleges. As a result of the repairs and revisions, the project was delayed and Facchina charged the developer for the delays, as well as additional construction costs, according to the suit.

============================


Crimson construction begins in Edgewater
Developer targeting young professionals, investors as condo buyers

January 23, 2014 09:45AM
By Eva Cantillo





Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado, Commissioner Marc Sarnoff and mckafka principals Stephan Gietl and Fernando Levy Hara at The Crimson groundbreaking ceremony (credit: Eva Cantillo) and a Crimson rendering

One of numerous developers building a condo tower in Miami’s Edgewater neighborhood, mckafka Development Group is targeting young professional buyers seeking a “different lifestyle” for its Crimson project.

The Real Deal attended Wednesday’s groundbreaking ceremony for The Crimson, a luxury waterfront development at 601 Northeast 27th Street. Mckafka’s Stephan Gietl and Fernando Levy Hara hosted the event. Guests included Miami Mayor Tomas Regalado, city commissioners Marc Sarnoff and Keon Hardemon and several representatives from ISG World, which is handling sales at the project.

The Crimson is designed as a high-tech condo building that caters to young professionals, which in turn could generate interest from investors. The building only includes 90 units, while surrounding projects have between 150 and 300 condos.

“It’s a different lifestyle you’re buying into,” Gietl told The Real Deal. He described the project as “intelligent luxury,” with unit designs that are “very detailed, focused and high-quality.”

Designed with European elements, The Crimson emphasizes both style and functionality, according to Gietl. Residents can choose from one, two or three-bedroom layouts, as well as six penthouses and townhome designs. Other project amenities include a cyber café, electric car charging stations and a zen room.

Mckafka has received LEED Gold certification for The Crimson, Hara told The Real Deal. It is the first Edgewater development to receive that designation.

The company incorporated features it hopes would benefit the public, including a waterfront promenade and fountain, according to Hara.

“Edgewater is now the hot spot in Miami,” Hara said.

The Edgewater neighborhood stretches from Northeast 17th to 37th streets. There are currently 10 condo towers currently proposed for the area, including Related’s Paraiso Bay, Melo Group’s Bay House and Eastview Development’s Biscayne Beach.

“Edgewater will be the next Wynwood or Midtown,” Regalado said during the ceremony.

Mckafka acquired the future Crimson site through a foreclosure auction. Inspiration for the name came from the colors associated with Harvard University, where Gietl and Hara first met.

The Crimson’s groundbreaking was one of three held on Wednesday, underscoring Miami’s current state of rapid growth. Developers of the Bond at Brickell and SLS Brickell also kicked off construction.

Mckafka expects The Crimson to be completed by the second quarter of 2015.

PADEP Urges Homeowners to Check for Mine Subsidence Risk. Over 1 million homes could be at risk

PADEP Urges Homeowners to Check for Mine Subsidence Risk

Over 1 million homes could be at risk

Pittsburgh, PA – The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) urges homeowners to check updated mine maps to determine if their home or other buildings are at risk of mine subsidence. Over 1 million homes in Pennsylvania sit atop abandoned mines.

Mine subsidence occurs when the ground above an old or abandoned mine cavity collapses. A subsidence event can occur at any time and cause sudden, significant damage—often exceeding $100,000 or total loss of the structure.

Mine subsidence is not covered by a standard homeowner’s insurance policy. DEP administers low-cost mine subsidence insurance (MSI) coverage through the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The average policy of $160,000 costs about $7 a month, and senior citizens are eligible for discounted rates.

“If you’ve checked before and think your property is not at risk, now is the time to check again,” said John Stefanko, deputy secretary of active and abandoned mine operations. “We’ve revamped the maps on the Mine Subsidence Insurance website (www.pamsi.org) for a more interactive and precise view.”

Radio public service announcements and ads on social media and other websites will be encouraging homeowners to make sure they have proper coverage, and how to sign up for the insurance.

Using geographic information systems (GIS) online, DEP combines location data with mining data to show where specific properties are in relation to old and abandoned mines. DEP’s MSI program uses the data to identify coverage areas.

Processing thousands of paper maps into a digital format and uploading the data into the GIS system takes time. DEP has completed the process for tens of thousands of maps with thousands more to be entered. The website (www.pamsi.org) regularly updates as historical maps and risk areas are discovered.

Much of the underground mining in Pennsylvania occurred over a century ago—long before DEP existed - and many areas that were originally mined long ago have been remined. Consequently, the department may have hundreds of maps and a dozen different series for just one area.

“DEP is continuously improving our maps and data for underground mining. That’s why we recommend property owners need to check back periodically,” said Stefanko. “Our goal is to have the best underground mine mapping easily accessible to anyone who wants to view it.”

Homeowners should visit www.pamsi.org or call 1-800-922-1678 to check if their home is over an abandoned mine and for more information on the Mine Subsidence Insurance Program.

Photos of structural damage resulting from mine subsidence are available for use at: http://www.dep.state.pa.us/MSIHomeowners/damage.html. 

Website: www.pamsi.org