PHILADELPHIA | W Hotel & Element by Westin | 617 FT | 51 FLOORS - Page 59

Knight Hospitaller · #**1161** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1487

Yes, all of this has to be costing a lot of extra money and affecting the schedule. With this projects the entire scope is usually bid to a CM who is supposed to deliver the entire project within the budgeted amount. I'm not exactly sure how unforeseen conditions like this are handled, but I'm sure there are instances where the contractor can pass on these costs because there was no way to anticipate certain unforeseen conditions.

I agree that they must certainly be getting into the fine print of the contracts, assuming that they addressed the possibility of such massive contingencies. I'd love to have a piece of the action against the prior demolition contractor, if there's any recovery to be made there.

Philly Fan · #**1162** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Knight Hospitaller

I'd love to have a piece of the action against the prior demolition contractor, if there's any recovery to be made there.

I was thinking the same thing (said one lawyer to another).

Knight Hospitaller · #**1163** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 5:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philly Fan

I was thinking the same thing (said one lawyer to another).

All in the interest of justice!

thisisforreal · #**1164** Posted **Oct 26, 2015, 5:14 PM**

More dump trucks on site today being loaded up as I type this. I'll get pics later this week.

pay homage · #**1165** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 2:04 AM**

Does anyone here know anyone in the media? Bring this to light and bring heat to L&I and whoever the scumbag demolition company was in 1999!

boxbot · #**1166** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 4:04 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pay homage

Does anyone here know anyone in the media? Bring this to light and bring heat to L&I and whoever the scumbag demolition company was in 1999!

Oh, I'm not sure Lenfest needs to plead his case in the media. I'm sure he's got some attorneys on retainer that don't include me that will be more than happy to get satisfaction in the courts.

Human Scale · #**1167** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxbot

Oh, I'm not sure Lenfest needs to plead his case in the media. I'm sure he's got some attorneys on retainer that don't include me that will be more than happy to get satisfaction in the courts.

The media can help drive the narrative. Especially when it comes to negative financial impact to a respected developer and a promising addition to the city.

kingtut · #**1168** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 5:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Scale

The media can help drive the narrative. Especially when it comes to negative financial impact to a respected developer and a promising addition to the city.

Are you referring to the demo done in 1999 , what are the statute of limitations on civil matters of this kind ? After 16 yrs the contractor is most likely not around any more . The city of Philadelphia failed to ensure the work was done in a proper manner in 1999 .
**Maybe the company that did the test boring' s would be culpable .

** post script

1487 · #**1169** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 12:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pay homage

Does anyone here know anyone in the media? Bring this to light and bring heat to L&I and whoever the scumbag demolition company was in 1999!

It wouldn't have anything to do with L&I. All they regulate is the safety of the demolition, not the exact scope of the demo contract. They wouldn't be concerned about what was or wasn't removed below grade as a part of a demo contract in 1999 or any other year.

boxbot · #**1170** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 2:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingtut

Are you referring to the demo done in 1999 , what are the statute of limitations on civil matters of this kind ? After 16 yrs the contractor is most likely not around any more . The city of Philadelphia failed to ensure the work was done in a proper manner in 1999 .
**Maybe the company that did the test boring' s would be culpable .

** post script

I didn't realize the Furness building came down that long ago. The statute of limitations would be 4 years, however Lenfest might be saved by what's called the "discovery rule," which says that the statute could be tolled if the breach of contract could not have been discovered. Here, one would argue the lot was paved over and it was impossible to know the below grade demo wasn't done properly (or at all really). It also likely wouldn't matter if the demo contractor or subcontractor is out of business. There would be insurance in place for the work that took place whether or not the entity still exists. The case wouldn't be a slam dunk, but I don't think it's hopeless either.

Thus ends my internet lawyering for the day.

Cro Burnham · #**1171** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 2:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxbot

I didn't realize the Furness building came down that long ago. The statute of limitations would be 4 years, however Lenfest might be saved by what's called the "discovery rule," which says that the statute could be tolled if the breach of contract could not have been discovered. Here, one would argue the lot was paved over and it was impossible to know the below grade demo wasn't done properly (or at all really). It also likely wouldn't matter if the demo contractor or subcontractor is out of business. There would be insurance in place for the work that took place whether or not the entity still exists. The case wouldn't be a slam dunk, but I don't think it's hopeless either.

Thus ends my internet lawyering for the day.

Why would the old demo contractor have been under any obligation to remove the Morris foundations back then? You don't need to remove old foundations to install a parking lot. Unless the old contractor had been asked by thr previous owner to remove the old foundations (highly unlikely), and failed to do so, what grounds could there be now for any kind of suit? Probably zero.

Now, if Blenfest's current geological/site engineer failed to detect the extent of subterranean junk that would need to be removed and thereby failed to provide an accurate assessment of the potential cost and duration of removing it all . . . well, maybe there's some recourse there.

Even then, i think professionals may be able to claim that there was no way they could have detected the problems without a more thorough and costly site investigation, which perhaps the developer had never requested.

It is also quite likely that the last thing the developer needs right now is to bog himself down into litigation when the shovels have barely hit the ground. It does not inspire the confidence of investors, lenders, other development partners, the media, the public at large.

Most decent developers, all except the biggest assholes, prefer not to be thought of as litigious jerks. They want to present a smooth face to the world if at all possible. I think litigation is the last resort.

boxbot · #**1172** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 2:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cro Burnham

Why would the old demo contractor have been under any obligation to remove the Morris foundations back then? You don't need to remove old foundations to install a parking lot. Unless the old contractor had been asked by thr previous owner to remove the old foundations (highly unlikely), and failed to do so, what grounds could there be now for any kind of suit? Probably zero.

Once again, I'm sure Lenfest will appreciate your opinion on the matter, but I'm quite confident he knows more about the demo contract than you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blenfest

When the Morris building was demolished the contract called for the interior basement walls, basement floor, and sub floor, and maybe more to be demolished like the Western wall and nothing larger than 4" X 4" to be used as fill. We are just finding out that they didn't do what they were contracted to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blenfest

We tore down the Morris building. The demo was supposed to include all interior walls and basement and sub basement floors and no piece from the demo per the Agreement and as far as I know per the city ordinance was to be larger than 4" X 4".

Also, I didn't say he had to file suit tomorrow. He's got, in theory, four years from discovering the work wasn't done per the contract. Your notion that only asshole litigious jerk developers file litigation is not grounded in reality. This is costing the developer millions in delay. If there's a way to recoup those costs, you can be sure the developer will get it done.

Cro Burnham · #**1173** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 3:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by boxbot

Once again, I'm sure Lenfest will appreciate your opinion on the matter, but I'm quite confident he knows more about the demo contract than you do.

Also, I didn't say he had to file suit tomorrow. He's got, in theory, four years from discovering the work wasn't done per the contract. Your notion that only asshole litigious jerk developers file litigation is not grounded in reality. This is costing the developer millions in delay. If there's a way to recoup those costs, you can be sure the developer will get it done.

Tsk tsk, snippy! My mistake, I had not read blenfest's post.

If the contractor was paid to remove the stuff and didn't, i guess u are right. But demos happen all the time where foundations remain.

Sounds more like a due diligence thing. When you buy property, you verify its condition.

I wonder if the previous owner told the buyer the site was clean. What is their obligation?

Well, we'll see if there's a suit. Hope not.

hammersklavier · #**1174** Posted **Oct 27, 2015, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pay homage

Does anyone here know anyone in the media? Bring this to light and bring heat to L&I and whoever the scumbag demolition company was in 1999!

Oh trust me, a crooked demo contractor from fifteen years ago is hardly enough to drive a media story. It's not like non-geeks would even care about the intricacies of staying on budget in a large construction project