Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements
May 13, 2019 —
Edward M. Koch & Michael Jervis - White and Williams LLPThe United States Supreme Court recently approved and adopted amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concerning class action practice as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The amended rule went into effect on December 1, 2018. The amendments do not affect the core of the rule – the criteria for obtaining class certification. Instead, the changes are more subtle adjustments that update and modernize procedures and processes for notification to class members and obtaining approval of class settlements. Nonetheless, although the amendments are not breathtaking, there are important changes.
The first set of amendments apply to Rule 23(e), governing the process of settlement of a class action. First, the amendment makes explicit that the subsection applies not just to already certified classes, but also “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.” The changes also add some discretion of the court concerning when notice of a proposed settlement and settlement class should be provided. As part of the settlement approval process, the parties now are expressly required to give the court “information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class.” The giving of notice is justified only if that information is sufficient to allow the court to determine it is likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class. Once notice is approved, the new rule recognizes modern developments by allowing that notice may be by “United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” The rule thus recognizes that in many cases traditional mail notice may still be best; in others e-mail notification might be the best way to reach class members.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Property Damage, Occurrences, Delays, Offsets and Fees. California Decision is a Smorgasbord of Construction Insurance Issues
November 15, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogI read once that 97 percent of cases never go to trial. However, there are still the ones that do. And, then, there are the ones that do both. The following case, Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Case No. E063551 (September 8, 2017), highlights some of the issues that can arise when portions of cases settle and other portions go to trial, the recovery of delay damages on a construction project through insurance, and the recovery of attorneys’ fees.
Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs contracted with general contractor Kadena Pacific, Inc. (Kadena) to oversee construction of its Center for Blind Rehabilitation in Menlo Park, California. Kadena, in turn, contracted with subcontractor Global Modular, Inc. (Global) to construct, deliver and install 53 modular units totaling more than 37,000 square feet for a contract price of approximately $3.5 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
New EPA Regulation for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
January 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe EPA recently amended the “’All Appropriate Inquiries Rule’ concerning environmental site assessments of potentially contaminated sites,” reports the Schinnerer Risk Management Blog. Engineers will need to be aware that “Phase I assessments should now reference ASTM International’s E1527-13 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” in order to comply with the All Appropriate Inquiries Rule.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)
October 01, 2014 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaTo start our week off right, today we have another important article from guest blogger Christopher G. Hill, LEED AP. Chris is a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, construction lawyer and owner of the Richmond, VA firm, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. He authors the Construction Law Musings blog where he discusses legal and policy issues relevant to construction professionals. His practice concentrates on mechanic’s liens, contract review and consulting, occupational safety issues (VOSH and OSHA), and risk management for construction professionals. [His blog was also one of the first construction law blogs I found and followed, even if he is a Duke alum!] Take it away, Chris!
First and foremost, thanks to Melissa for inviting me back to post here at her great blog. She continues to invite me back despite my being a Blue Devil (and I try not to hold her Tar Heel status against her).
So much of discussion relating to construction law and construction lawyers centers on the litigation of disputes. This discussion comes in many forms from avoidance of such litigation through the early intervention of good counsel prior to getting into a project to what sort of resolution mechanism to use. Another branch of this discussion is essentially the right way to pursue your claim (or as some may read it start the dispute ball rolling). Sometimes a payment bond claim is the best method while others a straight up contractual suit is the best way to go.
Of course, all of this discussion presumes that there will be disputes. While I agree to some degree that in the Murphy’s Law riddled world of commercial construction, problems will arise. These problems need not rise to the level of a dispute that requires outside (read court or arbitrator) intervention. A few tips that are easy to write, but admittedly hard to practice at times can hopefully keep problems from blossoming into disputes. I’ve listed three big ones here:
1.Use “in house counsel.” Yes, I know that most of you engineers, architects, commercial general contractors and subcontractors out there aren’t big enough to either want or need a full time attorney on the payroll. What I mean by this is that when problems occur (or preferably before doing so), give your friendly local construction lawyer a call. As I learned from my dad, an ounce of prevention and all that. That 10 minute phone call may help avoid many hours of time and bills from your attorney later down the road.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
More on Fraud, Opinions and Contracts
February 06, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHere at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed the interaction between fraud and contracts on many occasions. Recently, I got to put my advice into action. I am counsel for the plaintiff in the matter of Environmental Staffing Acquisition Corp. v. Beamon, et. al. in the Portsmouth, VA Circuit Court and recently got a great opinion (.pdf) right on point that was recently featured in Virginia Lawyers Weekly.
The basic facts are these. My client, Environmental Staffing (En-Staff) filed a Little Miller Act claim and a claim for breach of contract for Beamon’s failure to pay for temporary staffing that En-Staff provided it at the Jeffry Wilson housing project demolition in Portsmouth, VA. Beamon then counterclaimed for fraud and breach of contract claiming that some statements to the effect that a particular supervisor was qualified along with presentation of the individual’s resume constituted fraud. My client demurred to the two fraud counts (actual and constructive).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Firm Offers Tips on Construction Defects in Colorado
February 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAlthough the Tenth Circuit Court determined that construction defects are occurrences under a general liability policy and the passage of CRS Section 13-20-808, in which the Colorado Legislature addressed the definition of occurrences as they relate to construction defects, the insurance industry “will continue to challenge the very concept of coverage for construction defects,” according to five attorneys at the law firm Sherman & Howard.
They suggest that there are lessons to be learned from two recent cases that were recently decided by the Colorado Court of Appeals, TCD, Inc. v. American Family and Colorado Pool Systems, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance Company. They suggest that construction professionals to be certain that their insurers are “firmly rooted in insuring the construction industry.” Their broker should also have “specific expertise in insuring the construction industry.” And don’t buy on price alone. Finally, they suggest that construction professionals should “engage an experienced coverage attorney to assess pursuing coverage when an insurance company denies coverage for a construction defect claim.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ohio “property damage” caused by an “occurrence.”
May 18, 2011 —
CDCoverage.comIn JTO, Inc. v. State Automobile Mut. Ins. Co., No. 2010-L-062 (Ohio Ct. App. March 25, 2011), general contractor JTO was sued by hotel project owner Marriott for breach of contract and warranties seeking damages for the repair of construction defects resulting in moisture penetration property damage to interior components. JTO filed a third party complaint against subcontractor Farizel and also tendered its defense as an additional insured under Farizel’s State Auto CGL policy.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of CDCoverage.com
Census Bureau, HUD Show Declines in Residential Construction
May 17, 2011 – CDJ Staff
The U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development released their summary of residential construction for April 2011 on May 17.
Building permits for privately owned housing units were down 4% from last month and 12% from last year. Similarly, privately-owned housing starts were down 10% from March and 23% below the previous year.
For further details, read the Census Bureau/HUD report
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
