2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction
January 27, 2020 —
Micah Dawson - Construction ExecutiveThe construction industry is fueled by change, which is the only constant in life and construction. Still, continuous change makes compliance with state and federal laws and regulations more difficult.
While contractors may thrive on the frantic pace, sometimes it is good to look back and ensure they have an understanding of, and are complying with, the newest regulations and laws.
Top 10 Stories Dominating Employment Law in Construction
1. Trio of Federal Joint Employment Rules Expected in December 2019
Joint employment took center stage during the November 20, 2019 release of the Fall Regulatory Agenda, as three separate federal agencies announced plans to move forward with revised joint employment rules in December. While the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board had already released versions of their draft rules, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also announced that it would weigh in on the topic before the end of 2019. As of January 10, 2020, the EEOC had not done so.
2. NLRB Tightens Union Access to Employer Property
In a ruling that levels the labor relations playing field, the NLRB ruled that employers could rightfully eject outside union representatives soliciting petition signatures from a shared shopping center parking area. When read in conjunction with an earlier 2019 decision conferring greater rights to limit on-premises union activity by abolishing the “public space” exception, the NLRB has significantly restricted union access to private employer property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Micah Dawson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Dawson may be contacted at
mdawson@fisherphillips.com
Restoring the USS Alabama: Surety Lessons From an 80-Year-Old Battleship
November 13, 2023 —
Richard Sghiatti - Construction ExecutiveIt’s not every day that a construction company gets to renovate an 80-year-old battleship. Yet that’s exactly where Youngblood-Barrett Construction & Engineering workers found themselves when they began restoring the main deck of the USS Alabama, a storied World War II battleship.
The USS Alabama has a remarkable past. One of four South Dakota–class battleships, the “Mighty A” was commissioned in 1942. It deployed first to the Atlantic and then to the Pacific, where it earned nine battle stars for meritorious service. At 680 feet long and 108 feet wide, the “Heroine of the Pacific” had a wartime crew of 2,500 men.
By 1962, though, the Navy was ready to scrap it. That’s when the state of Alabama decided to acquire the ship and preserve it as a museum. The USS Alabama was moved to Mobile and opened to the public in January 1965.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Sghiatti, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Property Insurance Exclusion: Leakage of Water Over 14 Days or More
July 10, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe recent opinion of Whitley v. American Integrity Ins. Co. of Florida, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1503a (Fla. 5th DCA 2018), as a follow-up to this article on the property insurance exclusion regarding the “constant or repeated seepage or leakage of water…over a period of 14 or more days,” is a beneficial opinion to insureds.
In this case, the insured had a vacation home. A plumbing leak occurred that caused water damage to the home. The plumbing leak occurred during a period of time that lasted approximately 30 days. For this reason, the property insurer denied the claim per the exclusion that the policy does not cover loss caused by repeated leakage of water over a period of 14 or more days from a plumbing system. Summary judgment was granted by the trial court in favor of the insurer based on this exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Washington Supreme Court Expands Contractor Notice Obligations
November 28, 2018 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight BlogThe Washington State Supreme Court dealt another blow to public works contractors in Washington State. In a case recently issued by the court, Nova Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia, [1] the court expanded contractors’ obligations when providing notice on public works construction projects. The Nova Contracting case was the subject of a previous blog. The case involved Nova Contracting and the City of Olympia. Nova was the low bidder on the contract. Nova alleged that the City of Olympia did not want Nova to win the job and intentionally hindered Nova’s ability to perform the job. The facts alleged by Nova, which were covered in the previous blog, involved the City’s improper and apparently punitive rejection of submittals on the job and the City’s eventual wrongful termination of Nova. Of significance in the case is that Nova never actually began work on the job. All that Nova had done at the time of termination was begin mobilizing its equipment on site. The Court of Appeals found that Nova had alleged sufficient facts to establish that the City violated the duty of good faith and fair dealing by improperly rejecting Nova’s submissions and had breached the contract with Nova by improperly terminating.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.com
New Jersey Court Rules on Statue of Repose Case
May 26, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA three-judge panel issued a per curium ruling on May 23 in Fairview Heights Condo. v. Investors (N.J. Super., 2011), a case which the members of a condominium board argued: “that the judge erred by: 1) dismissing plaintiff’s claims against RLI based upon the statute of repose; 2) dismissing the breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Luppinos based upon a lack of expert opinion; 3) barring the testimony of Gonzalez; and 4) barring the May 23, 1989 job site report.” The court rejected all claims from the condominium board.
The court found that the building must be unsafe for the statute of repose to apply. They noted, “the judge made no findings on whether the water seepage, or the property damage caused by such seepage, in any way rendered the building, or any of the units, unsafe.” Further, “without a specific finding on the question of whether the defects had rendered the building ‘unsafe,’ defendants were not entitled to the benefit of the ten-year statute of repose.“
On the second point, the court also upheld the lower court’s findings regarding the management company:
“The report submitted by Berman establishes that the EIFS product was defective in its design and would therefore have failed from the outset. The defects in that product were, according to Berman, not prone to repair or other mitigation. Therefore, even if defendants did not appropriately inspect or repair the EIFS, their failure to do so would have had no impact on the long-term performance of the EIFS exterior cladding. As plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these questions, the judge properly granted summary judgment to the Luppinos on plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim.”
On the final two points, the judges noted “plaintiff maintains that the judge committed reversible error when he excluded the Gonzalez certification and the 1989 job site report prepared by Raymond Brzuchalski.” They saw “no abuse of discretion related to the exclusion of the Gonzalez certification, and reject plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary.” Of the job site report, they found, “no abuse of discretion in the judge's finding that the Brzuchalski 1989 job site report did not satisfy the requirements of N.J.R.E.803(c)(6).”
Read the court’s decision
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What is Bad Faith?
April 04, 2022 —
Stacy M. Manobianca - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.As a policyholder, you may have heard the term “bad faith” in the context of litigation against your insurer. Bad faith in the insurance context is a catch-all term for a broad category of claims that can be brought against your insurer. Bad faith claims are common in insurance coverage litigation, and they can be a powerful tool in a policyholder’s arsenal. This post will serve as an introduction to some basic concepts surrounding bad faith litigation.
Table of Contents
- Bad Faith Defined:
- Statutory vs. Common Law Bad Faith Claims
- Breach of Contract vs. Tort Bad Faith Claims
- Substantive vs. Procedural Bad Faith Claims
- Best Practices Throughout the Claims Process:
- Involve an Experienced Coverage Attorney
- Conclusion
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stacy M. Manobianca, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Manobianca may be contacted at
SManobianca@sdvlaw.com
The Year 2010 In Review: Design And Construction Defects Litigation
February 25, 2011 —
Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen LauderdaleThis article is the first in a series summarizing construction law developments for 2010
1. Centex Homes v. Financial Pacific Life Insurance Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1995 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
After settling numerous homeowners’ construction defect claims — and more than ten years after the homes were substantially completed — a home developer brought suit against one of the concrete fabrication subcontractors for the development seeking indemnity for amounts paid to the homeowners, as well as for damages for breach of the subcontractor’s duties to procure specific insurance and to defend the developer against the homeowners’ claims. The subcontractor brought a motion for summary adjudication on the ground the developer’s claims were barred by the ten year statute of repose contained in Code of Civil Procedure Section 337.15.
The District Court agreed the developer’s claim for indemnity was barred by Section 337.15. And it held that because the damages recoverable for breach of the subcontractor’s duty to purchase insurance are identical to the damages recoverable through the developer’s indemnity claim, the breach of duty to procure insurance claim also was time-barred. The District Court, however, allowed the claim for breach of the duty to defend to proceed. The categories of losses associated with such a claim (attorneys’ fees and other defense costs) are distinct from the damages recoverable through claims governed by Section 337.15 (latent deficiency in the design and construction of the homes and injury to property arising out of the latent deficiencies).
2. UDC — Universal Development v. CH2M Hill, 181 Cal. App. 4th 10 (6th Dist. Jan. 2010)
Indemnification clauses in construction agreements often state that one party to the agreement — the “indemnitor” — will defend and indemnify the other party from particular types of claims. Of course, having a contract right to a defense is not the same as actually receiving a defense. Any indemnitor attempting to avoid paying for defense costs can simply deny the tender of defense with the hope that when the underlying claim is resolved the defense obligations will be forgotten. In the past, when parties entitled to a defense — the “indemnitees” — had long memories and pressed to recover defense costs, indemnitors attempted to justify denying the tender by claiming their defense obligations coincided with their indemnity obligations and neither arose until a final determination was made that the underlying claim was one for which indemnity was owed.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Candace Matson, Harold Hamersmith, and Helen Lauderdale, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Ms. Matson can be contacted at cmatson@sheppardmullin.com, Mr. Hamersmith can be contacted at hhamersmith@sheppardmullin.com, and Ms. Lauderdale can be contacted at hlauderdale@sheppardmullin.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hidden Price of Outdated Damage Prevention Laws: Part I
November 21, 2018 —
Brigham A. McCown - Construction ExecutiveExcavators know that dialing 811 triggers a process that requires all utilities operating in the service area to find and mark the location of their underground facilities so that they are not damaged during the excavation process. In addition, marking the location of the utilities is intended to keep the public safe, for instance by preventing an excavator from striking a gas line.
But excavators also know that in most states, the laws and regulations that govern these procedures are weak and that enforcement is even weaker. It’s an unfortunate fact that excavators and the public – typically the least culpable parties – suffer the consequences of weak damage prevention laws and lack of strong enforcement regimes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brigham A. McCown, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
