Jinx: Third Circuit Rules in Favor of Teamsters in Withdrawal Case
July 28, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsBad omen. Last week, I wrote about a Appeals Court decision that affirmed a contractor’s escape from an over $600,000 withdrawal liability assessment from the Laborers Union. The next day the Third Circuit (which covers PA, NJ, and DE) handed down a decision affirming a federal court’s decision to assess withdraw liability. This one shows the dark side of not reading and understanding your CBA.
The belligerents in the litigation were, Penn Jersey, a construction material supplier, and Teamsters Local 676. Their collective bargaining agreement contained a clause purportedly covering withdrawal liability. Specifically, the clause stated “should the Employer withdraw from the Agreement in the future, there will be no withdrawal liability. The CBA expired and Penn Jersey did not renew its agreement with the Teamsters.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Employee Screening and Testing in the Covid-19 Era: Getting Back to Work
August 10, 2020 —
Aaron C. Schlesinger & Shannon D. Azzaro - Peckar & AbramsonCurrently Available Workplace Protocols for Employers
Employers seeking to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the workplace should consider from among the three currently available protocols: Written Questionnaires; Temperature Checks; and Viral or Diagnostic Testing.
When implementing a screening or testing protocol, employers should explain the following in writing to employees: (1) the specific screening process or test utilized by the employer; (2) employee compliance expectations and any consequences for a refusal to participate; (3) how employee privacy will be protected; (4) if screening, the general benchmarks that indicate the employee has “passed” (e.g., temperature below 100.4ºF, per CDC guidelines); and (5) the outcome of an unsuccessful screen or test (e.g., being sent home from the workplace). Employers must also ensure that those administering the screening and/or testing are properly trained, and that appropriate written acknowledgements are obtained from employees consenting to the applicable protocol.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson and
Shannon D. Azzaro, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Ms. Azzaro may be contacted at sazzaro@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Delaware District Court Finds CGL Insurer Owes Condo Builder a Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims — Based on the Subcontractor Exception to the Your Work Exclusion
October 04, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Laura Rossi - White and WilliamsOn September 7, 2021, in one of the few decisions addressing the scope of coverage for faulty workmanship under Delaware law, the Delaware District Court denied an insurer’s motion seeking a declaration that it neither needed to defend nor indemnify an insured-builder under a commercial general liability policy.
In this declaratory judgment action, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Zonko Builders, the insurer argued that the ongoing underlying action failed to properly plead an “occurrence” in a case alleging damages to a condominium caused by faulty workmanship involving subcontractors.* Zonko Builders (Zonko) served as the general contractor, supervising subcontractors. The Condominium Association sued Zonko for damages allegedly resulting from design and construction deficiencies. The motion was opposed by the Condominium Association, which cross-moved for partial judgment on the pleadings.
In AE-Newark Associates, L.P. v. CNA Insurance Companies, 2001 Del. Super. LEXIS 370 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2001), the Delaware Superior Court found that an insured was entitled to coverage for damages arising from a faulty roof system installed by a subcontractor on behalf of the insured general contractor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Laura Rossi, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property
August 02, 2017 —
Omar Parra & Jesse M. Sullivan - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently confirmed California’s latent defect statute of limitations, codified in California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, bars only claims based on construction defects. Estuary Owners Association v. Shell Oil Company, No. A145516, (Cal. Ct. App. July 26, 2017). The Court also reemphasized that under California’s three-year statute of limitations for damage to real property, delineated in California Code of Civil Procedure section 338(b), the actual and constructive knowledge of the prior landowner is imputed to the current landowner.
Estuary Owners Association concerned the development and construction of a 100-unit condominium by Signature at the Estuary, LLC (“Signature”) on land Shell Oil Company (“Shell”) previously used as a fuel distribution terminal. Construction of the condominiums was completed in 2006. In 2008, it was discovered that residual concentrations of petroleum related chemicals remained in the soil, soil gas, and groundwater beneath the development. Later that year, Signature revealed that the condominiums had been constructed with moisture barriers beneath the building slabs instead of the vapor/gas barriers called for in the corrective action plan.
Reprinted courtesy of
Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Practical Advice: Indemnification and Additional Insured Issues Revisited
September 08, 2016 —
John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLC Construction BlogLawyers love writing about indemnification. There are seventeen blog articles on our website alone that deal with the subject. Before you click out of this email in disgust that we are rehashing a stale topic, this post contains some practical advice for contractors and subcontractors dealing with the perplexing issues of indemnification and additional insured provisions.
The concept of indemnity is based on a contractual agreement made between two parties, in which one party agrees to pay for the potential losses or damages caused by the other party. To indemnify someone means to protect that person or entity by promising to pay the cost of possible future damage, loss, or injury. When signing a contract, you should identify the indemnity obligations that could cost your business money. Finding the words “hold harmless” or “indemnify” in a proposed contract is not enough. The terms “hold harmless,” “save harmless,” or “indemnify” are a big part of the indemnification obligation. Although insurance requirements (“additional insured” clauses) accomplish virtually the same thing as very broad, unfair, or unlimited indemnity terms do, they result in an “end run” around the effort to limit the indemnification obligation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
New York Restrictions on Flow Through Provision in Subcontracts
August 14, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneMost subcontracts include a flow through provision (also called flow down and incorporation clauses) stating that the subcontractor and contractor are bound by the same obligations as set forth in the prime contract between the contractor and owner. Many jurisdictions interpret such provisions narrowly, as illustrated in a recent case out of New York. In Amerisure Insurance Company v. Selective Insurance Group, Inc., 2023 WL 3311879, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s interpretation of a flow through clause in a construction subcontract. The Amerisure case involved a dispute over insurance coverage for a personal injury to a subcontractor’s employee on a construction project. The owner of the project sought defense and indemnity from the general contractor (GC) and its insurance company, who in turn sought coverage for the owner as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s policy. The GC based its argument for coverage on the flow through provision in the subcontract.
The prime contract required the GC to procure commercial liability insurance including the owner as an additional insured for claims caused by the GC’s negligent acts or omissions. The subcontract likewise required the subcontractor to procure commercial general liability insurance but required only that the GC be named as an additional insured. However, the subcontract also included a flow through clause, binding the subcontractor to the terms of the prime contract and assuming toward the GC all the obligations and responsibilities that the GC assumed toward the owner. However, the subcontract did not expressly require that the subcontractor name the owner as an additional insured, and in order for the owner to qualify as an additional insured under the subcontractor’s insurance policy, the subcontractor must have agreed in the subcontract to name the owner as an additional insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
California Condo Architects Not Liable for Construction Defects?
May 13, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFLaw360 reported that attorneys for the architects of a San Francisco, California condominium complex told the California Supreme Court that the designers “can’t be held liable for construction defects that caused units to overheat” and urged “the panel to reverse a lower court's ruling that the architects owed a duty of care to the condos’ buyers.”
The California appeals court ruling was based on California’s Right to Repair Act, however, “that law doesn’t apply to condo conversions.” The architects argued that since Beacon was “designed and originally rolled out as rental apartments before the units were sold as condos” the Right to Repair Act doesn’t apply.
However, Beacon Residential Community Association’s attorney Robert Riggs of Katzoff & Riggs “argued that the architects had a ‘cradle to grave’ involvement in the development of the Beacon.” Riggs stated, “They designed a very large building with essentially no ventilation system, along with windows that don't open.”
According to Law360, “[t]he justices took the arguments under submission and did not indicate which way they would rule.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams Earns Tier 1 Rankings from U.S. News "Best Law Firms" 2020
December 22, 2019 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams has achieved national recognition from U.S. News and World Report as a "Best Law Firm" in the practice areas of Insurance Law and Media Law. Our Boston, New York and Philadelphia offices have also been recognized in their respective metropolitan regions in several practice areas. Firms included in the “Best Law Firms” list are recognized for professional excellence with persistently impressive ratings from clients and peers. Achieving a tiered ranking signals a unique combination of quality law practice and breadth of legal experience.
National Tier 1
Insurance Law
National Tier 3
Media Law
Metropolitan Tier 1
Boston
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
Delaware
Product Liability Litigation – Defendants
New Jersey
Labor Law – Management
Philadelphia
Commercial Litigation
Insurance Law
Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Personal Injury Litigation – Plaintiffs
Metropolitan Tier 2
Boston
Insurance Law
Delaware
Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants
New Jersey
Employment Law - Management
Litigation - Labor & Employment
Philadelphia
Bet-the-Company Litigation
Legal Malpractice Law – Defendants
Media Law
Real Estate Law
Tax Law
Trusts & Estates Law
Metropolitan Tier 3
New York City
Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law
Philadelphia
Appellate Practice
Construction Law
First Amendment Law
Litigation – Construction
Litigation – Labor & Employment
Patent Law
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
