Hunton Offers Amicus Support in First Circuit Review of “Surface Water” Under Massachusetts Law
August 01, 2023 —
Michael S. Levine, Lorelie S. Masters & Janine A. Hanrahan - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogHunton’s insurance team has offered its support on behalf of amicus curie United Policyholders in a brief to the
First Circuit concerning the meaning of “surface water” in the context of a broad, all-risk property insurance policy?
This important question arose in a dispute between Medical Properties Trust (“MPT”), a real estate investment trust, and Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), its insurer, after water entered and destroyed Norwood Hospital. The water at issue entered the building after collecting on the surface of the building’s flat parapet roof. Zurich argued that because the water collected on the surface of the roof, the water met the meaning of the term “surface water,” as that term was used in the policy’s definition of “flood.” Flood coverage is subject to a $100 million sublimit, whereas the policy’s general limit is $750 million.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Modern Tools Are Key to Future-Proofing the Construction Industry
September 19, 2022 —
Guillaume Le Gouic - Construction ExecutiveThe U.S. construction industry is facing a tech revolution that’s upending the roles of skilled workers. Many traditional contractors are struggling to embrace the new technologies customers increasingly demand, while the industry struggles to attract young professionals. According to the latest
American Community Survey data, the median age of a construction worker is 41.
This is particularly concerning given the confluence of two trends: the construction industry is facing a critical workforce shortage that’s only
expected to intensify, and the workforce is aging—
NCCER is predicting around 40% are expected to retire by 2031. Industry leaders must prioritize using the latest industry solutions and innovations to modernize construction work, transform the construction industry and appeal to the next generation of contractors.
Throughout COVID-19, the construction sector experienced a higher number of workers quitting jobs as opposed to being laid off, indicating the older workforce likely took the opportunity to retire early, along
with more than three million other Americans who did the same. Currently, industry leaders are not doing enough to communicate opportunities to help shift the career perception of electrical contractors from simply being “blue collar” and un-exciting. A 2019 National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) found only
3% of people ages 18 to 25 were interested in pursuing a construction career, with most respondents noting the desire for a less physically demanding job.
Reprinted courtesy of
Guillaume Le Gouic, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
You're Doing Construction in Russia, Now What?
May 16, 2022 —
Anazette Ray & Michael Vardaro - Zetlin & De Chiara LLPIn recent weeks, there has been a long list of companies, from all industries spanning from construction/engineering to fashion and hospitality, that have announced that they are completely severing ties with Russia, while a host of others have announced a temporary halt. See Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, Over 400 Companies Have Withdrawn from Russia – But Some Remain, Yale School of Management (Updated Mar. 21, 2022), https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-400-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain?utm_campaign=mb. For those developers, EPC contractors, and design professionals (engineers and architects) who have construction projects in Russia, the question is, “How should we proceed?”
The U.S. initially stated that it was not issuing a total embargo on business dealings and trade relations with Russia in response to the nation’s invasion of Ukraine. Instead, the U.S., along with many other Western nations, issued targeted sanctions. See Francesco Giumelli, Understanding Targeted U.N. Sanctions: An Empirical Analysis, International Affairs, 91(6), 1351-1368 (explaining the difference between embargoes and targeted sanctions). However, after evidence of war crimes by Russia emerged, President Biden issued an Executive Order prohibiting U.S. individuals, whether in the states or abroad, from new investments in Russia and prohibiting U.S. individuals from transactions with Russian state-owned entities. See April 6, 2022, Presidential Actions, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/04/06/prohibiting-new-investment-in-and-certain-services-to-the-russian-federation-in-response-to-continued-russian-federation-aggression/. This new Executive Order is said to not affect existing contracts in Russia, but instead prohibits new ones.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anazette Ray, Zetlin & De Chiara LLP and
Michael Vardaro, Zetlin & De Chiara LLP
Ms. Ray may be contacted at aray@zdlaw.com
Mr. Vardaro may be contacted at mvardaro@zdlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real Protection for Real Estate Assets: Court Ruling Reinforces Importance of D&O Insurance
October 01, 2024 —
Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogEarlier this month, an Illinois federal district court held that a liability insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify a property management company or its owner in lawsuits that included allegations of intentional conduct. The suits accused the owner of concealing financial information from and engaging in a scheme to increase tax liability and decrease profit distributions to a minority owner. This case reinforces the importance of maintaining D&O insurance as part of a comprehensive liability insurance program to protect against potential gaps in coverage that could result from allegations of intentional or knowing acts.
Background
The court in Old Guard Insurance Company v. Riverway Property Management, LLC et al., No. 1:23-cv-01098 (C.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2024) was asked to determine whether Old Guard Insurance Co. was required to defend or indemnify Riverway Property Management LLC or its owner under two commercial general liability policies in relation to state court lawsuits. The lawsuits alleged that Riverway’s owner intentionally and improperly misappropriated funds and that the property management company knowingly and substantially assisted with this wrongful scheme.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations
November 01, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesUnder the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project.
Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you!
In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Jury's Verdict for Loss Caused by Collapse Overturned
September 18, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Florida Court of Appeal overturned the jury's verdict findng loss caused by collapse. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Caboverde, 2023 Fla. App. LEXIS 4474 (Fla. Ct. App. June 28, 2023).
The insured homeowners had two claims. One was a 2016 ceiling collapse; the second was loss caused by Hurricane Irma in 2019. The homeowners' policy covered collapse defined as "an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building or any part of a building with the result that the building . . . cannot be occupied for its intended purpose." Collapse had to be caused by, among other things, decay or insect damage that was hidden from view.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
How Small Mistakes Can Have Serious Consequences Under California's Contractor Licensing Laws.
February 15, 2018 —
Eric Reed - Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLPIn construction, some risks have nothing to do with how well a contractor executes a project. Licensing problems is one of these risks. Even a brief lapse caused by an unintentional administrative error can give the CSLB grounds to discipline a contractor, or enable a customer to seek disgorgement and other remedies provided by Business and Professions Code section 7031. This article discusses five tips for mitigating the liabilities associated with licensing problems.
Tip 1: Take workers' compensation insurance very seriously. Workers’ compensation insurance problems can trigger license suspension in California. Business and Professions Code section 7125.4 calls for automatic suspension if a contractor cannot provide proof of workers’ compensation insurance for any period of time. This is particularly serious for residential remodelers who claim exemption for workers’ compensation but are later discovered – usually during litigation with a homeowner – to have “off the books” workers helping them. Courts can declare the contractor retroactively unlicensed under these circumstances and order it to disgorge,
i.e., to pay back, every penny paid by the customer for the entire project (even for materials). (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (b);
Wright v. Issak (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1116.) The contractor will also find itself unable to collect any amounts owed to it by the customer. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (a).)
Tip 2: Watch out for licensing confusion after a merger or acquisition. The economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 resulted in consolidation throughout the building industry. The newly merged or acquired entities often allowed redundant licenses to expire, assuming they could complete all pending projects under the umbrella of the acquiring company's license. Many learned this was a mistake the hard way. Armed with the California Supreme Court's opinion in
MW Erectors, Inc. v. Niederhauser Ornamental & Metal Works Co., Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 412, customers began refusing to pay invoices and demanding disgorgement under Business and Professions Code section 7031 because the original contractor did not maintain licensure “at all times.” Many of these customers succeeded.
Tip 3: If a license suspension has occurred or is imminent, prepare to prove substantial compliance. Section 7031(a) and (b) give a disgruntled or indebted customer every incentive to capitalize on a contractor's licensing problems. Subdivision (e) is where a contractor must turn to protect its interests if this happens. It allows the contractor to prove “substantial compliance” with licensing requirements and avoid (a)’s and (b)’s sharp edges if it can show the following:
(1) The contractor “had been duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract”;
(2) It “acted reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure”; and
(3) It “acted promptly and in good faith to remedy the failure to comply with the licensure requirements upon learning of the failure.”
The Court of Appeal confirmed in
Judicial Council of California v. Jacobs Facilities, Inc. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 882 that a contractor, upon request, is entitled to a hearing on these three factors before it is subjected to disgorgement under Section 7031(b). The legislature amended Section 7031 shortly after the Court of Appeal published this case. The Assembly’s floor analysis went so far as to directly quote the opinion’s observation that penalizing a construction firm for “technical transgressions only indirectly serves the Contractors Law’s larger purpose of preventing the delivery of services by unqualified contractors.” (Assem. Com. on Bus. and Prof., Off. of Assem. Floor Analyses, analysis of Sen. Holden's No. 1793 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) as amended August 2, 2016, p. 2.) This echoed an industry consensus that clarifying the law was needed to ensure that properly licensed and law-abiding construction firms were not “placed at fatal monetary risk by malicious lawsuits motivated by personal gain rather than consumer protection.” (Assem. Com. on Judiciary, com. on Assem. Bill No. 1793 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), pp. 6-7.)
Unfortunately, existing law does not give many examples of what it means to act “reasonably and in good faith to maintain proper licensure” or to act “promptly and in good faith” to fix license problems. A practical approach is for a contractor to work backwards by assuming it will need to prove substantial compliance at some point in the future. Designated individuals within the organization should have clear responsibility over obtaining and renewing the proper licenses and should keep good records. If necessary, these designees can testify about the contractor's internal policies and their efforts to fix licensing problems when they arose. For example, if the suspension resulted from not providing the CSLB proof of workers’ compensation insurance, the designee can testify about the cause (a broker miscommunication, transmission error,
etc.) and produce documents showing how he or she worked promptly to procure a certificate of insurance to send CSLB. Saved letters, emails, and notes from telephone calls will provide designees and their successors with an important resource months or years down the line if a dispute arises and the contractor is required to reconstruct the chronology of a licensing glitch and prove its due diligence.
Tip 4: Don't sign new contracts unless all necessary licenses are active and any problems are resolved. A recently-formed contractor should not begin soliciting and signing contracts until all required licenses are confirmed as “active.” The first requirement of substantial compliance – being “duly licensed as a contractor in this state prior to the performance of the act or contract” – cannot be met by a contractor that first obtains its license mid-project. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (e)(1);
Alatriste v. Cesar’s Exterior Designs (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 656.) A licensed contractor should also consider refraining from signing new contracts if there is any reason to believe its license might be suspended in the near future – especially if the suspension will be retroactive. Having a suspension on record at the time of contracting may complicate the question of whether the contractor was “duly licensed . . . prior to performance” for the purposes of substantial compliance.
Tip 5: Any judgment against a contractor can cause license suspension if not handled promptly and correctly. The Business and Professions Code authorizes the CSLB to suspend the license of a contractor that does not pay a construction related court judgment within 90 days. The term “construction related” is interpreted to include nearly all types of disputes involving a contractor. (16 Cal. Code Reg. 868;
Pacific Caisson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros. Inc. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1254-1255.) This means a contractor should treat a judgment against it for unpaid office rent, for example, as one carrying the same consequences as one arising from a construction defect or subcontractor claim. The contractor should also not assume that filing an appeal, or agreeing with the other side to stay enforcement, automatically excuses the 90-day deadline in the eyes of the CSLB. It does not. A contractor must notify the CSLB in writing before this period expires, then post bond for the amount of judgment, if it wishes to delay payment for any reason. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7071.17, subd. (d).) A suspension may result if it does not. This applies even to small claims judgments.
Recent case law and the 2016 amendments to Business and Professions Code section 7031 provide some solace to those caught in the dragnet of California's licensing laws. But avoiding these problems altogether is preferable. Consider licensing the foundation of a successful business and deserving of the same attention as the structures a contractor builds.
Eric R. Reed is a business and insurance litigator in the Ventura office of Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric Reed, Myers, Widders, Gibson, Jones & Feingold, LLPMr. Reed may be contacted at
ereed@mwgjlaw.com
Bad Faith in the First Party Insurance Context
December 15, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn a previous article I discussed bad faith when it comes to an insurance claim. Recently, in Barton v. Capitol Preferred Insurance Co., Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2736b (Fla. 5th DCA 2016), the court discussed bad faith in the first-party insurance context (i.e., a property / homeowners insurance policy).
In this case, homeowners, as the insured, sued their homeowners insurance carrier for sinkhole coverage. The homeowner filed a Civil Remedy Notice of Insurer Violation (also known as a Civil Remedy Notice) against their insurer with the Florida Department of Insurance in accordance with Florida Statute s. 624.155. This Civil Remedy Notice is a prerequisite to initiating such a bad faith claim; the notice specifies the statutory violations committed by the insurer and gives the insurer 60 days to cure the violation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
