Why Construction Law- An Update
May 07, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsBack in 2009, only a year or so after my first post here at Musings, I posted on why I’m in the field of construction law. Well, a lot has happened in the over 5 years since then, not the least of which is my move to solo practice in July of 2010 and the later certification as a mediator. As I sit here, I look back at the passage of time and the events between my last thoughts on this subject and now and wonder if my thoughts have changed?
Frankly, not much has changed as far as my attitude toward the practice of construction law. Despite my kids occasionally rolling their eyes when I talk about a case of interest to me and their sometimes moniker for me as a “dirt lawyer,” I continue to find the representation of the construction professionals that I call clients and friends to be fulfilling and worthwhile. Even in the face of criticisms that we lawyers cause more problems that we solve, I firmly believe that I and other good construction lawyers can and do help avoid and anticipate more problems than I cause.
As one of the few solo construction attorneys here in the Richmond area, if anything, I am more involved in the construction community. Between my continued and even increased involvement with the AGC of Virginia and my more recent appointment to the board of the Virginia State Bar‘s Construction Law and Public Contracts Section, I have gained even more insight into the workings of the legal and business landscapes of construction. With each new piece of information gained by such involvement, I see another side to the business of construction that I may not have thought of.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Construction Law MusingsMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar
January 01, 2011 —
CDJ STAFF“Challenges for Experts in Construction Defect Claims and Litigation” will be held Thursday May 13, 2011 between 1:30 and 3:00 PM at this year’s West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. Among the various topics covered will be of Right to Repair/Opportunity to Repair statutes, improper testing methodologies, new challenges where a case involves a Wrap Policy, OCIPS, CCIPS, and other owner controlled insurance programs, as well as the need for realistic testing protocols for the party the expert is retained to represent.
During the presentation Mr. MacGregor will be working in connection with a group of construction and design experts each of which have extensive experience with construction defect and claims related litigation. This particular session is expected to attract a standing-room only crowd, drawing in excess of 1700 attendees.
The West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar is the largest seminar of its type. This year’s event is scheduled for will take place on May 12 and 13, 2011, at The Disneyland Hotel and Resort. For more information regarding the years event please visit http://www.westcoastcasualty.com/dyncat.cfm?catid=3322
http://www.westcoastcasualty.com/dyncat.cfm?catid=3322
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Condominiums and Homeowners Associations Remain Popular Housing Choices for U-S Homeowners
July 11, 2022 —
Community Associations InstituteFalls Church, Va., July 06, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Maintenance-free, safety, and cleanliness are top features that make community associations a popular choice and lifestyle for millions of Americans. According to results from the 2022 Homeowner Satisfaction Survey, the overwhelming majority (89%) of homeowners and condominium association residents rate their overall experience of living in a community association as "very good" or "good" (67%), or neutral (22%).
At a time when community matters most, the majority (87%) said they knew their home was part of a community association and nearly half (45%) said the association made them more interested in the home. Eighty-seven percent of respondents believe that their governing board "absolutely" or "for the most part" serves the best interest of the community. More than half of residents (68%) believe that rules in their communities protect and enhance property values.
Results from almost identical national surveys conducted in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022 are strikingly consistent. The online survey of 1,507 homeowners and condominium association members nationwide with oversampling was conducted in in four states: Illinois, New York, North Carolina and Washington.
About Community Associations Institute
Since 1973, Community Associations Institute (CAI) has been the leading provider of resources and information for homeowners, volunteer board leaders, professional managers, and business professionals in the more than 355,000 homeowners associations, condominiums, and housing cooperatives in the United States and millions of communities worldwide. With more than 43,000 members, CAI works in partnership with 36 legislative action committees and 63 affiliated chapters within the U.S., Canada, South Africa, and the United Arab Emirates as well as with housing leaders in several other countries, including Australia, Spain, and the United Kingdom. A global nonprofit 501(c)(6) organization, CAI is the foremost authority in community association management, governance, education, and advocacy. Our mission is to inspire professionalism, effective leadership, and responsible citizenship—ideals reflected in community associations that are preferred places to call home. Visit us at www.caionline.org, and follow us on Twitter and Facebook @CAISocial.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Court of Appeals Takes Narrow View of Labor Law Provisions in Recent Cases
July 03, 2022 —
Lisa M. Rolle & Matthew Feinberg - Traub LiebermanSince the end of March, the New York State Court of Appeals has issued decisions in favor of the defense concerning New York Labor Law §240 and §241. These pro-defendant decisions take a narrow view of the scope of the Labor Law provisions. However, while it remains to be seen how the Court’s below will apply the Court of Appeal’s reasoning, these recent decisions are beneficial for the defense bar going forward.
In Toussaint v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J March 22, 2022 N.Y. LEXIS 391 | 2022 NY Slip Op 01955 | 2022 WL 837579, the Court held that 12 NYCRR 23-9.9 (a), does not set forth a concrete specification sufficient to give rise to a non-delegable duty under Labor Law § 241 (6). In Toussaint Plaintiff, who was an employee of Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., brought the lawsuit against the Port Authority asserting claims under Labor Law § 200 (1) and Labor Law § 241 (6) after he was struck by a power buggy while operating a rebar-bending machine at the World Trade Center Transportation Hub construction site owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Power buggies are small, self-operated vehicles used to move materials on construction sites. On the day of the accident, a trained and properly designated operator drove the buggy into the area near the plaintiff's workstation. That vehicle operator got off the vehicle, but short time thereafter, another worker—who was not designated or trained to do so—drove the buggy a short while prior to losing control and striking plaintiff. Plaintiff relied upon 12 NYCRR 23-9.9(a) which states that “[no person other than a trained and competent operator designated by the employer shall operate a power buggy.” In rejecting plaintiff’s argument the Court held that the "trained and competent operator" requirement is general, as it lacks a specific requirement or standard of conduct.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa M. Rolle, Traub Lieberman and
Matthew Feinberg, Traub Lieberman
Ms. Rolle may be contacted at lrolle@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Feinberg may be contacted at mfeinberg@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What are Section 8(f) Agreements?
July 02, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions Like many areas of federal labor law, there are different rules for construction industry employers. One major difference is in how employers become unionized. Typically, under Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act, a union becomes a collective bargaining agent of employees only after a majority of employees show support for union representation. In other words, the employees chose whether to be represented by a particular union. However, under Section 8(f) of the NLRA, construction industry employers can choose to become union without any showing of majority support by employees. In fact, construction industry employers don’t need to have any employees at all to sign a “8(f) agreement.” Thus, these agreements have become known as pre-hire agreements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion
September 28, 2017 —
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion!
Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at
pbw@sdvlaw.com
No Occurrence Found for Damage to Home Caused by Settling
October 22, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Nebraska Supreme Court found the insurer properly denied coverage to the general contractor for damage to a home caused by settlement. Cizek Homes, Inc. v. Columbia Nat. Ins. Co., 2014 Neb. LEXIS 152 (Neb. Sept. 9, 2014).
The general contractor built and then sold the residence. Subsequently, the homeowners complained that the soil beneath their residence was settling and causing damage to their home. The homeowners presented a draft complaint to the general contractor, alleging that negligence and faulty workmanship had caused damage to the home.
The general contractor notified its carrier, Columbia. Coverage was denied.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
