Are You Satisfying WISHA Standards?
October 23, 2018 —
Ceslie Blass - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC BlogMany general contractors and property management companies hand over project sites to subcontractors and have little, if anything, to do with the construction work that occurs. However, under RCW 49.17, the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA), general contractors and some property management companies/owners are still responsible for workplace safety for the employees of their subcontractors and independent contractors.
The Washington Supreme Court held in Stute v. PBMC that a general contractor could be held liable for injury to a subcontractor’s employee sustained as a result of a WISHA violation.[1] The Stute decision changed the landscape of workplace safety, imposing an expansive, per se liability on general contractors for workplace injuries. Stated differently, general contractors have a specific, non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with WISHA regulations, which extends to all employees on the project site.[2] Washington courts have held that such “expansive liability is justified because ‘a general contractor’s supervisory authority is per se control over the workplace.’”[3] Thus, the non-delegable duty requires general contractors to ensure care is exercised by anyone, even an independent contractor to whom the performance of the duty is entrusted.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ceslie Blass, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Blass may be contacted at
ceslie.blass@acslawyers.com
Another Guilty Plea In Nevada Construction Defect Fraud Case
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe eleventh defendant has entered a guilty plea in the ongoing federal investigation of construction defect fraud in the Las Vegas area. Mahin Quintero plead guilty to producing a false authentication feature, a misdemeanor. Ms. Quintero’s part in the scheme was to falsely authenticate signatures on loan documents for straw buyers. Ms. Quintero stated in court that she had been ordered to destroy her notary book three years ago. According to her plea bargain, the straw buyers did not appear in front of her when she notarized their signatures. As part of the scheme, the straw buyers would take control of homeowners associates, sending construction defect complaints and repairs to favored firms.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Supreme Court Declines to Waive Sovereign Immunity in Premises Defect Case
April 10, 2023 —
Starr M. Forster - Lewis BrisboisHouston, Texas (March 30, 2023) – The Supreme Court of Texas recently upheld a Thirteenth Court of Appeals’ judgment finding that the plaintiffs in a premises defect case brought against the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) had failed to raise a fact issue regarding the creation of a dangerous condition and, consequently, failed to establish waiver of the defendant’s sovereign immunity.
Daniel K. Christ and Nicole D. Salinas v. Tex. DOT, et al., No. 21-0728, 66 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 306, 2023 Tex. LEXIS 128, at *1 (Feb 10, 2023).
Background
Plaintiffs Daniel Christ and his wife, Nicole Salinas (the Christs), were riding their motorcycle through a construction zone when they collided with a vehicle that crossed into their lane. TxDOT’s traffic control plan for the related construction project called for the placement of concrete barriers between opposing travel lanes; however, once construction on the project began, TxDOT’s contractor determined there was not enough space for the concrete barriers and revised the traffic control plan to substitute yellow stripes and buttons for the concrete barriers. TxDOT never approved the revised traffic control plan in writing; however, TxDOT’s contractor contended TxDOT orally approved of the change. The Christs sued the driver of the other vehicle, TxDOT, and TxDOT’s contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Starr M. Forster, Lewis BrisboisMs. Forster may be contacted at
Starr.Forster@lewisbrisbois.com
Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon
May 01, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j.
Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs.
Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit.
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
Effects of Amendment to Florida's Statute of Repose on the Products Completed Operations Hazard
November 06, 2018 —
Richard W. Brown & Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Recent amendments to Florida’s Statute of Repose have resulted in concerns as to the scope of risk Florida homebuilders face as a result, and the availability of insurance coverage for such exposures. Previously, the statute provided for a strict, yet straightforward 10-year limitation for latent construction defect claims. Under that language, issues arose when suits were filed near expiration of the statute, because parties seeking to defend claims were given little time to effectively assert related claims. The amendment to the statute serves to lengthen the statute of repose to 11 years for certain cross-claims, compulsory counterclaims, and third-party claims, and in limited circumstances, potentially even longer. Most policies in the Florida marketplace serve to limit coverage under the products-completed operations hazard (“PCO”) to 10 years, and thus, in very limited circumstances, an insured contractor may be exposed to third-party claims under the revised statute. It is important to note, however, that coverage under most CGL policies is occurrence-based, meaning that the policy is triggered by property damage that occurs during the policy period, and therefore, any subsequent claims permitted under the amended statute will necessarily relate to the original property damage that occurred during the 10-year period, and thus, would be covered under the standard 10-year PCO extension. This paper will analyze the anticipated effect of the amendments upon coverage under a 10-year PCO extension.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C. and
Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at gvh@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fifth Circuit Confirms: Insurer Must Defend Despite Your Work/Your Product Exclusion
February 14, 2022 —
Nathan A. Cazier & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsThe United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently confirmed that liability insurers have a duty to defend their insureds in construction defect cases when the underlying complaint alleges damage to property beyond the product and work of the insured – even if the complaint merely implies that the insured seeks such damage, without explicitly alleging so. Siplast, Incorporated v. Employers Mutual Casualty Company, No. 20-11076, 2022 WL 99303 (5th Cir. Jan. 11, 2022).
The Archdiocese of New York replaced the roof over Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, using a roofing membrane manufactured by Siplast, Inc. (“Siplast”). After a rainstorm a few years later, school officials reported water damage to the ceiling tiles throughout the school, and repair attempts only made the leaking worse. Siplast disputed that the leaks were its fault and refused to replace the roof, so the Archdiocese sued.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nathan A. Cazier, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Cazier may be contacted at nac@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Interlocutory Appeals of "Garden-Variety" Contract Disputes
March 12, 2015 —
Jesse Howard Witt – Acerbic WittColorado’s new procedure for interlocutory appeals has its limits. In the recent decision of Rich v. Ball Ranch Partnership, ___ P.3d ___, 2014 COA 6 (2015), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Appellate Rule 4.2 does not permit interlocutory review of questions of law in “garden-variety” or “run-of-the-mill” contract disputes. This resolves a subtle question that has been lingering since Colorado first created the interlocutory appeal process four years ago.
Prior to 2011, Colorado did not permit civil litigants to seek appellate review prior to final judgment, except in a small handful of situations. As I discussed in an article at the time, this changed with the passage of C.R.S. § 13-4-102.1 and the adoption of Rule 4.2, which granted the court of appeals discretion to permit the immediate appeal of certain district court orders. These provisions allowed parties to seek interlocutory review of orders before the conclusion of a case if a district court could certify that (1) immediate review might promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final disposition of the litigation, and (2) the order involved a controlling and unresolved question of law. The rule was patterned after 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which provides similar relief in the federal courts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jesse Howard Witt, The Witt Law FirmMr. Witt welcomes comments at www.acerbicwitt.com
Creeping Incrementalism in Downstream Insurance: Carriers are Stretching Standard CGL Concepts to Untenable Limits
October 17, 2023 —
Eric M. Clarkson - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn the construction sector, the importance of closely vetting downstream parties’ insurance has never been more critical. The markets have been hardening with no seeming end in sight and carriers are looking for any way to get an edge. Owners and general contractors need to be on the lookout for ever broader carrier-specific expansions of standard insurance provisions that are perilous for risk transfer. We are seeing more and more terms that go against the intent of ISO standard which is what is almost universally required in construction contracts.
One area where carriers are deviating from standard concepts is within pre-existing injury or damage exclusions in Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) policies. It is almost a universal requirement that downstream parties provide additional insured coverage to owners and general contractors on ISO form CG 00 01. Generally, ISO standard language provides coverage for sums the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage. One of the few main requirements to trigger coverage is that the injury or damage must occur during the policy period. Over the years, ISO standard language has evolved to exclude injury or damage if an insured or certain persons knew that it had occurred before the policy period. Additionally, injury or damage is deemed to have been known to have occurred under certain circumstances.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric M. Clarkson, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMr. Clarkson may be contacted at
EClarkson@sdvlaw.com
