The COVID-19 Impact: Navigating the Legal Landscape’s New Normal
July 27, 2020 —
Amanda Mathieu - Lewis BrisboisWhile most of the country has been at a standstill since March, you might be wondering, what about my lawsuit or my administrative charge? For the past couple of months, most litigation cases have largely been put on pause in the courts and at administrative agencies. However, as we adjust to what is clearly a new normal in both our lives and the legal landscape as we know it, cases will begin to pick up speed again, albeit with new strategies and challenges to keep in mind.
As courts begin to reopen, judges are emphasizing in many jurisdictions that criminal cases will take priority in an effort to attend to constitutionally required timelines. Nevertheless, it will remain just as important as before the pause button was hit to keep cases moving forward. This ramp up period presents a unique opportunity for clients and attorneys to invest meaningful time into investigating and developing defenses to claims while the court system and related case pace remains slowed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amanda Mathieu, Lewis BrisboisMs. Mathieu may be contacted at
Amanda.Mathieu@lewisbrisbois.com
Texas Federal District Court Dismisses COVID-19 Claim
October 25, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiJudge Ezra, formerly on the bench in Hawaii, dismissed a COVID-19 claim pursued by a Texas policy holder. Diesel Barbershop, LLC v. State Farm Lloyds, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147276 (W.D. Texas Aug. 13, 2020).
Local and state officials in Texas issued shutdown orders in March 2020 due to the spread of the cornavirus. All non-essential businesses, including the insureds' barbershop businesses, were ordered closed from April 2, 2020 until April 30, 2020. The insureds submitted a claim for business interruption and civil authority coverage to their carrier, State Farm. The claim was denied based on the policy's exclusion for loss caused by enforcement of ordinance or law, virus, and consequential losses. For Civil Authority coverage, State Farm contended the policy required that there by physical damage within one mile of the described property and that the damage be the result of a Covered Cause of Loss, which, State Farm asserted, a virus was not.
The insureds sued and State Farm moved to dismiss. The court noted cases in which courts had found physical loss even without tangible destruction to the covered property. Yet, the court found that the line of cases requiring tangible injury to property were more persuasive. Therefore, the court found that the insureds failed to plead a direct physical loss.
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
Illinois Favors Finding Construction Defects as an Occurrence
September 23, 2019 —
Ashley L. Cooper - SDV InsightsA recent Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in, Acuity Ins. Co. v. 950 West Huron Condominium Owners Association, 2019 IL App (1st) 180743 (2019), strengthens Illinois’ precedent favoring construction defects as an occurrence under a Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance policy. Acuity also broadens an insurance carrier’s obligation to defend its insured against construction defect allegations.
In Acuity, the court determined whether claims for construction defect filed against a subcontractor, triggered a duty to defend under a CGL policy. To make its determination, the court focused on the subcontractor’s scope of work. The court notes that a subcontractor normally contracts for a discrete scope of work on a project. Unlike a general contractor, who has control over or contractual obligations for all aspects of the project, a subcontractor does not have those board responsibilities. The court explained that “[f]rom the eyes of the subcontractor, the ‘project’ is limited to the scope of its own work, and the precise nature of any damage that might occur to something outside of that scope is as unknown or unforeseeable as damage to something entirely outside of the construction project.”
Accordingly, the court in Acuity held that when a complaint alleges that a subcontractor’s negligence caused damage to a part of the construction project outside of the subcontractor’s scope of work, the allegations are enough to trigger the insurer’s duty to defend the subcontractor under a CGL policy. The court’s decision in Acuity relied on a similar Illinois Appellate Court decision, Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 956 N.E.2d 524 (Ill. App. 2011). In Larsen, the court reached a similar conclusion where a third-party complaint by a general contractor against a subcontractor alleged that the subcontractor’s improper window caulking caused water intrusion and property damage to other parts of the building. The court in Larsen held that because the complaint alleged not only construction defects, but also damage to other property outside the subcontractor’s scope of work, the insurer had a duty to defend the subcontractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ashley L. Cooper, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Cooper may be contacted at
alc@sdvlaw.com
New York Considering Legislation That Would Create Statute of Repose For Construction
April 05, 2021 —
Richard W. Brown & Anna M. Perry - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.New York is considering legislation, which, if enacted, would create a statute of repose limiting the number of years after completion of a construction project that legal action may be asserted against a contractor. New York currently remains the only state without a statute of repose for construction. Earlier this year, however, the New York State Legislature introduced Bills S04127 and A01706 (the “Bill”) , which would impose a 10-year period of repose in which an injured party may bring suit against a design professional and/or a contractor for bodily injury or property damage resulting from a construction defect.
Currently, contractors and design professionals have exposure to bodily injury and property damage claims resulting from construction defects for an unlimited number of years after completion of a project. If enacted, the Bill would limit the period of repose to 10 years after the project is completed, which is deemed to occur upon substantial completion or acceptance by the owner. An additional 1-year grace period is provided for an injured party to file suit where bodily injury or property damage occurs in the tenth year after completion. The Bill notably limits the applicability of the 10-year statute of repose to third-party actions and thereby preserves the existing 3-year and 6-year statutes of limitation applicable to actions asserted by an owner or client for professional malpractice and breach of contract, respectively.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Anna M. Perry, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Perry may be contacted at APerry@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Would You Trade a Parking Spot for an Extra Bedroom?
August 23, 2021 —
Virginia Postrel - BloombergA bill wending its way through the California Legislature could suddenly make a lot more new housing economically feasible.
Known as AB 1401, the legislation would abolish local parking requirements for new residential and commercial developments near bus or train stops. It applies to counties with more than 600,000 residents and cities with more than 75,000 people.
The bill does not prohibit or restrict parking. It merely deregulates it, allowing developers to decide what works best for a given project. It opens up the possibility, for example, of providing parking in an off-site garage or lot. It permits tandem parking to save space or subsidized shared ride services. It doesn’t prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution to how buildings can best serve the people who use them, and it allows flexibility as transportation options evolve.
Most homeowners and tenants want some sort of parking, but local mandates can be extreme — and extremely expensive. Twenty-one California towns even require more than three parking places for a three-bedroom single-family home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Virginia Postrel, Bloomberg
Think Twice Before Hedging A Position Or Defense On A Speculative Event Or Occurrence
July 13, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesSometimes, hedging a position on a potential occurrence is not prudent. Stated differently, hedging a position on a contingent event is not the right course of action. The reason being is that a potential occurrence or contingent event is SPECULATIVE. The occurrence or event may not take place and, even if it does take place, the impact is unknown.
An example of hedging a defense on such a potential occurrence or contingent event can be found in a construction dispute involving a federal project out of the Eastern District of Virginia, U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc. v. Arch Insurance Co., 2020 WL 1644565 (E.D.Va. 2020). In this case, the prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform electrical work, under one subcontract, and install a security system, under a separate subcontract. The subcontractor claimed it was owed money under the two subcontracts and instituted a lawsuit against the prime contractor’s Miller Act payment bond. The prime contractor had issued the subcontractor an approximate $71,000 back-charge for delays. While the subcontractor did not accept the back-charge, it moved for summary judgment claiming that the liability for the back-charge can be resolved at trial as there is still over $300,000 in contract balance that should be paid to it. The prime contractor countered that the delays caused by the subcontractor could be greater than $71,000 based on a negative evaluation in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (“CPARS”). A negative CPARS rating by the federal government due to the delays caused by the subcontractor would result in a (potential) loss of business with the federal government (i.e., lost profit) to the prime contractor. The main problem for the prime contractor: a negative CPARs rating was entirely speculative as there had not been a negative CPARs rating and, even if there was, the impact a negative rating would have on the prime contractor’s future business with the federal government was unknown. To this point, the district court stated:
In this case, [prime contractor’s] claim for damages is wholly speculative. [Prime contractor] has not produced any evidence that its stated condition precedent—a negative CPARS rating—will actually occur and will have a negative impact on its future federal contracting endeavors. Specifically, [prime contractor] has not identified any facts that indicate that it will be subject to a negative CPARS rating or any indication of the Navy’s dissatisfaction with its work as the prime contractor on the Project… Further, a CPARS rating is only one aspect taken into consideration when federal contracts are awarded. In sum, there is no evidence of the following: (1) a negative CPARS rating issued to [prime contractor]; (2) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative rating will be the result of the delay [prime contractor] alleges was caused by [subcontractor]; or (3) [prime contractor’s] hypothetical negative CPARS rating will result in future lost profits.
U.S. f/u/b/o Champco, Inc., supra, at *2 (internal citation omitted).
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
1st District Joins 2nd District Court of Appeals and Holds that One-Year SOL Applies to Disgorgement Claims
June 14, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogWe’re beginning to see a trend.
This past year, the 2nd District Court of Appeals, in Eisenberg Village of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk Construction Company, 53 Cal.App.5th 1201 (2020), held for the first time that a one (1) year statute of limitations period beginning upon substantial completion of a project applies to disgorgement claims under Business and Professions Code section 7031. In San Francisco CDC LLC v. Webcor Construction L.P., the 1st District Court of Appeals became the second Court of Appeals in the state to hold that a one (1) year statute of limitations beginning upon completion or cessation of work on a project applies to disgorgement claims under Business and Professions Code section 7031.
The San Francisco CDC LLC Case
The Defect Action
In September 2005, San Francisco CDC LLC entered into a $144 million construction contract with Webcor Construction, Inc. doing business as Webcor Builders to build the InterContinental Hotel in San Francisco, California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Virginia General Assembly Tweaks Pay-if-Paid Ban
April 03, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsLast year, the Virginia General Assembly passed into law a ban on the so-called pay-if-paid clauses, effective January 1, 2023. I shared my thoughts and concerns with the legislation as drafted at the time of its passage. During this most recent legislative session, and among some other construction-related bills, the General Assembly sought to clarify its past enactment.
The enrolled bill fills in certain gaps in the law as follows:
- For both private and public contracts, the General Contractor, if it has good reason to withhold any payment, now has a maximum of 50 days from receipt of a proper invoice to notify its subcontractor of the reason for the withholding, including the contractual noncompliance, the amount to be withheld, and the lower-tier subcontractor responsible for the contractual noncompliance.
- For private contracts, the Owner now has 45 days in which to provide any written notice of intention to withhold payment. This notice must include the specific contractual non-compliance and the dollar amount to be withheld. NB- Owners do not need to specify the subcontractor responsible for the non-compliance.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
