Is a Violation of a COVID-19 Order the Basis For Civil Liability?
April 20, 2020 —
Robert Devine, James Burger & Douglas Weck - White and WilliamsThinking about ignoring your state or local COVID-19 shutdown orders? Think again. Social-distance measures may create a new source of liability for businesses operating during the COVID-19 pandemic. Infection-based litigation is normally limited to businesses operating in the healthcare sector. But, social-distancing measures to stop the spread of infection may expand that litigation to other sectors.
State and local governments across the country are taking extraordinary measures to combat the spread of COVID-19, a novel coronavirus that can cause life-threatening respiratory illness. Those measures encourage and even mandate “social distance” between people to limit physical transmission of the virus.
Hard-hit states like New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California have been aggressive in their responses, shuttering businesses, confining people to their homes, and requiring people to stay six feet apart. Common mandates include: quarantines, business and school closures, stay-home orders, curfews, travel restrictions, occupancy limits and physical-distance mandates, among other things.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams attorneys
Robert Devine,
James Burger and
Douglas Weck
Mr. Devine may be contacted at deviner@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Burger may be contacted at burgerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Weck may be contacted at weckd@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Must Indemnify Additional Insured After Settlement
October 21, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that Target was an additional insured under its supplier's policy and the insurer had a duty to indemnify Target after it settled the underlying suit. Selective Ins. Co. v. Target Corp., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123230 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015).
Angela Brown sued Target when she was allegedly injured by a door to a fitting room that came unhinged and fell on her head. Harbor Industries, Inc. supplied Target with its fitting rooms. Pursuant to the "Supplier Qualification Agreement" (SQA), Harbor named Target as an additional insured under its policy with Selective Insurance Company. The SQA became effective and was to remain in effect until terminated by either party. A second agreement, the "Program Agreement," set forth the terms under which Harbor sold the fitting rooms to Target. The Program Agreement went into effect on April 23, 2009, and expired on July 1, 2010. Brown's injury occurred on December 17, 2011, while the SQA and the policy were in effect, but after the Program Agreement expired.
After Brown's injury, Target tendered to Selective, who denied coverage, contending Target was not an additional insured. The policy's endorsement expanded insureds to any additional insured whom Harbor agreed in a written contract to add as an additional insured. Selective filed suit and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Allegations of Actual Property Damage Necessary to Invoke Duty to Defend
January 17, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit held that under Texas law, conclusory allegations of property damage in the underlying complaint did not trigger the insurer's duty to defend. PPI Tech. Serv., L.P. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 24571 (5th Cir. Nov. 29, 2012).
Royal Production Company was the lessor and operator of three leases for oil exploration. Royal retained the insured, PPI, as its agent to assist in well-planning and oversee the drilling of wells on the leases.
A well was drilled on one of the three leased areas, but in resulted in a dry hole. It was later discovered that the well had been drilled on the wrong lease. Royal sued PPI for negligence, claiming that PPI caused the drilling rig to be towed to the wrong location, resulting in a dry hole and "property damage."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Fundamental Fairness Trumps Contract Language
September 24, 2014 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThe Texas Supreme Court recently ruled that a “no-damages-for-delay” clause would not be enforced where the delay was caused by the owner. The court’s ruling flies squarely in the face of the contract language that attempted to insulate the owner from any delay claims, even those it caused.
In the case of Zachary Construction v. Port of Houston underlying contract, proposed by the Port of Houston, was heavy handed, to say the least. The contract provided:
“[Contractor] shall receive no financial compensation for delay or hindrance to the Work. In no event shall the Port Authority be liable to [Contractor] … for any damages arising out of or associated with any delay or hindrance to the Work, regardless of the source of the delay or hindrance, including events of Force Majeure, AND EVEN IF SUCH DELAY OR HINDRANCE RESULTS FROM, ARISES OUT OF OR IS DUE IN WHOLE OR IN PART, TO THE NEGLIGENCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR OTHER FAULT OF THE PORT AUTHORITY. [Contractor’s] sole remedy in any such case shall be an extension of time.”
Wow, that’s some one-sided language. If the contract was enforced, the contractor could not get any damages for delay, even those damages caused by the active interference of the Port of Houston.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
A Tuesday With Lisa Colon
July 02, 2024 —
Lisa Colon - The Dispute ResolverAs a seasoned construction lawyer, I've always prided myself on being independent and tough. However, my toughness was tested when my life took an unexpected turn. In 2013, I was diagnosed with a genetic cardiomyopathy, a condition which made it harder for my heart to pump blood. That diagnosis in itself was devasting since I had to change many things about the way I lived, including having to abandon running, my favorite hobby. After living 10 years in this new normal, in May 2023, I was told my right ventricle was no longer working and there were no further therapies available. I needed a heart transplant. The journey was long, arduous, and filled with both physical and emotional challenges. This life-altering experience not only gave me a new lease on life but also profoundly changed my perspective on practicing law. In this post, I will share three key lessons I learned from my heart transplant journey that have significantly impacted how I approach my legal practice.
Lesson 1: The Importance of Patience and Persistence
The journey to receiving a heart transplant is often fraught with uncertainty and long waiting periods. My new heart came quickly. I waited 22 days on the transplant list, but for me, the wait seemed interminable, filled with numerous hospital visits, medical tests, and moments of despair. Then came the recovery. The early days were filled with weekly biopsies, unimaginable nerve pain, and days of wondering if things would ever get better. During this time, I learned the true meaning of patience. Each day was a test of my resolve, and giving up was never an option. I had to persist through the toughest days, believing that a positive outcome was possible.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa Colon, Saul EwingMs. Colon may be contacted at
lisa.colon@saul.com
Can a Receiver Prime and Strip Liens Against Real Property?
September 20, 2021 —
Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogCourts overseeing receivers generally enjoy broad discretion in directing and approving a receiver’s proposed actions. But does that authority extend to a receiver not only granting a super-priority lien ahead of existing liens, but also selling the real property free and clear of all liens? In County of Sonoma v. Quail, 56 Cal.App.5th 657 (Ct. App. 2020), the California Court of Appeals answered that question in the affirmative.
Quail involved a 47,480 square-foot lot with two houses, a few garages, several outbuildings, and numerous trailers surrounded by a veritable junk yard. Despite many of these structures being uninhabitable, unsanitary, and dangerous, multiple families resided on the lot. Although Sonoma County (the “County”) ordered the owner to remediate the property several times, he failed and refused to do so. After several years of these violations going unabated, the County ultimately sought and obtained the appointment of a receiver over the real property.
To obtain funds necessary to repair the property, the receiver asked the court for permission to borrow money through the issuance of a receivership certificate to be secured by a super-priority lien—i.e., a lien ahead of all other liens—against the real property. Although the trial court initially declined to prime existing liens, when the receiver could find no one to lend money (since the land lacked equity), the trial court relented and approved a super-priority lien despite the senior secured lender’s objection (the “lender”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Reeves, Snell & WilmerMr. Reeves may be contacted at
breeves@swlaw.com
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What Every Employer Should Know
April 06, 2020 —
Donald A. Velez, Karissa L. Fox & Sarah K. Carpenter - Smith CurrieSmith Currie provides this update regarding the Families First Coronavirus Response Act as part of its continuing effort to monitor developments concerning the Coronavirus disease (“COVID-19”) and provide guidance as to potential issues that may arise in businesses across the United States.
On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “Act”), which contains provisions requiring certain private employers to provide paid leave to employees who cannot work because of Coronavirus, expanding Family and Medical Leave Act coverage, providing for federal tax credits to affected employers, and providing eligible states the ability to further fund their unemployment trust fund accounts. The Act is effective as of April 2, 2020 and will remain in place through December 31, 2020.
Below, we provide a summary of the Act and several of its key components, including the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act, and the Emergency Unemployment Insurance Stabilization and Access Act.
Reprinted courtesy of Smith Currie attorneys
Donald A. Velez,
Karissa L. Fox and
Sarah K. Carpenter
Mr. Velez may be contacted at davelez@smithcurrie.com
Ms. Fox may be contacted at klfox@smithcurrie.com
Ms. Carpenter may be contacted at skcarpenter@smithcurrie.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
