AIA Releases State-Specific Waiver and Release Forms
September 05, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe American Institute of Architects (AIA) has released a new series of state-specific waiver and release forms including forms for California. The new
California-specific forms are:
- G901CA-2022 – California Conditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment
- G902CA-2022 – California Unconditional Waiver and Release on Progress Payment
- G903CA-2022 – California Conditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment
- G904CA-2022 – California Unconditional Waiver and Release on Final Payment
California is one of twelve states – including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Texas, Utah and Wyoming – which regulate waiver and release forms on construction projects. California’s waiver and release statute, which is codified at Civil Code section 8120 et seq., sets forth specific language which should be used in waivers and releases. While the exact language set forth under California’s waiver and release statutes does not need to be used, the statute provides that the language must be “in substantially” the same form, and most people follow the statutory language exactly.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Over 70 Lewis Brisbois Attorneys Recognized in 4th Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America
September 25, 2023 —
Lewis Brisbois(August 17, 2023) – 75 Lewis Brisbois attorneys across 25 offices have been named to the 4th edition of
"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America." Congratulations to the following attorneys on this recognition!
You can see the full list of Lewis Brisbois attorneys named to Best Lawyers' 30th edition of
The Best Lawyers in America here.
Akron, OH
- Associate Meleah M. Skillern – Commercial Litigation
Atlanta, GA
- Partner Candis R. Jones - Insurance Law, Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants, and Personal Injury Litigation – Defendants
Boston, MA
- Partner Amanda Mathieu - Labor and Employment Law – Management
Charleston, WV
- Partner Sophie L. Johns - Product Liability Litigation - Defendants
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Submitting Claims on Government Projects Can Be Tricky
March 19, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThe Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in K-Con Building Systems, Inc. v. United States illustrates the difficulties a contractor may face when pursuing a claim before a Contracting Officer. After nearly 10 years of litigation, the court found that the contractor’s claim to the Contracting Officer did not contain enough detail to allow the claim to proceed. That’s a lot of time and resources wasted on a claim that was dead from the start.
K-Con was awarded a $582,000 job to design and build a Coast Guard support building in Michigan. K-Con was unable to complete the project by the finish date and the Coast Guard assessed liquidated damages of $109,554. K-Con contested the assessment of liquidated damages by submitting a one paragraph letter asserting that it was not the sole cause of the alleged delays; that the government was at fault for the delay; and the liquidated damages were an impermissible penalty. The Contracting Officer ultimately denied K-Con’s claim and K-Con appealed to the Court of Claims.
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
Standard of Care
December 16, 2019 —
Jay Gregory - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogOne of the key concepts at the heart of Board complaints and civil claims against a design professional is whether or not that design professional complied with the applicable standard of care. In order to prevail on such a claim, the claimant must establish (typically with the aid of expert testimony) that the design professional deviated from the standard of care. On the other side of the coin, to defend a design professional against a professional malpractice claim, defense counsel attempts to establish that – contrary to the claimant’s allegations – the design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. Obviously, it becomes very important in such a claim situation to determine what the standard of care is that applies to the conduct of the defendant design professional. Often, this is easier said than done. There is no dictionary definition or handy guidebook that identifies the precise standard of care that applies in any given situation. The “standard of care” is a concept and, as such, is flexible and open to interpretation. Traditionally, the standard of care is expressed as being that level of service or competence generally employed by average or prudent practitioners under the same or similar circumstances at the same time and in the same locale. In other words, to meet the standard of care a design professional must generally follow the pack; he or she need not be perfect, exemplary, outstanding, or even superior – it is sufficient merely for the designer to do that which a reasonably prudent practitioner would do under similar circumstances. The negative or reverse definition also applies, to meet the standard of care, a practitioner must refrain from doing what a reasonably prudent practitioner would have refrained from doing.
Although we have this ready definition of the standard of care, in any given dispute it is practically inevitable that the parties will have markedly different opinions as to: (1) what the standard of care required of the designer; and (2) whether the defendant design professional complied with that requirement. The claimant bringing a claim against a design professional typically will be able to find an expert reasonably qualified (at least on paper) who will offer an opinion that the defendant failed to comply with the standard of care. It is just as likely that the counsel for the defendant design professional will be able to find his or her own expert who will counter the opinion of the claimant’s expert and maintain that the defendant design professional, in fact, complied with the standard of care. What’s a jury to think?
The concept of standard of care is intertwined with the legal concept of negligence. In the vast majority of law suits against design professionals, a claimant (known as the plaintiff) will assert a claim for negligence against the design professional now known as the defendant.1 As every first year law student learns while studying the field of “Torts,” negligence has four subparts. In order for a defendant to be found negligent, the claimant must establish four elements: (1) duty; (2) breach; (3) causation; and (4) damages. In other words, to establish a claim against a defendant design professional, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care but breached that duty and, as a result, caused the plaintiff to suffer damages.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jay Gregory, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Gregory may be contacted at
jgregory@grsm.com
Delaware District Court Finds CGL Insurer Owes Condo Builder a Duty to Defend Faulty Workmanship Claims — Based on the Subcontractor Exception to the Your Work Exclusion
October 04, 2021 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Laura Rossi - White and WilliamsOn September 7, 2021, in one of the few decisions addressing the scope of coverage for faulty workmanship under Delaware law, the Delaware District Court denied an insurer’s motion seeking a declaration that it neither needed to defend nor indemnify an insured-builder under a commercial general liability policy.
In this declaratory judgment action, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company v. Zonko Builders, the insurer argued that the ongoing underlying action failed to properly plead an “occurrence” in a case alleging damages to a condominium caused by faulty workmanship involving subcontractors.* Zonko Builders (Zonko) served as the general contractor, supervising subcontractors. The Condominium Association sued Zonko for damages allegedly resulting from design and construction deficiencies. The motion was opposed by the Condominium Association, which cross-moved for partial judgment on the pleadings.
In AE-Newark Associates, L.P. v. CNA Insurance Companies, 2001 Del. Super. LEXIS 370 (Del. Super. Ct. Oct. 2, 2001), the Delaware Superior Court found that an insured was entitled to coverage for damages arising from a faulty roof system installed by a subcontractor on behalf of the insured general contractor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Laura Rossi, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Appellate Court Restores Insurer’s Right to Seek Pro Rata Allocation of Settlements Between Insured and Uninsured Periods
March 28, 2022 —
Patricia B. Santelle & Frank J. Perch, III - White and Williams LLPIn Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jenkins Bros., 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1846 (App.Div. 1st Dept. March 22, 2022), the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, issued a ruling reversing the trial court and holding that an insurer was entitled to allocate a portion of asbestos claim settlements it negotiated to time periods when its dissolved insured was without coverage.
The decision overturns a trial court ruling that the insurer was barred from denying liability for the full amount of the settlements because the insurer had become the “real party in interest” as a result of a prior court order directing it to accept service of process on behalf of a dissolved insured. The trial court held that the insurer stood in the shoes of the insured for all purposes by accepting service and negotiating settlements, and was therefore estopped from denying liability for the full amount of the settlements.
Reprinted courtesy of
Patricia B. Santelle, White and Williams LLP and
Frank J. Perch, III, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Santelle may be contacted at santellep@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Perch may be contacted at perchf@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register.
Background
As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency.
In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Subcontractor’s Claim against City Barred by City’s Compliance with Georgia Payment Bond Statute
March 29, 2017 —
Chadd Reynolds – Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPIn a recent Georgia Court of Appeals case, the Court was tasked with determining whether the City of Atlanta’s compliance with the Georgia Payment Bond Statutes barred a subcontractor from recovery against it after the general contractor failed to pay and the surety became insolvent.
Squared Plumbing Co., LLC (J. Squared), was a subcontractor on a project to clean up sewage spills in approximately 100 dwellings for the City of Atlanta. As required by the contract executed with the City, the general contractor, Scott and Sons Holdings, LLC (Scott and Sons), obtained a $200,000 payment bond from its surety, First Seaford Surety, Inc. (First Seaford). J. Squared sought to collect on the payment bond when Scott and Sons failed to pay J. Squared for the work it performed on the project. However, First Seaford became insolvent. J. Squared subsequently filed a claim against Scott and Sons and the City to recover $140,000 for its work on the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chadd Reynolds, Autry, Hanrahan, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Reynolds may be contacted at
reynolds@ahclaw.com
