Does Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation?”
August 04, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsRecently, my friend and fellow construction attorney/consultant, Chris Cheatham (@chrischeatham) posted the news that USGBC will be more stringent on the de-certification front. This statement relates to the continued energy performance of LEED certified buildings and increases the likelihood that energy performance (as opposed to mere reporting) could lead to de-certification.
I have discussed on several occasions the potential legal risks relating to green building. One of the big potential sources for such litigation (or “leedigation” as coined by Mr. Cheatham) is the possible de-certification of a previously certified building. With this latest statement by USGBC the specter of such de-certification seems even stronger.
Couple this potential with the fact that anyone can challenge the certification of a building at any time and contractors, subcontractors and other construction professionals face potential liability for the performance of a building in ways well beyond their control.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Iowa Apartment Complex Owners Awarded Millions for Building Defects
March 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe owners of a West Des Moines, Iowa apartment complex received an award of $12.4 million by a Polk County jury, according to The Des Moines Register, who declared that “[i]t’s believed to be one of the largest judgments of its kind in state history.” The owners had sued the builders “over leaks and mold the owners said took years to correct.”
The verdict “marked the culmination of a nearly decade-long saga involving the construction of the Westlake apartments and condos, a 300-unit complex built at 1770 92nd St. on the Dallas County side of West Des Moines during the pre-recession housing boom.”
Attorney Steve Eckley told The Des Moines Register that “the settlement covers about $3 million in previous repairs, about $6 million in expected repairs and maintenance and about $6 million in lost revenue.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractor Not Liable for Flooding House
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFKnife River Corp was hired by the town of Post Falls, Idaho to do road and sewer construction work. In the process, they interrupted a 6-inch water supply line, sending the water into a wastewater line. From there, the water flooded a home in Post Fall. The city paid more than $7,800 in damages.
Post Falls sued Knife River’s insurer for coverage. The city has lost its lawsuit and is responsible for $18,500 in attorneys’ fees. Despite all this, the city administrator says that the city still has a good working relationship with Knife River.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Denial of Coverage to Additional Insured Constitutes Bad Faith
May 21, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer's unreasonable denial of a defense and indemnity to a lessor/additional insured was found to be in bad faith. Seaway Props. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55998 (W.D. Wash. April 22, 2014).
Seaway leased restaurant space to Ciao Bella Food, LLC. In January 10, 2010, the underlying plaintiff was on her way to the restaurant when she attempted to step down from a concrete platform between the building parking lot and the entrance to the restaurant. Seaway's lease gave Ciao Bella the right to use the common areas, including the parking lot, but did not grant Ciao Bella exclusive control over the common areas. The plaintiff suffered injuries and claimed both Ciao Bella and Seaway were liable.
Seaway's lease required Ciao Bella to maintain a CGL policy and to name Seaway as an additional insured. Ciao Bella did so by securing a policy with Fireman's Fund. Fireman's Fund had notice of the plaintiff's claim by November 2010. Seaway demanded in March 2012 that Fireman's Fund indemnify and defend it. In September 2012, two years after it first learned of the plaintiff's injury, Fireman's Fund denied coverage, asserting that Seaway was not an insured under the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend
February 28, 2022 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThis post in our
Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series discusses the Montana Supreme Court’s consideration of an insurer’s duty to defend in
National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021).
For 67 years, W.R. Grace & Company’s mining operations spread asbestos through the town of Libby, Montana,
causing elevated rates of asbestosis and asbestos-related cancer in Libby residents – even among those who never worked in the mine. The Environmental Protection Agency deemed the Libby Mine the
“most significant single source of asbestos exposure” in US history.
In 2000, Libby residents began filing lawsuits against the State of Montana, alleging that the State had failed to warn them about the mine’s danger, and this failure contributed to their bodily injuries. Id. at 521-22. The Libby plaintiffs’ asbestos exposures and related injuries had occurred decades earlier, and so the State searched its storage units for records of any potentially applicable insurance policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute
October 24, 2021 —
Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaApplying Louisiana law, a recent federal court decision exemplifies why policyholders should thoroughly read claims-made policies to understand when notice is due to insurers and truthfully complete policy applications. In Admiral Insurance Company v. Dual Trucking, Inc.,1 the Court determined the insurer, Admiral Insurance Company (“AIC”), owed no duty to defend or indemnify Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC (“DTT”), Dual Trucking of Montana, LLC (“DTM”), and Dual Trucking, Inc. (“DTI”) (collectively, the “Dual Entities”) under two Environmental Impairment Liability Policies (“EIL Policies”) and four Contractor Pollution Liability Policies (“CPL Policies”). The Court justified its decision because the Dual Entities: 1) did not give notice during the 2012-2013 EIL Policy period; 2) had discovered or knew of, but did not disclose, potential pollution conditions before the inception of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy and before the expiration of the extended reporting period of the 2012-2013 EIL Policy; 3) failed to provide AIC with notice during the extended reporting period of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy of claims for which the Dual Entities were seeking coverage; and 4) materially misrepresented known facts on the CPL Policy applications.
I. Factual Background.
The Dual Entities were Louisiana-based companies that provided oilfield equipment rental services. In 2011, the Dual Entities leased land in Montana under three leases, collectively referred to as “the Bainville site.” Shortly afterward, the Dual Entities applied for, and AIC issued, an EIL Policy and two CPL Policies with a policy period of October 1, 2012, to October 1, 2013. AIC renewed all three policies for the October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, policy period.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. McDonald may be contacted at
MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com
When Is a Project Delay Material and Actionable?
January 11, 2022 —
Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogWelcome to 2022! This year, the construction industry will undoubtedly reflect on the last two years as unprecedented times plagued by construction project delays. The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to suspension of work and closure of construction projects worldwide in 2020. The end of 2021 brought additional delays caused by an inexplicable clog in the supply chain of construction materials. The combined impact of these events on project milestones and completion deadlines led our clients to ask, with unusual and particular urgency, who is liable for such delays and how do contracting parties lessen the consequences from such unexpected and uncontrollable delays.
Granted that project delays are nothing new or unusual. They were common enough before inflation caused shipping complications and pandemic decimated the construction labor force. All delays, whatever the source, variably cause loss to all players on a construction project. But not all delays matter when it comes to claims and remedies available to the contracting parties in dispute resolution, where the determinative focus is on material delays impacting the entire project and on delays the claimant can credibly prove.
Most, if not all, jurisdictions interpret actionable delays from the contract documents for the project. The contract is definitely where you should start before pursuing any delay remedies. Delay remedies may be a time extension only, or a time extension plus your additional general conditions. Some delay remedies may be barred by the contract’s express terms and may be enforced adversely by the courts when such contract terms are indisputable. See Quinn Constr. v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 401, 411 (D.C. Pa. 2010) (enforcing the subcontractor’s contractual waiver of claims for delay and disruption damages). On the other hand, delay damages that are expressly allowed by the contract—like overtime necessitated by the delays—are usually actionable and recoverable. Id. However, not only the contract terms, but applicable law, may affect the outcome.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rick Erickson, Snell & WilmerMr. Erickson may be contacted at
rerickson@swlaw.com
Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do
August 26, 2019 —
Michael Studenka – Newmeyer DillionCalifornia employers need to pay heed to the recently announced California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) emergency regulation related to their duty to protect employees from the potential harm caused by wildfire smoke. As of July 29, 2019, employers are required to actively monitor their local Air Quality Index (AQI) and take steps to protect their employees from the harmful particulate matter contained within wildfire smoke.
Which Workplaces Are Impacted?
The regulation applies to all workplaces exposed to wildfire smoke with an AQI level of 151 or greater (ranging from "unhealthy" to "hazardous"). "Exposed" workplaces are those that are not in enclosed buildings, structures, or vehicles with mechanical ventilation and the ability to close all windows and doors. Outdoor occupations including construction, agriculture, landscaping, maintenance, commercial delivery, and others that expose the worker to the outside air for more than one hour will be the most impacted by this new regulation, although firefighters engaged in fighting wildfires are expressly exempt from the statute.
What If I Have A Potentially Exposed Workplace?
Employers with outdoor workplaces that are exposed to wildfire smoke are required to monitor the AQI before each shift, and "periodically throughout the day," all to ensure that the Air Quality Index for PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller) remains below 151. This can be done by visiting certain governmental websites, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's AirNow website (www.airnow.gov), which allow for regular email alerts to be issued to the employer. An employer with a potentially exposed workplace must also set up a communication system capable of communicating to all affected employees (in a language readily understood) the status of wildfire smoke hazards. The communication system must also provide the employees a process to inform the employer of worsening air quality and/or any adverse symptoms that they may be experiencing (e.g., asthma or chest pain).
Finally, employers are required to add to their Injury and Illness Protection Program (IIPP) the provision of effective training and instruction (i.e., approximately 15 minutes) regarding:
- the health effects of wildfire smoke;
- the right to obtain medical treatment without fear of reprisal;
- how employees can obtain the current AQI for PM2.5;
- the requirements of this regulation;
- the employer's communication system regarding wildfire smoke;
- the employer's methods for protecting employees from wildfire smoke;
- the importance, limitations, and benefits of using a respirator when exposed to wildfire smoke; and
- the proper use and maintenance of respirators.
The Required Provision of Respiratory Protective Equipment
Employers with exposed workplaces are required to provide effective NIOSH-approved respirators (e.g., N95 filtering facepiece respirators) when AQI for PM2.5 levels are 151-200 (unhealthy), 201-300 (very unhealthy), or 301-500 (hazardous). The N95 respirator typically costs less than a dollar per mask and can be easily purchased online. Employers are also required to clean, store, and maintain these respirators for times of need. Employees are free to decide whether to use a respirator when the AQI for PM2.5 level is between 151-500, although employers must be prepared to offer the equipment at an AQI level of 151 or higher. Use of the respirator by an employee exposed to an AQI for PM2.5 level that exceeds 500, however, is required by law.
What Should Potentially Exposed Employers Do Now?
Employers should immediately begin supplementing their IIPP platforms to include this regulation's prescribed training regarding wildfire smoke. Companies should also develop an adequate monitoring and communication plan regarding wildfire smoke hazards and effectively train their supervisors on the same. Finally, acquiring an adequate supply of N95 filtering respirators now will help ensure that employers are prepared for the next wildfire.
Michael Studenka is a partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Labor & Employment practice group. His practice focuses on the life cycle of Employment law. Mike advises and trains companies on proactive measures to keep them protected and in compliance, and leverages his significant trial experience when faced with litigation. You can reach out to him at michael.studenka@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
