Insurer Must Defend General Contractor
April 03, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiInterpreting Massachusetts law, the federal district court determined consequential damage resulting from the insured's faulty work triggered a duty to defend. Capitol Spec. Ins. Corp. v. Dello Russo Enter. LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11627 (D. Mass. Jan. 24, 2023).
Peta-Gay and Michael Print sued the insured, Dello Russo, who they hired as the general contractor for extensive remodelling and renovation of their building. During the demolition work, certain structural load-bearing walls were removed, including a portion of an exterior bricked masonry wall. Shoring of other parts of the building was inadequate and removal of the masonry wall reduced the structural integrity of the building. Cracks began to appear in the remaining portion of the masonry wall and increased over the next few days. Soon thereafter, the City of Boston determined the building was dangerous and that salvage of the undamaged portions was not feasible. Therefore, the building was demolished.
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, filed suit against Dello Russo as subrogee of the Prinns. Dello Russo tendered the complaint to its insurer, Capitol Specialty Insurance Corporation, who defended under a reservation of rights,. Capitol then filed a suit seeking a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend or to indemnify. The parties cross-claimed for summary judgment.
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
A Court-Side Seat: Coal-Fired Limitations, the Search for a Venue Climate Change and New Agency Rules that May or May Not Stick Around
February 15, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThis is a brief review of recent significant environmental and administrative law rulings and developments. With the change in presidential administrations, the fate of at least some of the newly promulgated rules is uncertain.
THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
BP PLC v. City and County of Baltimore
On January 19, 2021, the Court heard oral argument in BP PLC v. City and County of Baltimore. The respondents filed a Greenhous Gas Climate Change lawsuit in state court, alleging that BP, like other energy companies, is liable for significant damage caused by the sale and promotion of petroleum products while knowing that the use of these products and the resulting release of greenhouse gases damages the environment and public property. Several similar lawsuits have been filed in state courts, pleading common law violations as well as trespass and nuisance law violations The energy companies have tried, unsuccessfully to date, to remove these cases to federal court. The petitioners argue that the federal removal statutes allow the federal courts of appeal to review the lower court’s remand, thus opening the possibility that some of the issues presented in these cases can be tried in federal court, presumably a friendlier forum. A decision on this procedural issue should be rendered in a few months. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Don’t Let Construction Problems Become Construction Disputes (guest post)
October 01, 2014 — Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North Carolina
To start our week off right, today we have another important article from guest blogger Christopher G. Hill, LEED AP. Chris is a Virginia Supreme Court certified mediator, construction lawyer and owner of the Richmond, VA firm, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC. He authors the Construction Law Musings blog where he discusses legal and policy issues relevant to construction professionals. His practice concentrates on mechanic’s liens, contract review and consulting, occupational safety issues (VOSH and OSHA), and risk management for construction professionals. [His blog was also one of the first construction law blogs I found and followed, even if he is a Duke alum!] Take it away, Chris!
First and foremost, thanks to Melissa for inviting me back to post here at her great blog. She continues to invite me back despite my being a Blue Devil (and I try not to hold her Tar Heel status against her).
So much of discussion relating to construction law and construction lawyers centers on the litigation of disputes. This discussion comes in many forms from avoidance of such litigation through the early intervention of good counsel prior to getting into a project to what sort of resolution mechanism to use. Another branch of this discussion is essentially the right way to pursue your claim (or as some may read it start the dispute ball rolling). Sometimes a payment bond claim is the best method while others a straight up contractual suit is the best way to go.
Of course, all of this discussion presumes that there will be disputes. While I agree to some degree that in the Murphy’s Law riddled world of commercial construction, problems will arise. These problems need not rise to the level of a dispute that requires outside (read court or arbitrator) intervention. A few tips that are easy to write, but admittedly hard to practice at times can hopefully keep problems from blossoming into disputes. I’ve listed three big ones here:
1.Use “in house counsel.” Yes, I know that most of you engineers, architects, commercial general contractors and subcontractors out there aren’t big enough to either want or need a full time attorney on the payroll. What I mean by this is that when problems occur (or preferably before doing so), give your friendly local construction lawyer a call. As I learned from my dad, an ounce of prevention and all that. That 10 minute phone call may help avoid many hours of time and bills from your attorney later down the road.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Ms. Brumback may be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com
EPA Seeks Comment on Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule
July 19, 2021 — Karen Bennett - Lewis Brisbois
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will revise a 2020 final rule clarifying requirements for water quality certification under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 85 Fed. Reg. 42210 (June 2, 2021). CWA Section 401 requires states and tribes to certify that any discharges associated with a federal permit will comply with applicable state or tribal water quality requirements.
In an effort to eliminate 401 certification being used as a tool for delaying or imposing conditions unrelated to protecting water quality on federal permits, the 2020 rule established limits on the scope and timeline for review and required any conditions on certification to be water-quality related. State and Tribal governments and environmental groups challenged the rule, arguing it constrained state and tribal decision-making authority by limiting the term “other appropriate requirements of State law” in CWA Section 401(d) to “water quality requirements” and “point source discharges.”
With EPA’s decision to revise the rule, many believe these same scope and timing limitations will be targets for change. Clients with experience, positive or negative, under the 2020 rule should consider submitting comments by the August 2, 2021 deadline. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Karen Bennett, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
It’s a COVID-19 Pandemic; It’s Everywhere – New Cal. Bill to Make Insurers Prove Otherwise
August 17, 2020 — Scott P. DeVries & Andrea DeField - Hunton Andrews Kurth
On June 29, in a development that may fundamentally change the landscape for California businesses which have sustained COVID-19 related business interruption loss, two California legislators amended pending legislation to address several of the most hotly contested issues regarding insurance recovery for these devastating losses.
The bill, Assembly Bill 1552, focuses on All-Risk property insurance policies. As amended, it would create a “rebuttable presumption” that COVID-19 was present on and caused physical damage to property which was the direct cause of business interruption. A similar rebuttable presumption would apply to orders of civil authority coverage and to ingress/egress coverage. The bill would further prohibit COVID-19 from being construed as a pollutant or contaminant for purposes of any policy exclusion unless the exclusion specifically referred to viruses. The bill would apply to any All-Risk policy in effect on or after March 4, 2020 and is written to satisfy the standards for an “urgency” statute, taking effect immediately upon being signed into law.
Reprinted courtesy of Scott P. DeVries , Hunton Andrews Kurth and Andrea DeField, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Ms. DeField may be contacted at adefield@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?
December 29, 2020 — William L. Porter - Porter Law Group
If I Released My California Mechanics Lien, Can I File a New Mechanics Lien on the Same Project? Will the New Mechanics Lien be Enforceable?
In general, the answer to the above questions is “Yes”, but only if you meet the following requirements:
- You must only release the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien: There is an important distinction to be made between releasing a mechanics lien and releasing the right to a mechanics lien. Whether you do one or the other will depend on the specific language used in your release. In the case of Santa Clara Land Title Co. v. Nowack and Associates, Inc. (1991) 226 Cal. App.3d, 1558 a “release of mechanics lien” document was recorded TO THE County Recorder’s office which included a statement that the mechanics lien was “fully satisfied, released and discharged”. Based on this language, the court concluded that the mechanics lien claimant had waived its “right” to a further mechanics lien on the same property for the work in question. The court concluded that since the release stated that the claim was “fully satisfied” the right to mechanics lien on the project had forever been waived. The Nowak case can be distinguished from the case of Koudmani v. Ogle Enterprises, Inc., (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1650, where the release of mechanics lien only stated that the mechanics lien was “otherwise released and discharged” and not that it was “satisfied”. Based on the distinction drawn from the two cases, a simple mechanics lien release that only releases the mechanics lien itself, but not the “right” to a mechanics lien should be used. At the following link you will find a proper form to achieve this purpose: https://www.porterlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/03PRI-Mechanics-Lien-Release.pdf
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William L. Porter, Porter Law Group
Mr. Porter may be contacted at bporter@porterlaw.com
CSLB’s Military Application Assistance Program
October 20, 2016 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
Who knew? I didn’t.
Military Applicants, with Proper Forms, Move to Front of Line for Contractor License Processing
SACRAMENTO – The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) salutes U.S. military personnel for their service and offers expedited application processing by specially trained staff to veterans seeking to become licensed contractors. Unfortunately, not all veterans applying for California contractor licenses are able to take advantage of this opportunity because they do not submit the forms required for this service.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com
Cal/OSHA’s Toolbox Has Significantly Expanded: A Look At Senate Bill 606
December 13, 2021 — Michael J. Studenka - Newmeyer Dillion
Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed into law Senate Bill 606, set to take effect on January 1, 2022. With proponents of the bill citing the need to hold large employers accountable for COVID-related workplace hazards, SB 606 creates two new categories of employer violations. First, SB 606 creates a rebuttable presumption that if a type of violation is discovered at one particular worksite, Cal/OSHA can extrapolate that the violation is an “enterprise-wide” violation at all of the other company worksites. Additionally, SB 606 adds a new category of “egregious violations” to Cal/OSHA’s arsenal, adding a penalty multiplier for such violations. Finally, SB 606 increases Cal/OSHA’s investigative capabilities by authorizing Cal/OSHA to issue a subpoena to employers should they fail to “promptly provide” information requested during an investigation. As further explained below, the consequences of violating Cal/OSHA regulations has become significantly greater and more expensive, particularly for larger employers with multiple worksites.
ENTERPRISE-WIDE VIOLATIONS AND THE SEVERE REMEDIES THAT FOLLOW
Under SB 606, employers with more than one worksite will now face a rebuttable presumption that a violation at one location is actually “enterprise-wide” if either of the following are true:
- A written policy or procedure violates any Cal/OSHA standard, rule, order or regulation; OR
- Cal/OSHA finds evidence of a “pattern or practice” of the same violation being committed by the employer at one or more of its worksites.
Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Studenka, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Studenka may be contacted at michael.studenka@ndlf.com
