General Contractors Must Plan to Limit Liability for Subcontractor Injury
May 18, 2011 —
Douglas Reiser in the Builders Counsel BlogIt takes more than a hard hat, but safety checks, a good policy and a smart contract might save you some problems.If you are a general contractor, you will want to pay close attention to this article. A new Washington appellate decision showcases a general contractor’s liability to subcontractors who are injured on the job, when security barriers fail. But can a general limit this liability? Will its contract help?
In Wrought Corporation, Inc., Appellant V. Mario Interiano (quick note: this opinion is unpublished, but we are here to talk about an issue that was not determined on appeal – WISHA compliance), a subcontractor was injured when a security barrier failed and he fell into an elevator shaft.
A jury awarded a $1.56 million verdict against the general contractor, and the court of appeals affirmed on the basis that the general contractor has a non-delegable duty to ensure compliance with the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act of 1973, codified under RCW 49.17 (WISHA).
Read the full story… Reprinted courtesy of Douglas Reiser of Reiser Legal LLC. Mr. Reiser can be contacted at info@reiserlegal.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Miller Act and “Public Work of the Federal Government”
March 01, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe Miller Act applies to the “construction, alteration, or repair of any public building or public work of the Federal Government.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3131.
A recent opinion out of the Northern District of Oklahoma sheds light on what the Miller Act means regarding its application to any public work of the Federal Government. See U.S. v. Bronze Oak, LLC, 2017 WL 190099 (N.D.Ok. 2017). If the project is not a public works project of the Federal Government, the Miller Act does not apply.
In this case, the Department of Transportation entered into an agreement with the Cherokee Nation where the Department would provide lump sum funding and the Nation would use the money to fund transportation projects. Based on the federal funding, the Nation issued a bid for a transportation project in Mayes County, Oklahoma and the project was awarded to a prime contractor. The prime contractor provided a payment bond that identified the United States as the obligee (as a Miller Act payment is required to do) and stated that it was issued per the Miller Act. Thereafter, the Nation and Mayes County, Oklahoma entered into a Memorandum of Understanding where the County would assume responsibility for the construction and maintenance of the project and the Nation would pay the County an agreed amount upon the completion of the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
The Double-Breasted Dilemma
July 18, 2022 —
Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocsWhat Is A Double-Breasted Operation?
A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Rankins may be contacted at
lrankins@watttieder.com
Attorneys Fees Under California’s Prompt Payment Statutes. Contractor’s “Win” Fails the Sniff Test
October 02, 2015 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law BlogThis past month, the California Court of Appeals for the Third District, in James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. West Bay Builders, Inc., Case No. C072169 (August 27, 2015), handed down a decision in a construction contract battle that has raged since 2007. And, once again, the winner is . . . in the words of Justice Andrea Lynn Hoch who authored the opinion . . . . “no prevailing party in [the] case” and hence “no prevailing party attorney’s fees [ ] awarded.”
Background
In Harris, subcontractor James L. Harris Painting & Decorating, Inc. (“Harris”) sued general contractor West Bay Builders, Inc. (“West Bay”) for extra work performed on a school construction project in Stockton, California. Among its claims, Harris asserted that West Bay was liable under California’s prompt payment statutes for failure to timely pay Harris.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Hughes may be contacted at
rhughes@wendel.com
Ahead of the Storm: Preparing for Irma
September 07, 2017 —
Stephen H. Reisman – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.While Hurricane Irma boils in the Atlantic and seems to be aiming towards Florida, storm preparations are well underway. As contractors are busy organizing efforts to secure their job sites, we at Peckar & Abramson offer some quick reminders that may prove helpful when the dust finally settles:
- Review your contracts, particularly the force majeure provisions, and be sure to comply with applicable notice requirements.
- Even if not expressly required at this point in time, consider providing written notice to project owners that their projects are being prepared for a potential hurricane or tropical storm and that productivity and the progress of the work will be affected, with the actual time and cost impact to be determined after the event.
- Consult your hurricane plan (which is often a contract exhibit) and confirm compliance with all specified safety, security and protection measures.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen H. Reisman, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Reisman may be contacted at
sreisman@pecklaw.com
Why Financial Advisers Still Hate Reverse Mortgages
October 01, 2014 —
Ben Steverman – BloombergA reverse mortgage is a little like a car airbag. It's nice to know it's there. But if it ever has to be used, the driver’s already in trouble.
New regulations are supposed to improve the unsavory reputation of reverse mortgages, which are loans against a home that don't need to be repaid until the borrower moves. "It used to be the Wild West out there, without much regulation and enormous fees," says financial planner Warren Ward.
While stronger oversight is helping to end past abuses, the number of people taking out reverse mortgages is shrinking. The pace is down 24 percent from last year, government data show, and less than half its peak in 2009. One reason: Many advisers say the loans remain a last resort and can handcuff homeowners who have better options.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Steverman, BloombergMr. Steverman may be contacted at
bsteverman@bloomberg.net
GSA Releases Updated Standards to Accelerate Federal Buildings Toward Zero Emissions
August 12, 2024 —
The U.S. General Services AdministrationWASHINGTON — The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) is advancing progress toward the Biden-Harris Administration's federal sustainability goals by releasing updated standards for federal buildings. P100 Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service establish mandatory design and construction standards and performance criteria for 300,000 federal buildings nationwide. The updated standards will help advance the adoption of cleaner, more efficient technologies for buildings; lead the way towards realizing the goals of the Federal Sustainability Plan to achieve net-zero emissions from all federal buildings by 2045; and promote the use of American-made, low carbon construction materials.
P100 requires that facilities adopt advanced energy conservation strategies and eliminate on-site fossil fuel use, directives that align with federal sustainability goals and will accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy. The industry-leading standard calls for grid-interactive efficient buildings, leverages innovative technologies through GSA's Green Proving Ground, requires the use of low-embodied carbon materials, and directs potable water reuse. These comprehensive measures ensure that new and renovated federal facilities achieve peak performance while minimizing environmental impact.
The 2024 P100 establishes exceptional benchmarks for:
- Electrification: New standards for building equipment and systems to be powered by clean energy sources.
- Embodied Carbon: Requirement to utilize low-embodied carbon materials, including salvaged, reused, regenerative, and biomimetic options.
- Energy Efficiency: Enhanced building envelope performance to minimize energy loss and improve overall efficiency.
- Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings: New measures to support a more resilient, responsive grid.
- Water Reuse: Mandating that buildings have a 15% potable water reuse rate.
- Construction Decarbonization: Ground breaking new low-carbon methods for constructing federal buildings including clean energy operations, material salvage, and offsite assemblage.
- Labor Practices: New standards protecting workers from unfair or unsafe labor practices, ensuring supply chains are free from child and forced labor and that workers are protected from the impacts of extreme heat.
P100 is updated and published every three years. For more detailed information on the 2024 P100 and other GSA initiatives, visit www.gsa.gov/p100.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale
September 24, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin & Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn September 12, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Butler v. National Community Renaissance of California, upheld a district court's dismissal of certain defendants named in amended complaints, affirming the necessity of naming those known and unknown defendants in Plaintiff's original complaint.
In April 2009, Plaintiff Zina Butler filed an action in federal district court, naming a single defendant, National Community Renaissance Corporation ("National"), for an alleged warrantless search of Plaintiff's apartment on April 18, 2007. The single page complaint asserted that the apartment manager provided a Section 8 investigator, a City employee and Sherriff deputies keys to Plaintiff's apartment and conducted a search in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Shortly after, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, with the only change being the addition of defendant, the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles ("HACoLA") in the caption. In May 2009, the court (on its own accord) dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend as "it [was] unclear whom Plaintiff intend[ed] to sue."
In June 2009, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, identifying National and HACoLA in the caption as defendants, but separately identifying several other individuals and entities allegedly involved in the incident occurring in April of 2007 in the complaint's statement of facts. The Court, once again, dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend for the same reasons it dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefco, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
