Don’t Kick the Claim Until the End of the Project: Timely Give Notice and Preserve Your Claims on Construction Projects
December 10, 2015 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday, we welcome
Tara L. Chadbourn. Tara is an attorney with
ReavesColey PLLC in Chesapeake, VA, where she concentrates her practice on construction law, litigation and commercial litigation. Tara counsels owners, contractors, subcontractors and materials suppliers in various government and commercial construction matters. Tara can be reached at tara.chadbourn@reavescoley.com.
You may have experienced and have certainly heard of the scenario in which a contractor waits to address a claim as part of project closeout, only to realize the applicable deadline has already passed. While there may have been discussions about claims during the course of the project, contractors cannot rely upon oral conversations about outstanding claims. Instead, contractors must be vigilant in satisfying notice requirements and preserving claims. While entitlement must still be proven, a contractor’s chances of recovery increase greatly if the contractor abides by notice requirements and consciously preserves claims in the following ways.
Contractors Must Acquaint Themselves with Contractual Notice Provisions:
Many prime and subcontract agreements contain stringent notice provisions that require the contractor to give notice within a certain time period or else the claim is expressly waived. The deadline for notice is often only a few days after the occurrence giving rise to the claim or the contractor becoming aware of the claim. To avoid waiver, contractors must carefully review their contracts for provisions requiring notice of a claims for adjustment for a variety of situations to include unforeseen site conditions, trade sequencing changes, project delay or scope of work changes.
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
A Guide to Evaluating Snow & Ice Cases
December 13, 2021 —
Lewis BrisboisNew York, N.Y. (November 9, 2021) - As the winter season nears, defendant property owners are reminded that New York law imposes liability for sidewalk accidents resulting from slip and falls on snow and ice. Within the City of New York, Administrative Code § 7-210 imposes liability on the owners of real property (other than single-family dwellings) to maintain an abutting sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition, which includes the removal of snow and ice.
Some of the most important issues in this area of the law were recently reaffirmed by New York’s Appellate Division in Zamora v. David Caccavo, LLC, 190 A.D.3d 895 (2d Dept. 2021). In particular, that the Court of Appeals made clear in 2019 that the statutory non-delegable duty to remove snow and ice from sidewalks extends even to out-of-possession landowners, who, although they may shift the work of maintaining the sidewalk to another, "cannot shift the duty, nor exposure and liability for injuries caused by negligent maintenance, imposed under [Administrative Code §] 7-210." Xiang Fu He v. Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 N.Y.3d 167, 174 (2019). In other words, even if the defendant leases the property to a tenant who is obligated under the lease to maintain the property in every way, including snow and ice on sidewalks, the defendant cannot escape liability by claiming the tenant is solely responsible for the plaintiff’s loss. On the other hand, property owners are not strictly liable for all personal injuries that occur on the abutting sidewalks, because the statute "adopts a duty and standard of care that accords with traditional tort principles of negligence and causation." Xiang Fu He v. Troon Mgt., Inc., 34 N.Y.3d at 171.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
Another Setback for the New Staten Island Courthouse
January 13, 2014 —
Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFFThe new Staten Island Courthouse received another setback when James McDonough filed suit stating unsafe work conditions, according to Frank Donnelly writing for Silive. The completion date for the new multistory, $230 million complex has been rescheduled four times so far.
Fifty-eight year old James McDonough, resident of Ridgewood Queens, became injured after a fall down a shaft, and he subsequently “sued the city, state Dormitory Authority, the state Office of Court Administration and various contractors,” Donnelly reported. A total of ten defendants have been named in the suit.
According to Silive, the Office of Court Administration, Dormitory Authority and the Law Department would not comment on the pending litigation further except to say that papers have been filed and the case is under review.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Missouri Protects Subrogation Rights
April 15, 2024 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistThe point at which an insurance carrier possesses the equitable right of subrogation is an issue on which the states have differed. Some allow carriers to pursue rights of subrogation immediately upon payment and some have taken stricter approaches. Missouri falls into the latter group. By not allowing the carrier the right to file suit against third-party tortfeasors until the insured provides its carrier with an assignment of all its rights, Missouri’s approach has opened the door for challenges to subrogation rights.
In Megown v. Auto Club Fam. Ins. Co., 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 82, the plaintiff-insureds Michael and Jane Megown (the Megowns) suffered a house fire on February 8, 2016. Their insurance carrier, Auto Club Family Insurance Company (Auto Club) reimbursed the Megowns for their property damage in the amount of $722,433.56. Subsequently, the Megowns sued Auto Club for breach of contract and later amended their complaint to add claims against Tyberius Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Crag Electric (Craig Electric), the third-party tortfeasor, for direct negligence, alleging both property damage and personal injuries. Auto Club intervened in the Megowns’ claim against Craig Electric to protect its interest as subrogee for its property damage payment to the Megowns. Craig Electric settled prior to trial, paying $1,000,000.00 to both the Megowns and Auto Club, to be allocated at a later date. After a bench trial that apportioned the settlement with $722,433.56 paid to Auto Club and $277,566.44 paid to Megowns – and a jury trial awarding no further damages – the Megowns appealed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Fannie-Freddie Propose Liquidity Rules for Mortgage Insurers
July 16, 2014 —
Clea Benson and Zachary Tracer – BloombergMs. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net
Private mortgage insurers looking to do business with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have to hold minimum amounts of liquid assets under standards proposed by the companies and their regulator.
To back loans packaged into securities by the U.S.-owned mortgage-finance giants, insurers would have to hold liquid assets worth at least 5.6 percent of their risk exposure, and possibly more depending on the quality of the loans they cover, according to the proposal released today by the companies and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
“Mortgage insurance counterparties must be able to fulfill their intended role of providing private capital, even in adverse market conditions,” FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt said in an e-mailed statement.
Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Mr. Tracer may be contacted at ztracer1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clea Benson and Zachary Tracer, Bloomberg
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
Performance Bond Primer: Need to Knows and Need to Dos
February 01, 2022 —
Rafael Boza - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIf you are a construction contractor, you deal with performance bonds as part of your business and daily work. They are necessary for almost every project you are participating or will participate in, and, along with other sister bonds, constitute a basic tool to be able to work in construction. However, how much do you really know about this tool? Who in your organization knows how to use it? Are you relying on your insurance broker to procure the bonds? Can your broker competently review the terms of the bond? Are you, as a contractor, relying on the surety to explain and determine what you need for the project—a fox guarding the hen house?
To understand how a performance bond works and how to effectively tailor it to your needs, we need to understand the basics. What is a performance bond? Who are the parties to a performance bond? What does performance bond not do? What should be covered under a performance bond? How does a performance bond fit in a company’s overall risk management processes? A clear understanding of these and other basic topics will facilitate operations and reduce the risk of claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rafael Boza, PillsburyMr. Boza may be contacted at
rafael.boza@pillsburylaw.com
Most Common OSHA Violations Highlight Ongoing Risks
July 27, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationIn the 12 months from October 2018 through September 2019, the most recent period reported by OSHA,[1] the workplace safety agency cited the following standards[2] more than any other in the 28 states which do not have OSHA-approved state plans, including Colorado:
- 1926.501 – Duty to have fall protection – included in 459 citations, resulting in $2,475,596 in penalties ($5,393/citation);
- 1926.451 – General requirements for scaffolds – included in 265 citations, resulting in $834,324 in penalties ($3,148/citation);
- 1926.1053 – Requirements for ladders including job-made ladders – included in 164 citations, resulting in $354,853 in penalties ($2,163/citation);
- 1926.503 – Training requirements related to fall protection - included in 114 citations, resulting in $156,076 in penalties ($1,369/citation);
- 1926.405 - Wiring methods, components, and equipment for general use – included in 93 citations, resulting in $150,821 in penalties ($1,621/citation);
- 1926.20 - General safety and health provisions – included in 85 citations, resulting in $328,491 in penalties ($3,864/citation);
- 1926.1052 – Requirements for stairways – included in 79 citations, resulting in $155,651 in penalties ($1,970/citation);
- 1926.102 – Requirements for eye and face protection - included in 67 citations, resulting in $165,595 in penalties ($2,471/citation);
- 1926.403 – General requirements for electrical conductors and equipment – included in 63 citations, resulting in $146,050 in penalties ($2,318/citation), and;
- 1926.100 – Requirements for head protection – included in 55 citations, resulting in $127,274 in penalties ($2,314/citation).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
