COVID-19 Could Impact Contractor Performance Bonds
March 30, 2020 —
Ben Williams & MG Surety - Construction ExecutiveAs COVID-19 continues to expand around the United States and the world, it may only be a matter of time before U.S. construction projects are affected by the virus. Performance bonds guarantee that a project will be completed by a contractor according to the contract. However, what if a contractor cannot complete a project on time due to widespread disease? What, if any, impact could the virus have on a contractor’s surety bond program?
Risk Factors
Several risks associated with the virus could trigger a performance bond claim.
1. Materials. The Chinese account for a large supply of construction materials, including steel, copper, cabinetry, etc. An inability to obtain these materials could significantly delay or stop a project all together. Even if a contractor is able to obtain them from other sources, it may be at a significantly higher cost than they put into the bid.
2. Labor. There is already a shortage of qualified labor in the construction industry. Additionally, construction already lends itself to the spreading of viruses; workers are often in close proximity, handling common materials, and they may not have an easily accessible place to wash their hands. Furthermore, even though many now have paid sick leave, there is often pressure not to use it. These things could magnify the labor shortage and make it difficult to complete projects on time.
3. Safety. Finally, the world is having a serious shortage of respirators. Because of widespread panic, many people have been purchasing N95 respirators—so much that the Surgeon General has asked people to stop buying them. It has created a shortage for people who really need them, like contractors. If contractors can’t get these safety masks, certain trades will either be unable to work, or risk continuing the project without masks, which would endanger workers and open them up to OSHA penalties.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Williams and MG Surety, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Williams may be contacted at
benw@mgsuretybonds.com
What to Expect From the New Self-Retracting Devices Standard
November 29, 2021 —
Andre Pelland - Construction ExecutiveOne of the latest and most anticipated changes to occur this year relevant to fall protection is the publishing of the ANSI/ASSP Z359.14 2021 revision. Although the effective date isn’t until August 2022, this change is prompting the need for end user to prepare for using and understanding the new terminology performance requirements that will ultimately alter equipment selection criteria.
The reason for its relevance is mostly due to its industry dependence and the increasing popularity of these types of devices. This voluntary consensus standard accounts for a vast portion of the fall protection market equipment and has been adopted as the industry standard, even though it is not the legal requirement. To assure a smooth transition, the immediate priority should be to understand the changes and what it means from a usability standpoint. A clear understanding of what changes devices need to comply will allow users to proceed with a comprehensive transition plan.
What Are the Most Relevant Changes for the User?
Classes
The most significant changes are for Class A and B devices used to designate arrest distances and forces and the introduction of the Class 1 and 2 devices. These classes were known as designators for arresting falls at 24 inches and under with higher forces (Class A), and 54 inches and under with lower forces (Class B). Class 1 devices allow anchoring on overhead anchorages only and limitg freefall to no more than two feet.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andre Pelland, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Pelland may be contacted at
andre.pelland@puresafetygroup.com
New Jersey Supreme Court Ruled Condo Association Can’t Reset Clock on Construction Defect Claim
September 20, 2017 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.The New Jersey Law Journal reported that New Jersey Supreme Court “justices reversed an Appellate Division ruling that found three suits filed against contractors by the Palisades at Fort Lee Condominium Association on various dates in March and April 2009 and September 2010 were within the six-year limit because the association received notice of construction defects in the building in an engineer's report issued in June 2007.”
The justices stated that the statute of limitations is not reset when property changes hands: "An owner of a building cannot convey greater property rights to a purchaser than the owner possessed. If the building's owner knew or reasonably should have known of construction defects at the time of the sale of the property, the purchaser takes title subject to the original owner's right—and any limitation on that right—to file a claim against the architect and contractors."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SDNY Vacates Arbitration Award for Party-Arbitrator’s Nondisclosures
April 13, 2017 —
Justin K. Fortescue & Ciaran B. Way - White and Williams LLPThe US District Court for the Southern District of New York recently vacated an arbitration award finding that a party-appointed arbitrator’s undisclosed relationship with the party appointing him was significant enough to demonstrate evident partiality. Certain Underwriting Members at Lloyd’s of London, et. al. v. Ins. Companies of America, Inc., Nos. 16-cv-232 and 16-cv-374 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2017).
In the arbitration, the panel was asked to determine whether the reinsurance contracts, covering workers’ compensation policies, only applied when multiple claimants were injured as the result of the same loss occurrence. After a three-day hearing, the arbitration panel issued an award in favor of the ceding company, Insurance Companies of America (ICA). After the award was issued, Lloyd’s discovered that ICA’s arbitrator had significant undisclosed relationships with principals at ICA and moved to vacate the award in federal court.
Reprinted courtesy of
Justin K. Fortescue, White and Williams LLP and
Ciaran B. Way, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Fortescue may be contacted at fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Way may be contacted at wayc@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So
January 11, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWelcome to 2021! As often happens here at Construction Law Musings, the year starts with a few posts on notable construction law cases that dropped in the past year or so. Not only does this review hopefully help you keep up, but helps me keep up with the latest developments (one of the reasons why I keep blogging).
The first of these cases is Appalachian Power Co. v. Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. out of the Western District of Virginia federal court. In this case, Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. (“Wagman”) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) contracted for the design and construction of a highway interchange project (the “Project”). Wagman and the Appalachian Power Company (“APCO”) entered into a written contract (the “Written Contract”) for APCO to remove and relocate its utility structures (the “Work”) in order to facilitate construction for the Project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
U.S. Tornadoes, Hail Cost Insurers $1 Billion in June
July 09, 2014 —
Kelly Gilblom – BloombergTornadoes, hail and windstorms that pounded the U.S. from the Rocky Mountains to the Tennessee Valley last month will probably cost insurers more than $1 billion, Aon Plc said in a report.
Hailstorms and winds greater than 90 miles an hour (145 kilometers) in June caused billions of dollars of economic losses, led by a full week of storms early in the month, the London-based insurance broker said today.
More than 300 tornadoes hit the U.S. last month, compared with 125 a year earlier and 111 in June 2012, according to preliminary data from the National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center. May, June and July tend to be the worst months for twisters, it said.
Severe weather from June 3 to June 9 this year killed three people and led to more than 100,000 claims, Aon said. Later in the month, “hail and winds gusting to hurricane strength tracked eastward,” the broker said in its report. The storm “shattered windows, punctured roofs and downed trees onto homes, structures and vehicles.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kelly Gilblom, BloombergMs. Gilblom may be contacted at
kgilblom@bloomberg.net
Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 3: Standard Form Policy Exclusions
July 11, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogEven when claims are within the scope of coverage, insurers often rely on exclusions in an attempt to avoid coverage for wildfire claims. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the interplay between coverage grants and exclusions, and the “anti-concurrent cause” provision.
Insurers may cite exclusions in an attempt to reduce or avoid liability. The insurance industry has long relied on the Insurance Services Office (ISO) to draft standard form policy language and secure approval as required by state regulatory agencies. ISO Form HO 00 03 10 00 (Section I—Exclusions, Part B) provides the following form exclusionary language:
We do not insure for loss to property described in Coverages A and B caused by any of the following. However, any ensuing loss to property described in Coverages A and B not precluded by any other provision in this policy is covered.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yosef Itkin, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Itkin may be contacted at yitkin@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado Court of Appeals Defines “Substantial Completion” for Subcontractors’ Work so as to Shorten the Period of Time in Which They Can Be Sued
October 20, 2016 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction Litigation BlogOver the past few years, there has been a battle raging on in district courts and arbitration hearing rooms throughout Colorado regarding when a subcontractor’s work is to be deemed “substantially complete,” for purposes of triggering Colorado’s six-year statute of repose. C.R.S. § 13-80-104 states, in pertinent part:
Notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, all actions against any architect, contractor, builder or builder vendor, engineer, or inspector performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, inspection, construction, or observation of construction of any improvement to real property shall be brought within the time provided in section 13-80-102 after the claim for relief arises, and not thereafter, but in no case shall such an action be brought more than six years after the substantial completion of the improvement to the real property, except as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
* * *
(2) In case any such cause of action arises during the fifth or sixth year after substantial completion of the improvement to real property, said action shall be brought within two years after the date upon which said cause of action arises.
C.R.S. § 13-80-104 (emphasis added).
As the battle raged on at the trial court level, subcontractors and design professionals argued that their work should be deemed “substantially complete” when they finished their discrete scope of work within a project. Developers and general contractors, seeking to maintain third-party claims against the subcontractors and design professionals, typically argued either that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work should be deemed “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy on the project, or upon the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor or design professional worked. Trial court judges and arbitrators have been split on this issue, with perhaps a slight majority favoring one or the other approaches advocated by developers and general contractors, that the subcontractors’ and design professionals’ work is “substantially complete” upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy in a project (the minority view) or upon the issuance of the last certificate of occupancy for the last building within a project on which the subcontractor of design professional worked (the majority view).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
