“Good Faith” May Not Be Good Enough: California Supreme Court to Decide When General Contractors Can Withhold Retention
March 22, 2018 —
Erinn Contreras and Joy O. Siu – Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogIt is industry standard in California for owners of a construction project to make monthly payments to a contractor for work it has completed, less a certain percentage that is withheld as a guarantee of future satisfactory performance. This withholding is called a retention. Contractors generally pass these withholdings on to their subcontractors via a retention clause in the subcontract. Under such clause, if a subcontractor fails to complete its work or correct deficiencies in its work, the owner and the general contractor may use the retention to bring the subcontractor’s work into conformance with the requirements of the contract.
When and how retention payments must be released are governed by, among other statutes, Civil Code section 8800
et seq. Specifically, Civil Code section 8814, subdivision (a), states that a direct contractor must pay each subcontractor its share of a retention payment within ten days after the general contractor receives all or part of a retention payment. Failure to make payments in accordance with Section 8814 can subject an owner or a contractor to a (1) two percent penalty per a month on the amount wrongfully withheld, and (2) claim for attorney’s fees for any litigation required to collect the wrongfully withheld retention payments. (Civ. Code, § 8818.)
Reprinted courtesy of
Erinn Contreras, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP and
Joy Siu, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Ms. Contreras may be contacted at econtreras@sheppardmullin.com
Ms. Siu may be contacted at jsiu@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites
May 04, 2020 —
Aaron Lovaas - Newmeyer DillionWhen Nevada’s Governor identified construction as an essential business amid the initial directives of the COVID-19 state of emergency, the executive order required construction employers to “maintain strict social distancing practices to facilitate a minimum of six feet of separation between workers.” Now, nearly a month later, Nevada’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has recognized that strict social distancing measures are not always practical or feasible among workers on an active construction site. On April 20, 2020, Nevada OSHA issued revised guidelines addressing ongoing construction activity when social distancing cannot practically be maintained.
The guidelines continue to emphasize that safety and training meetings, tailgate talks, and similar gatherings must be restricted to 10 people or less. Additionally, the employer remains responsible for monitoring employees on lunch breaks, slack periods and in employee parking areas to ensure compliance with social distancing protocols.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron Lovaas, Newmeyer DillionMr. Lovaas may be contacted at
aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com
Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits
July 19, 2017 —
Bethany Barrese – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed that Nationwide acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim against its insured for the policy limits, exposing the policyholder to an excess verdict.1
The case arose out of a 2005 automobile accident where Seung Park, who was insured by Nationwide, struck and killed another driver, Stacey Camacho. Shortly after the accident, Ms. Camacho’s estate issued a time-limited demand for the full limits of the policy Nationwide issued to Mr. Park, $100,000, to settle the case. After the deadline to respond to the demand expired, Nationwide rejected the demand and made a counteroffer. A settlement could not be reached and a wrongful death suit was filed against Mr. Park, resulting in a massive jury verdict of $5.83 million.
Following the jury verdict, Mr. Park assigned his rights against Nationwide to Ms. Camacho’s estate, which then filed claims for negligence and bad faith failure to settle against Nationwide. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the estate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Barrese may be contacted at
blb@sdvlaw.com
Congress Considers Pandemic Risk Insurance Act to Address COVID-19 Business Interruptions Losses
May 18, 2020 —
Richard W. Brown & Andres Avila - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The draft legislation, entitled the Pandemic Risk Insurance Act of 2020 (“PRIA”), would establish a Federal Pandemic Risk Reinsurance Fund and Program (the “Program”), that is intended to provide a system of shared public and private compensation for business interruption (“BI”) losses resulting from a pandemic or outbreak of communicable disease. PRIA, in its current draft form, is modeled after and in many ways mirrors the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act that was enacted to address catastrophic losses resulting from acts of terrorism.
PRIA effectively mandates that participating insurers provide coverage for any business interruption loss resulting from an outbreak of infectious disease or pandemic that is declared an emergency or major disaster by the President and certified by the Secretary of Treasury (the “Secretary”) as a public health emergency. PRIA would be triggered in the case of certified public health emergencies upon the aggregate industry insured losses exceed $250 million dollars, and include an annual aggregate limit capped at $500 billion dollars. The draft bill provides that the Secretary would administer the Program and pay the Federal share of compensation for insured losses, which would be 95% of losses in excess of an applicable insurer annual deductible, once the Program is triggered. The compensation would benefit those insurers that elect to participate in the Program in exchange for a premium paid by the participating insurer for reinsurance coverage under the Program.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Avila may be contacted at ara@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Utility of Arbitration Agreements in the Construction Industry
December 30, 2019 —
Brian L. Gardner & Jason R. Finkelstein - Construction ExecutiveIn today’s ever-evolving world of employment law, it is far from an easy task for construction industry employers to operate their business while successfully navigating all of the potential legal potholes that continue to abound and multiply seemingly with every passing day. This is particularly true in the face of the onslaught of claims lodged by current and former employees in recent years for alleged unpaid wages. While there may not be a “sure bet” way of avoiding such claims, one tool that employers should strongly consider in their arsenal are arbitration and class action waiver agreements.
To that end, last year, the United States Supreme Court rendered its ground-breaking decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. ___ (2018). In Epic Systems, the Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements containing class and collective action waivers of wage and hour disputes are enforceable. At the time of the decision, a split of authority existed among courts across the country as to whether such agreements were viable. On the one hand, several courts contended that class waivers unfairly violated employees’ rights to collectively bargain under the National Labor Relations Act. On the other hand, many other courts were finding that such agreements were fully enforceable and supported by the policies promoted under the Federal Arbitration Act. The Epic Systems Court sided with this latter viewpoint, concluding that the FAA’s clear policy promoting arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism and private parties’ rights to freely negotiate contracts outweighed any potential arguments against such agreements under the NLRA.
With wage and hour lawsuits being filed against construction industry employers practically daily, the Epic Systems decision is critically important. Construction employers can now freely enter into arbitration and class waiver agreements with their laborers and thereby potentially limit the cost, expense and exposure of fighting such actions in a public forum on a collective or class-wide basis. To be clear, such agreements will not eliminate employees from bringing such wage and hour claims entirely, nor should the use of those agreements signal to employers that they need not make every good-faith effort to comply with their obligations under the Federal Labor Standards Act and/or any applicable state wage and hour laws. But the reality is that arbitration and class waiver agreements can work to avoid tens or hundreds or even thousands of employees from banding together in some of the massive wage and hour lawsuits being filed across the country. Instead, employers can require that those legal battles be conducted by a single plaintiff in a more controlled environment before an arbitrator (or panel of arbitrators).
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian L. Gardner & Jason R. Finkelstein, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Gardner may be contacted at bgardner@coleschotz.com
Mr. Finkelstein may be contacted at jfinkelstein@coleschotz.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Impact of the IIJA and Amended Buy American Act on the Construction Industry
May 23, 2022 —
Chad Theriot & Stan Milan - ConsensusDocsContractors working on federally funded construction projects need to be aware of the new Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and amendments to the Buy American Act (BAA) which have expanded the requirement that contractors use domestic goods and materials on their projects. Failure to consider these requirements could have far-reaching impacts.
Overview of Domestic-Procurement Laws and Regulations
A number of domestic-preference laws exist today, which generally require that certain goods purchased with federal funds must be produced primarily in the United States. Projects affected include Department of Transportation (DOT)-funded highways, public transportation, airports, aviation, and rail, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-funded water infrastructure initiatives, among others.
Reprinted courtesy of
Chad Theriot, Jones Walker (ConsensusDocs) and
Stan Millan, Jones Walker (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Theriot may be contacted at ctheriot@joneswalker.com
Mr. Millan may be contacted at smillan@joneswalker.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Less Than Perfectly Drafted Endorsement Bars Flood Coverage
January 21, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court decided that the policy's flood exclusion, despite being poorly located within the policy, barred coverage for loss caused by flood. Great Lakes Int'l Trading Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165378 (D. Conn. Nov. 26, 2014).
Hurricane Sandy caused flood waters from the Hackensack River in New Jersey to inundate a warehouse where the insured had imported food products stored for sale in the United States. High winds also sheared open parts of the warehouse's roof, allowing extensive rainwater to enter the building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Rhode Island Examines a Property Owner’s Intended Beneficiary Status and the Economic Loss Doctrine in the Context of a Construction Contract
March 18, 2019 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistIn Hexagon Holdings Inc. v. Carlisle Syntec, Inc. No. 2017-175-Appeal, 2019 R.I. Lexis 14 (January 17, 2019), the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, discussing claims associated with allegedly defective construction, addressed issues involving intended beneficiaries to contracts and the application of the economic loss doctrine. The court held that, based on the evidence presented, the building owner, Hexagon Holdings, Inc. (Hexagon) was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the subcontract between the general contractor (A/Z Corporation) and the subcontractor, defendant McKenna Roofing and Construction, Inc. (McKenna). In addition, the court held that, in the context of this commercial construction contract, the economic loss doctrine applied and barred Hexagon’s negligence claims against McKenna.
Approximately nine years after Hexagon entered into a contract with A/Z Corporation for the construction of a building, Hexagon filed suit against A/Z Corporation’s roofing installation subcontractor, McKenna, and the manufacturer of the roofing system. Hexagon alleged that the roof began to leak shortly after McKenna installed it. Notably, Hexagon did not sue A/Z Corporation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and WilliamsMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
