Construction Defects Are Not An Occurrence Under New York, New Jersey Law
June 18, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, determined there was no coverage for construction defects under New York or New Jersey law. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Turner Constr. Co., 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3546 (N.Y. App. Div. May 15, 2014).
The property owner retained Turner Construction to serve as the general contractor. Turner subcontracted with Permasteelisa North America Corporation to design and build the exterior wall, a "curtain wall," which consisted of granite and glass.
A segment of the pipe rail system fell to the street from the eighth floor of the building. An investigation determined that more than 20% of the pipe rail connections surveyed did not conform to the building plans. Additional problems included inconsistencies in the method of rail attachment, bent brackets on the pipe rail system, cracked glass louvers, cracked glass panels, and water infiltration.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes
September 14, 2017 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOn a high level, construction delay litigation involves sorting out the impacts to the critical project path and determining which party is responsible for those impacts. One of the more difficult elements of this process is determining whether a delay would have occurred regardless of one party’s critical path impact due to a separate, independent impact to the critical path by the other party. For example, a contractor cannot collect delay damages for delays caused by the owner if the contractor itself was causing independent impacts that would have pushed off the completion date anyway.
However, the concept of “pacing” provides a potential defense for a party who is not on pace with the as-planned schedule for noncritical activities, even where those activities are still ongoing after the planned completion date. “Pacing delays” are a type of concurrent delay that occur when one party makes a conscious decision to decelerate or slow down the pace of noncritical activities to keep pace with the critical delays of another party. A more formal definition would be “deceleration of the work of the project, by one of the parties to a contract, due to a delay caused by the other party, so as to maintain steady progress with the revised overall project schedule.” Zack, Pacing Delays–The Practical Effect, Construction Specifier 47, 48 (Jan. 2000). A party to the construction process may decide to slow down its performance of noncritical activities to keep pace with the delayed progress. For example, contractors may adjust the pace of their work in light of delays in owner-furnished equipment, delays by other multiple prime contractors, delays in permits, limited access, or differing site conditions. Owners may slow down their response time to requests for information or submittals, or postpone the delivery of owner-furnished equipment or the processing of change orders. Id. at 48.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, Part 7: How to Successfully Prepare, Submit and Negotiate the Claim
August 22, 2022 —
Scott P. DeVries & Yosef Itkin - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogPrior posts in this series have discussed insurance coverage issues that pertain directly to wildfire claims, but we have not yet addressed how one proceeds following a loss. In this post in the Blog’s Wildfire Insurance Coverage Series, we discuss the preparation, submission and negotiation of the insurance claim.
Preparing a Claim
As different policies provide different timelines, where possible, it is advisable to submit the claim as soon as reasonably possible. Insurers commonly cite late submission as a basis for denial with jurisdictions varying on the import of “late” submission.
Insurers have a right to reasonable documentation of a claim before paying. Often, they will decline to consider a claim on its merits until such documentation is provided. The policy will specify whether to submit a hard copy or file online, but either way it is advisable to maintain a copy online or in a remote geographic location.
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
MTA Implements Revised Contractors Debarment Regulations
July 06, 2020 —
Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff & Paul Monte - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On June 3, 2020, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (“MTA”) published and implemented revised regulations pertaining to the debarment of contractors. The revised regulations address many of the deep concerns raised by the contracting community.
Under relevant administrative procedure, the MTA publication of the revised regulations starts a 45 day notice period before the regulations can be adopted as final.
The prior regulations essentially required that debarment occur upon a purely formulaic calculation establishing that a contractor: 1) was more than 10% late, or 2) had submitted invalid claims that exceeded the adjusted contract price by a measure of 10%.
The revised regulations represent improvements over the prior regulations.
Critically, the revised regulations address the primary concern raised by the contracting community, that being the mandate of purely formulaic debarment. Instead, the revised regulations establish a process that includes greater flexibility and discretion before debarment may ensue.
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys
Steven M. Charney,
Gregory H. Chertoff and
Paul Monte
Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com
Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com
Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
After Elections, Infrastructure Talk Stirs Again
December 04, 2018 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordIn the wake of Democrats’ House takeover and Republicans widening their Senate majority in the midterm elections, talk has quickly revived about taking on infrastructure legislation in the new Congress. Construction industry officials welcome the pro-infrastructure rhetoric from congressional leaders and President Trump. But it remains to be seen whether the words will spark a bill that can make it through a divided 116th Congress. Funding the package remains the high hurdle.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, ENRMr. Ichniowski may be contacted at
ichniowskit@enr.com
Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts
July 13, 2020 —
Ted R. Gropman & Cindy J. Lee - ConsensusDocsOn April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward.
Brief Case Summary
In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and
Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP
Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com
Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
All Aboard! COVID-19 Securities Suit Sets Sail, Implicates D&O Insurance
April 27, 2020 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a prior post, we predicted that novel coronavirus (COVID-19) risks could implicate D&O and similar management liability coverage arising from so-called “event-driven” litigation, a new kind of securities class action that relies on specific adverse events, rather than fraudulent financial disclosures or accounting issues, as the catalyst for targeting both companies and their directors and officers for the resulting drop in stock price. It appears that ship has sailed, so to speak, as Kevin LaCroix at D&O Diary reported over the weekend that a plaintiff shareholder had filed a securities class action lawsuit against Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. alleging that the company employed misleading sales tactics related to the outbreak.
The lawsuit alleges that the cruise line made false and misleading statements or failed to disclose in its securities filings sales tactics by the company that purported to provide customers with unproven or blatantly false statements about COVID-19 to entice customers to purchase cruises. Those allegations rely on two news articles reporting on the company sales practices in the wake of COVID-19: a March 11, 2020 Miami New Times article quoting leaked emails in which a cruise employee reportedly asked sales staff to lie to customers about COVID-19 to protect the company’s bookings; and a March 12, 2020 Washington Post article entitled, “Norwegian Cruise Line Managers Urged Salespeople to Spread Falsehoods about Coronavirus.” The lawsuit alleges that the company’s share price was cut nearly in half following these disclosures.
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys
Lorelie S. Masters,
Michael S. Levine and
Geoffrey B. Fehling
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Conspirators Bilked Homeowners in Nevada Construction Defect Claims
March 28, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFCourthouse News has a summary of the current lawsuit over a Nevada conspiracy to defraud homeowners by taking control of homeowner boards and then providing inadequate repairs. Homeowners in eight Las Vegas area communities are involved in the suit, which claims that the conspirators purchased units in the communities and then transferred fractional interests to others to allow them to run for HOA board elections. The suit claims that David Amesbury and his firm helped manipulate the elections.
Once homeowner boards were controlled by the conspirators, Nancy Quon, the construction defect attorney whose recent death appears to be by suicide, handled the litigation against homebuilders. She would settle out of court, engaging Silver Lining Construction to “do very minor and superficial repairs” to the homes. The remainder of the money was split by the conspirators. The suit also notes that the construction defect claims were “frivolous,” and?in addition to the negative publicity?caused the homes to lose at least 5% of their value.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
