Appellate Court of Maryland Construes Notice Conditions of A312 Performance Bond in Favor of Surety
January 02, 2024 —
Joel P. Williams - White and Williams LLPThe Appellate Court of Maryland issued a reported opinion in a case construing an American Institute of Architects (“AIA”) A312 performance bond. In Wildewood Operating Company, LLC v. WRV Holdings, LLC, et al. 2023 Md. App. LEXIS 720 (Oct. 30, 2023), the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a performance bond surety was discharged from liability where the owner/obligee failed to give the surety notice of the contractor’s default termination until after a third party had completed the work.
The project concerned the construction of an assisted living facility in St. Mary’s County, Maryland. The owner, Wildewood Operating Company, LLC, entered into an A312-2010 performance bond with Clark Turner Construction, LLC, as contractor, and First Indemnity of America Insurance Company, as surety. When Clark Turner failed to complete certain stormwater management work adjacent to the site, Wildewood, Clark Turner, and other parties entered into a Work Agreement to address completion of the work. The surety was not a party to the Work Agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joel P. Williams, White and Williams LLPMr. Williams may be contacted at
williamsj@whiteandwilliams.com
California Court of Appeal Finds Alleged Inadequate Defense by Insurer-Appointed Defense Counsel Does Not Trigger a Right to Independent Counsel
January 11, 2022 —
Robert Dennison - Traub LiebermanThe California Second District Court of Appeal had occasion to examine an insurer’s duty to provide independent counsel (“Cumis counsel”) to its insured in a declaratory relief action entitled Nede Management, Inc. v. Aspen American Insurance Company. The action arose from a fire on a property covered by an insurance policy issued by Aspen American Ins. Co (“Aspen”). Aspen’s insureds were sued for wrongful death and negligence by tenants and squatters allegedly injured by the fire.
Aspen defended three individual members of the family who owned the property and the family business, Nede Management, Inc. (“Nede”), which managed the property. The defense was subject to reservations of rights on the lack of an obligation to pay any judgment in excess of the $1 million policy limits and no coverage for punitive damages. Aspen appointed defense counsel to defend its insureds. The insureds sought independent counsel based on the assertion that defense counsel appointed by the insurer defended the action inadequately, failed to communicate an initial settlement demand within policy limits and failed to fully investigate the case. Aspen did provide Cumis counsel to Nede for a period but terminated the arrangement after revoking its reservation of rights to that entity. The underlying case eventually settled at no cost to the insureds.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Dennison, Traub LiebermanMr. Dennison may be contacted at
rdennison@tlsslaw.com
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
15 Wilke Fleury Lawyers Recognized in 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Lists
August 17, 2020 —
Wilke Fleury LLPWilke Fleury is proud to announce that 15 of our astounding attorneys were featured in the Annual List of Top Attorneys in the 2020 Northern California Super Lawyers magazine.
Super Lawyers rates attorneys in each state using a patented selection process; they also publish a yearly magazine issue that regularly produces award-winning features on selected attorneys.
Wilke Fleury LLP
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sureties and Bond Producers May Be Liable For a Contractor’s False Claims Act Violations
October 19, 2017 —
Michael C. Zisa & Susan Elliott – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Two recent decisions from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the United States Court of Federal Claims highlight that sureties and bond producers are not immune to the potentially severe consequences of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and related federal fraud statutes. In each case, the Court determined that sureties and bond producers can face potential liability under these fraud statutes for direct and indirect submission of false claims to the federal government.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael C. Zisa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Susan Elliott, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Zisa may be contacted at mzicherman@pecklaw.com
Ms. Elliott may be contacted at selliott@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Signs Biggest Offshore Wind Project Deal in the Nation
August 06, 2019 —
Will Wade, Chris Martin, & Millicent Dent - BloombergNew York has signed the biggest-ever deals for offshore wind power in U.S. history, a key part of the state’s plan to get all of its power from emissions-free sources by 2040.
On Thursday, Governor Andrew Cuomo awarded contracts for two projects off Long Island that will total 1,700 megawatts in capacity. Equinor ASA and a joint venture between Denmark’s Orsted A/S and Massachusetts-based Eversource Energy were chosen to build the farms, which will supply enough power to light up a million homes.
Cuomo is counting on the wind projects to achieve the most aggressive clean energy goal in the U.S., and signed the state’s 100% renewable energy target into law right after announcing the wind contracts. New York’s ultimate plan is to get enough turbines erected off its shores to generate 9,000 megawatts by 2035.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will Wade, Chris Martin, & Millicent Dent, Bloomberg
Sometimes You Just Need to Call it a Day: Court Finds That Contractor Not Entitled to Recover Costs After Public Works Contract is Invalidated
June 29, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogJanuary was a tough month in the courts for Hensel Phelps Construction Company. Hot off the heels of Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. Superior Court, a case concerning the 10-year statute of limitations under Civil Code section 941, comes Hensel Phelps Construction Co. v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Case No. B293427 (January 28, 2020), a bid dispute case . . .
The Tale of a Bid, a Bid Protest, and Two Cases
A. The Bid and Bid Protest
On March 15, 2015, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) issues an Invitation for Bid for the HVAC project at the Ironwood State Prison. The deadline to submit bids was April 30, 2015. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. submitted a timely bid and was determined to be the “apparent low bidder” with a bid of $88,160,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Claims for Bad Faith and Punitive Damages Survive Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment
August 02, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court denied the insurer's motion for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss claims for bad faith and for punitive damages. Van Der Weide v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101735 (N.D. Iowa June 30, 2017).
The homeowner sued the insured general contractor after water was found leaking into the home, causing significant water damage. Cincinnati rejected the general contractor's tender and denied any duty to defend, contending that the alleged defects were discovered after Cincinnati's policy period had ended. Cincinnati was advised that two experts for the insured would testify that the property damage occurred due to construction defects and that the damage began shortly after completion of the home. Cincinnati still refused to defend.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
