WARN Act Exceptions in Response to COVID-19
April 13, 2020 —
Yvette Davis & Kyle R. DiNicola - Haight Brown & BonesteelCalifornia’s WARN Act requires employers of certain covered establishments to provide 60 days written notice of any mass layoff, relocation, or termination. This notice is required to be given to employees and the Employment Development Department. An employer’s failure to comply with this requirement can result in being held liable for back-pay and value of the cost of any benefits to which the affected employee(s) may have been entitled for up to a maximum of 60 days.
Due to the COVID-19 crisis and emergency circumstances in which many employers now find themselves, the Governor of California has issued Executive Order N-31-20, which temporarily suspends the 60-days advance notice requirement and the provisions that impose liability and penalties on an employer for the duration of the COVID-19 emergency.
Reprinted courtesy of
Yvette Davis, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Kyle R. DiNicola, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com
Mr. DiNicola may be contacted at kdinicola@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Trends in Project Delivery Methods in Construction
April 03, 2023 —
Sarah B. Biser - ConsensusDocsThe three key measures of a construction project’s success are cost, quality, and time (delays). The project delivery method that the owner of the project selects can affect each of these metrics. Project delivery methods in complex construction projects evolve as technology and processes improve. The traditional methods of design-bid-build (DBB), design-build (DB), and construction management (CM) have been the standard for many years. More recently, however, newer methods such as integrated project delivery (IPD), and public-private partnerships (PPP) have gained traction.
Design – Bid – Build (DBB)
Design-bid-build is the oldest, most commonly used method of project delivery. It involves three distinct phases: design, bid/award, and construction. An owner asks a team of professionals, such as architects, engineers, and contractors, to produce design documents that will be used to solicit bids. After the owner evaluates the bids and chooses a contractor, a construction contract is written. While this method is the most familiar and well-understood, it can lead to disputes during the construction process as changes are made to the original plans.
In DBB, the owner bears the risk for funding increased costs attributed to design changes and related delays – thanks to the Spearin Doctrine, which holds that the owner impliedly warrants the information, plans, and specifications that it provides to a general contractor. See 248 U.S. 132 (1918) Although the owner cannot claim against the contractor, it can make a claim against the design firm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah B. Biser, Fox Rothschild LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Biser may be contacted at
sbiser@foxrothschild.com
Lost Productivity or Inefficiency Claim Can Be Challenging to Prove
May 02, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOne of the most challenging claims to prove is a lost productivity or inefficiency claim. There is an alluring appeal to these claims because there are oftentimes intriguing facts and high damages. But the allure of the presentation of the claim does not compensate for the actual burden of proof in proving the lost productivity or inefficiency claim, which will require an expert. And they really are challenging to prove.
Don’t take it from me. A recent Federal Claims Court opinion, Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, (Fed.Cl. 2022), that I also discussed in the preceding
article, exemplifies this point.
To determine lost productivity or inefficiency, the claimant’s expert tried three different methodologies.
First, the expert looked at industry standard lost productivity factors such as those promulgated by the Mechanical Contractor’s Association. However, the claimant was not a mechanical contractor and there is a bunch of subjectivity involved when using these factors. The expert decided not to use such industry standard factors correctly noting they provide value when you are looking at a potential impact prospectively, but once you incur actual damages and have real data, it is not an accurate measure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lightstone Committing $2 Billion to Hotel Projects
February 26, 2015 —
Nadja Brandt – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- David Lichtenstein, whose real estate company owned Extended Stay Hotels when the chain went bankrupt, is committing $2 billion to developing and investing in lodging properties.
Lightstone Group is choosing “top-branded” select-service properties, those with limited amenities, in proven U.S. markets for its projects, Lichtenstein said in an interview. As part of the strategy, Lightstone has teamed up with Marriott International Inc. to build five Moxy hotels in New York -- four in Manhattan and one in Brooklyn. The “micro” lodgings, with high-tech features and smaller-than-average rooms, are geared toward younger travelers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nadja Brandt, BloombergMs. Brandt may be contacted at
nbrandt@bloomberg.net
You Need to be a Contractor for Workers’ Compensation Immunity to Apply
November 16, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you are a contractor, you are aware of workers’ compensation immunity when it comes to injuries on the site; and, if not, you should be. It is this workers’ compensation immunity (where workers compensation is the exclusive form of liability for an injured employee) which is why a contractor should generally always want to ensure its subcontractors have workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation immunity would protect a contractor that is being sued by a subcontractor’s employees that are injured on the job. For more information on workers’ compensation immunity, please check out this
article and this
article.
In this regard, Florida Statute s. 440.10(1)(b) provides:
In case a contractor sublets any part or parts of his or her contract work to a subcontractor or subcontractors, all of the employees of such contractor and subcontractor or subcontractors engaged on such contract work shall be deemed to be employed in one and the same business or establishment, and the contractor shall be liable for, and shall secure, the payment of compensation to all such employees, except to employees of a subcontractor who has secured such payment.
(If the subcontractor does not have workers’ compensation insurance, the contractor is deemed the statutory employer and its workers’ compensation insurance would apply. Otherwise, the subcontractor’s workers compensation insurance would apply.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Two Architecturally Prized Buildings May be Demolished
January 17, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe historic Portland Public Services Building, designed by Michael Graves, may be demolished after a report showed that “the 32-year-old building needs more than $95 million worth of repairs,” Dezeen Magazine reported. The Portland, Oregon building “is credited with being one of the first major buildings of postmodernism.” According to The Oregonian, the Portland city commissioners have differing opinions as to how to proceed. Council member Amanda Fritz commented that she “doesn’t think the problems at The Portland Building are all that bad compared to other city facilities,” while council member Nick Fish stated, “There’s got to be a better option than putting another $100 million into a white elephant.”
Dezeen Magazine also reported that the former American Folk Art Museum in New York is scheduled to be demolished to make room to extend the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). Glenn Lowry, the MoMA director, stated that the decision came after a six-month study: “The analysis that we undertook was lengthy and rigorous, and ultimately led us to the determination that creating a new building on the site of the former American Folk Art Museum is the only way to achieve a fully integrated campus.”
The decision is being criticized by “architects, conservationists, and critics” reported Dezeen Magazine. Architects Tod Williams and Billie Tsien designed the former American Folk Art Museum. Williams and Tsien stated, “Demolishing this human-scaled, uniquely crafted building is a loss to the city of New York in terms of respecting the size, diversity and texture of buildings in a midtown neighborhood that is at risk of becoming increasingly homogenized."
Read the full story at Dezeen Magazine re The Portland Building...
Read the full story at The Oregonian re The Portland Building...
Read the full story at Dezeen Magazine re American Folk Art Museum... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Holds That Insurance Producer Cannot Be Liable for Denial of COVID-19 Business Interruption Claim
November 23, 2020 —
Christopher P. Leise & Marc L. Penchansky - White and Williams LLPAfter an insurance carrier denied a lawyer and her law firm’s claim for lost business income due to the COVID-19-related shutdown, she sued both her carrier and the insurance producer that procured the policy. See Wilson v. Hartford Casualty Company, No. 20-3384 (E.D.Pa. Sep. 30, 2020). In one of the first cases to consider producer liability in COVID-19 cases, Judge Eduardo Robreno dismissed the lawsuit against the producer and the carrier.
USI procured the Policy from Hartford for Rhonda Hill Wilson and her law firm. The Policy included coverage for lost business income and extra expense caused by direct physical loss of, or damage to property. Similarly, the Policy covered lost business income if a nearby property experienced a direct physical loss that caused a civil authority to issue an order that prohibited access to the law firm’s property. The Policy also included a virus exclusion “for loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by . . . [p]resence, growth, proliferation, spread or any activity of . . . virus.”
Judge Robreno did not decide whether the Policy afforded any coverage to Wilson and her law firm for their COVID-19 losses. Rather, he found that even if they could, the virus exclusion unambiguously barred any coverage they could possibly claim. For that reason, Judge Robreno dismissed the claims against Hartford.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher P. Leise, White and Williams LLP and
Marc L. Penchansky, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Leise may be contacted at leisec@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Penchansky may be contacted at penchanskym@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
