Detect and Prevent Construction Fraud
August 28, 2018 —
Tiffany Couch - Construction ExecutiveWith construction ramping up in many markets, construction firms plan to hire more workers, indicating the industry's continued optimism about a healthy economy. It's news that is both exciting and perhaps a little daunting: hiring competent, qualified tradespeople is challenging under any conditions. No one wants to hire a poor employee—or worse, someone who turns out to be a thief.
While no industry is immune to occupational fraud, the construction industry is one of the harder hit. The average construction fraud scheme costs business owners $227,000 before it is detected. Worse, the fraudster is very often someone the employer implicitly trusts, making it even harder to believe the company has been the victim of insider theft. Fraud can hurt a business's reputation, cost thousands and betray trust. It may seem uncontrollable and unforeseeable unless employers know how to detect and deter fraudulent behavior.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tiffany Couch, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Couch may be contacted at
tcouch@acuityforensics.com
Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation.
There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it.
After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors.
Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations.
Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.”
In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.”
The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Consultant’s Corner: Why Should Construction Business Owners Care about Cyber Liability Insurance?
July 13, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesRecently, I wrote an article on the importance of cyber liability insurance for design professionals. The reality, however, is that this is important insurance for all professionals in today’s day and age.
A modern, online insurance broker called
Embroker was kind enough to submit a guest post on cyber liability insurance. Check it out!!!
According to the Cybersecurity Ventures Report, the cost of cybercrime could reach $6 trillion by 2021. That same report predicts that cybercrime will expand into new sectors, such as the construction industry. Assuming your construction business has moved beyond pencil and paper drawings, paper invoices and mailed checks, this prediction is cause for concern. In fact, it’s already come true, as the 2013 Target cyber breach which led to a $39 million court settlement came through a HVAC contractor, a development which underscores the need for Cyber Liability insurance.
Considering the numerous issues facing construction business owners — from budget and time constraints to production methods to fire hazards — Cyber Liability insurance may seem like a low priority. But f you expect to stay in business and be profitable, that’s simply not the case.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Montana Federal District Court Finds for Insurer in Pollution Coverage Dispute
October 24, 2021 —
Melanie A. McDonald - Saxe Doernberger & VitaApplying Louisiana law, a recent federal court decision exemplifies why policyholders should thoroughly read claims-made policies to understand when notice is due to insurers and truthfully complete policy applications. In Admiral Insurance Company v. Dual Trucking, Inc.,1 the Court determined the insurer, Admiral Insurance Company (“AIC”), owed no duty to defend or indemnify Dual Trucking and Transport, LLC (“DTT”), Dual Trucking of Montana, LLC (“DTM”), and Dual Trucking, Inc. (“DTI”) (collectively, the “Dual Entities”) under two Environmental Impairment Liability Policies (“EIL Policies”) and four Contractor Pollution Liability Policies (“CPL Policies”). The Court justified its decision because the Dual Entities: 1) did not give notice during the 2012-2013 EIL Policy period; 2) had discovered or knew of, but did not disclose, potential pollution conditions before the inception of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy and before the expiration of the extended reporting period of the 2012-2013 EIL Policy; 3) failed to provide AIC with notice during the extended reporting period of the 2013-2014 EIL Policy of claims for which the Dual Entities were seeking coverage; and 4) materially misrepresented known facts on the CPL Policy applications.
I. Factual Background.
The Dual Entities were Louisiana-based companies that provided oilfield equipment rental services. In 2011, the Dual Entities leased land in Montana under three leases, collectively referred to as “the Bainville site.” Shortly afterward, the Dual Entities applied for, and AIC issued, an EIL Policy and two CPL Policies with a policy period of October 1, 2012, to October 1, 2013. AIC renewed all three policies for the October 1, 2013, to October 1, 2014, policy period.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melanie A. McDonald, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. McDonald may be contacted at
MMcDonald@sdvlaw.com
Admissibility of Expert Opinions in Insurance Bad Faith Trials
November 04, 2019 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationIn 2010, Hansen Construction was sued for construction defects and was defended by three separate insurance carriers pursuant to various primary CGL insurance policies.[i] One of Hansen’s primary carriers, Maxum Indemnity Company, issued two primary policies, one from 2006-2007 and one from 2007-2008. Everest National Insurance Company issued a single excess liability policy for the 2007-2008 policy year, and which was to drop down and provide additional coverage should the 2007-2008 Maxum policy become exhausted. In November 2010, Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primarily policy but agreed to defend under the 2006-2007 primarily policy. When Maxum denied coverage under its 2007-2008 primary policy, Everest National Insurance denied under its excess liability policy.
In 2016, pursuant to a settlement agreement between Hansen Construction and Maxum, Maxum retroactively reallocated funds it owed to Hansen Construction from the 2006-2007 Maxum primary policy to the 2007-2008 Maxum primary policy, which became exhausted by the payment. Thereafter, Hansen Construction demanded coverage from Everest National, which continued to deny the claim. Hansen Construction then sued Everest National for, among other things, bad faith breach of contract.
In the bad faith action, both parties retained experts to testify at trial regarding insurance industry standards of care and whether Everest National’s conduct in handling Hansen Construction’s claim was reasonable. Both parties sought to strike the other’s expert testimony as improper and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on January 9 in Burrow v. JTL Dev. Corp., a construction defect case in which houses suffered damage due to improperly compacted soil, upholding the decision of the lower court.
Turf Construction entered into a deal with JTL to develop a parcel they acquired. A third firm, Griffin Homes, withdrew from the agreement “when a geotechnical and soils engineering firm reported significant problems with soil stability on 14 of the lots.” Turf Construction then took over compacting and grading the lots. Turf “had never compacted or graded a residential tract before.” Robert Taylor, the owner of Turf, “testified he knew there was a significant problem with unstable soils.”
After homes were built, the plaintiffs bought homes on the site. Shortly thereafter, the homes suffered damage from soil settlement “and the damage progressively worsened.” They separately filed complaints which the court consolidated.
During trial, the plaintiff’s expert said that there had been an inch and a half in both homes and three to five inches in the backyard and pool areas. “He also testified that there would be four to eight inches of future settlement in the next fifteen to twenty years.” The expert for Turf and JTL “testified that soil consolidation was complete and there would be no further settlement.”
Turf and JTL objected to projections made by the plaintiffs’ soil expert, William LaChappelle. Further, they called into question whether it was permissible for him to rely on work by a non-testifying expert, Mark Russell. The court upheld this noting that LaChappelle “said that they arrived at the opinion together, through a cycle of ‘back and forth’ and peer review, and that the opinion that the soil would settle four to eight inches in fifteen to twenty years was his own.”
Turf and JTL contended that the court relied on speculative damage. The appeals court disagreed, stating that the lower court based its award “on evidence of reasonably certain damage.”
Turf also that it was not strictly liable, since it did not own or sell the properties. The court wrote that they “disagree because Turf’s grading activities rendered it strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.” The court concluded that “Turf is strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.”
Judge Coffee upheld the decision of the lower court with Judges Yegan and Perren concurring.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Reminder to Get Your Contractor’s License in Virginia
April 25, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsHow are ducks and contractors alike? A question I get often, particularly from construction contractors outside of Virginia is whether they need to get a Virginia contractor’s license. The answer is almost invariably “yes.” The next question is why? The answer is almost always “Because state law says so.” With some minor exceptions for material suppliers and the like, Virginia law requires that all of those that perform construction for others carry the proper license and specialization for the work performed. There is no exception for the proverbial “paper contractor” that takes money from an owner and subcontracts all of the actual physical work. It does not matter if you use a different term for what you do for the owner. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . .its a duck. If you take money to perform construction, you’re a contractor.
Some of the consequences of contracting without a license (aside from possible criminal charges) include among other things, the inability to perfect a mechanic’s lien under Va. Code 43-3(D) and, with minor exceptions, the ability to enforce a contract (meaning it really hurts your ability to get paid).
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
The Proposed House Green New Deal Resolution
February 27, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelA Resolution has been proposed to the House for consideration that would recognize the Federal Government’s duty “to create a Green New Deal.” It sets forth a very ambitious 10-year program to mobilize and transform every aspect of American life to combat the threats of climate change by transitioning to an economy based upon 100% clean and renewable energy.
In doing so, millions of new jobs would be created, and everyone who wants a job would be guaranteed a job. The sponsors’ talking points declare that there is no time to lose, that Americans love a challenge, and “this is our moonshot.” The obvious goal is to eliminate the generation and use of fossil fuel and nuclear energy—they are simply not part of the solution.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
