Northern District of Mississippi Finds That Non-Work Property Damages Are Not Subject to AIA’s Waiver of Subrogation Clause
July 11, 2018 —
Shannon M. Warren - The Subrogation StrategistIn recent months, the Northern District of Mississippi has grappled with how to interpret waivers of subrogation in American Institute of Architects (AIA) construction industry contracts and, specifically, how they apply to work versus non-work property. The distinction between work and non-work property has been commonly litigated and remains a hotly debated topic when handling subrogation claims involving construction defects.
In Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Fowlkes Plumbing, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23515 (February 12, 2018), a fire consumed the entire insured risk when one of the defendants was performing window restoration services. Subsequently, the insured’s subrogated insurer filed suit against several defendants involved in the construction project at issue. In response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi considered whether the waiver of subrogation clause in AIA contract form A201-2007 precluded the subrogated insurer from recovering damages from the defendants. The court held that the waiver of subrogation provision contained in AIA document A201-2007 barred the insurer from recovering for damages to the work itself, but did not apply to non-work property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shannon M. Warren, White and Williams LLPMs. Warren may be contacted at
warrens@whiteandwilliams.com
Pennsylvania Modernizes State Building Code
October 30, 2018 —
Joanna Masterson - Construction ExecutiveThe Pennsylvania Independent Regulatory Review Commission has updated the state’s Uniform Construction Code to align with the 2015 International Code —a family of comprehensive and coordinated building codes used in all 50 states that are updated regularly and take into account the latest health and safety technology and building science advancements.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
10 Safety Tips for General Contractors
October 09, 2018 —
Eric Weisbrot – JW Surety BondsThe construction industry continues to grow each year, paving the way for general contractors to make a profitable, sustainable living when the job is done right. However, to do so effectively, safety standards need to be met with consistency and focus on each worksite. General
contractors who are licensed and bonded must take proactive steps to avoid potentially fatal injuries among their subcontractors and employees, even though this may be easier said than done. To create and maintain a safe worksite each and every time, general contractors should consider how to implement the following best practices and safety tips on the job.
1 – Know the Risks
The most crucial step toward maintaining a safe construction site is to first be aware of the risks involved. Each year, thousands of
construction workers experience injuries on the job, and some ultimately lose their life because of safety missteps at work. As a general contractor, it is your responsibility to know that construction risks run rampant given the nature of the work. Being tuned into the potential for falls, slips, and other common safety-related incidents is a necessary part of operating a safe worksite for you and your employees.
2 – Require Protective Gear
An often overlooked safety precaution on construction sites is the use of up-to-date and well-maintained protective gear. For many subcontractors and employees, it is easy to skip this necessary step in safeguarding themselves from potential safety issues. However, general contractors can take steps to make protective gear a requirement on the job. This may include mandating hardhats and steel-toed shoes, gloves, and eyewear when appropriate. All visitors and workers on a construction site should follow protective gear instructions to avoid unnecessary safety risks.
3 – Educate on Ladder Safety
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ladder injuries account for a significant number of construction worker incidents each year, making up more than 200,000 accidents on average. Ladders have continuously ranked high on OSHA’s list of violations at construction sites because the prevalence of injuries is so high. General contractors can help thwart ladder-related injuries among workers by promoting ladder safety training, including reminders about the right ladder to use for each task. Workers should also be well aware of the importance of inspection before use, and they should always follow the three points of contact rule when going up or down a ladder.
4 – Recognize Equipment Pitfalls
Many construction workers experience injuries relating to equipment used on the job. This could be tied to getting on or off equipment, or loading and unloading materials from machinery. In any case, general contractors can encourage simple tactics to improve equipment safety measures. Paying close attention to secure footing while getting on or off a machine, having more than one person assist with loading and unloading, and ensuring everyone feels comfortable asking for help with these tasks reduces safety risks.
5 – Document Potential Hazards
A general contractor’s main responsibility is to manage the construction site efficiently from start to finish. Part of this duty is recognizing the possible issues on a worksite that may lead to accidents or injuries if not addressed at the beginning of a project. It is necessary to take the time to identify safety risks such as unstable working surfaces, dangerous trenches, or weather-related concerns that may impact the safety of subcontractors, suppliers, or other site visitors. Potential hazards should be documented and shared with site workers, and they should be updated as the project progresses.
6 – Maintain Equipment and Tools
Poorly maintained equipment and tools also cause issues on construction sites. The Infrastructure Health and Safety Association suggests that general contractors
remind workers to inspect tools, machines, handheld equipment, and vehicles before each use to ensure they are properly maintained. Additionally, understanding the maintenance standards for certain tools or equipment and following those guidelines is crucial to reducing injury on the job.
7 – Minimize Crowds
Crowded work areas can be a serious safety issue for general contractors, subcontractors, and vendors and suppliers on site. It is common for crowds to gather during the use of heavy equipment or when a significant task is being completed. However, general contractors should discourage crowd-forming for spectating purposes. This can be done by limiting the number of people allowed to be in an area when certain activities are taking place, and enforcing these rules at every possible opportunity.
8 – Hire Licensed Subcontractors
General contractors may have full- or part-time employees as part of their business model, or there may be a heavy presence of subcontractors not directly tied to the main business. In either case, it is essential to have faith in the capabilities of workers, including their willingness and commitment to follow safety standards. General contractors can help ensure each worker is more likely to take safety seriously when they hire licensed contractors who follow through with
licensing requirements as mandated by the state or city.
9 – Focus on Training
Even after vetting subcontractors and employees based on their licensing status, general contractors also need to ensure training and education are a priority. Several online and in-person courses focus on construction safety training which workers should be encouraged to attend. Safety
education programs from OSHA and other reputable sources are crucial to decreasing accidents on the job.
10 – Be Present
Finally, general contractors can only have an impact on the safety of the job site when they are purposefully present. It is common for some GCs to stop by a project when they are needed or to check on progress periodically. However, new safety hazards, lacking worker training, and other risks are not easily fixed when the general contractor is not consistently on site. Reducing the potential for falls, slips, trips, and fatalities on the job requires communication with workers, and that takes place most effectively when general contractors are in person.
Eric Weisbrot is the Chief Marketing Officer of JW Surety Bonds. With years of experience in the surety industry under several different roles within the company, he is also a contributing author to the surety bond blog.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Duty to Defend Under Pollution Policy
February 11, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found there was no duty to defend or indemnify under a pollution policy for claims arising from a building fire. URS Corp. v. Zurich Am Ins. Co., 2014 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 222 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 16, 2014).
Two firemen were killed while fighting a fire at the Deutsch Bank building in New York City. The owner of the building, URS, was sued by the estates of the two deceased firemen and other firemen who were injured by the fire.
URS was an additional insured under a contractors pollution liability policy issued by Hudson Specialty Insurance Company. The policy promised to pay for damages to the insured "if the damages result from a pollution condition." "Pollution condition" was defined as "the discharge, dispersal, release or escape of smoke, vapors, fumes, acids, alkalis, toxic chemicals, [etc.]" The policy explicitly noted that it did not provide commercial general liability coverage. Hudson denied coverage and URS sued.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Wildfire Risk Scores and Insurance Placement: What You Should Know
July 15, 2024 —
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer & Molly L. Okamura - Newmeyer DillionWhat Are Wildfire Risk Scores and How Are They Calculated?
Wildfire risk scores are scores assigned to properties by third-party vendors based on the likelihood of direct or indirect exposure to a wildfire. Wildfire risk scores can be a factor used by insurance companies when making coverage decisions. Additionally, wildfire risk scores can be a helpful metric for real estate developers to consider when determining whether to buy a piece of property.
There are a variety of vendors that use unique methods to calculate wildfire risk scores. For example, CoreLogic, FireLine, and RedZone are vendors used by insurance companies in California. Some vendors' scoring scales are from 1-10, and some are from 1-100, but generally the higher the score, the higher the likelihood of a wildfire impacting the property. There is no national, standardized scoring scale.
Reprinted courtesy of
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer Dillion and
Molly L. Okamura, Newmeyer Dillion
Mr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Ms. Okamura may be contacted at molly.okamura@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Unveiled
November 19, 2021 —
Donna Reichle - Construction ExecutiveAssociated Builders and Contractors today released the following statement on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s issuance of its COVID-19 vaccination and testing Emergency Temporary Standard, which applies to employers with 100 or more employees as required by President Biden’s Path Out of the Pandemic COVID-19 Action Plan.
“The OSHA ETS is likely to increase compliance costs and cause regulatory burdens that will exacerbate several headwinds facing the construction industry—which is currently facing a workforce shortage of 430,000, escalating materials prices and supply chain bottlenecks—and the American economy,” says Ben Brubeck, ABC vice president of regulatory, labor and state affairs. “We are currently reviewing the 490-page rule and related documents from the Biden-Harris administration in order to thoroughly evaluate its impact on our membership and the construction industry.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Donna Reichle, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Reichle may be contacted at
reichle@abc.org
Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability
September 29, 2021 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible.
LG Electronics arose from a fire at the home of Thomas and Lisa Ellis. The public sector fire investigator identified the area of fire origin as the top of a refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics USA, Inc. (LG). The Ellises filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (Insurer). Insurer retained a fire investigator and an electrical engineer to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator agreed with the public sector investigator that the fire originated at the top of the refrigerator. The engineer conducted a forensic inspection of the scene and ruled out all potential external ignition sources. He then examined the internal components of the refrigerator. He found arcing activity on a wire at the front top of the refrigerator. He opined that there were two possible causes of the fire: either the heater circuit insulation failed over time due to mechanical damage, or the heat from the internal light fixture ignited combustible components of the refrigerator. Since the engineer ruled out improper use of the refrigerator, he opined that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
NY Court Holds Excess Liability Coverage Could Never be Triggered Where Employers’ Liability Policy Provided Unlimited Insurance Coverage
February 28, 2018 —
Theresa A. Guertin and Samantha M. Martino - SDV Blog In a potentially significant development in New York insurance law, a recent appellate level decision held that an excess liability policy was not obligated to provide coverage where the underlying employer’s liability policy provided unlimited coverage pursuant to New York regulations.
The
Arthur Vincent & Sons Construction, Inc. v. Century Surety Insurance Co.1 case arose out of an underlying wrongful death claim. Fordham University hired Arthur Vincent and Sons Construction, Inc. (“AVSC”) to install a new roof on its Lewis Calder Center. As is typical of most construction contracts, AVSC agreed to indemnify the University against any claims arising out of its negligence, and to name the University as an additional insured on its commercial general liability policy. AVSC was insured by three policies: (1) a worker’s compensation and employer’s liability policy issued by Commerce and Industry Insur¬ance Company (“CIIC”); (2) a primary CGL policy issued by Century Surety Insurance Company (“Century”); and (3) an excess liability policy issued by Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”).
Reprinted courtesy of
Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Martino may be contacted at smm@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
