Catching Killer Clauses in Contract Negotiations
January 29, 2024 —
James T. Dixon - Construction ExecutiveRisk-management personnel who are in the business of reviewing and negotiating construction contracts have some simple tools at their disposal to make sure their edits are addressing all of the killer risk-shifting clauses in those contracts. One of those is the index to that document. But not all authors of construction contract documents are kind enough to include an exhaustive index in their form agreements.
One of the most popular sets of general conditions, the A201 General Conditions published by the American Institute of Architects, includes one that is fairly comprehensive. It identifies the six terms that include a reference to indemnification, for example. On the other end of the spectrum are the innumerable custom forms created by public and private project owners, and these rarely have an index.
Even more powerful than an index is the search or find functions that are available in word processing applications and now in Adobe, the publisher of documents in portable document format, more commonly known as PDF. But with PDF documents, one must be careful to make sure the document under review is in fact searchable. Because every letter counts, it is important to have full confidence in the integrity of the search.
Reprinted courtesy of
James T. Dixon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reservation of Rights Letter Merely Citing Policy Provisions Inadequate
February 14, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiIn an unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that the insurers' reservation of rights letters did not provide a basis for denial of coverage. Stoneiedge At Lake Keowee Owners Ass'n Inc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2022 US. App. LEXIS 34292 (4th Dist. Dec. 13, 2022).
The Stoneledge AOAO sued the general contractor Marlick Home Builders, LLC and other defendants after construction of 37 units. The complaint alleged construction defects that resulted in water intrusion and other physical damage. Marlick notified its insurers, Cincinnati Insurance Company and Builders Mutual. Various reservation of rights letter were sent by the insurers.
In the underlying case, a judgment was entered against Marlick totalling approximately $1.6 million. As a judgment creditor of Marlickm, Stoneledge sued Cincinnati and Builders Mutual. The district court granted Stonelege's motion for summary judgment, primarily on the ground that the insurers failed to reserve the right to contest coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Where There's Smoke...California's New Emergency Wildfire Smoke Protection Regulation And What Employers Are Required To Do
August 26, 2019 —
Michael Studenka – Newmeyer DillionCalifornia employers need to pay heed to the recently announced California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA) emergency regulation related to their duty to protect employees from the potential harm caused by wildfire smoke. As of July 29, 2019, employers are required to actively monitor their local Air Quality Index (AQI) and take steps to protect their employees from the harmful particulate matter contained within wildfire smoke.
Which Workplaces Are Impacted?
The regulation applies to all workplaces exposed to wildfire smoke with an AQI level of 151 or greater (ranging from "unhealthy" to "hazardous"). "Exposed" workplaces are those that are not in enclosed buildings, structures, or vehicles with mechanical ventilation and the ability to close all windows and doors. Outdoor occupations including construction, agriculture, landscaping, maintenance, commercial delivery, and others that expose the worker to the outside air for more than one hour will be the most impacted by this new regulation, although firefighters engaged in fighting wildfires are expressly exempt from the statute.
What If I Have A Potentially Exposed Workplace?
Employers with outdoor workplaces that are exposed to wildfire smoke are required to monitor the AQI before each shift, and "periodically throughout the day," all to ensure that the Air Quality Index for PM2.5 (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller) remains below 151. This can be done by visiting certain governmental websites, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's AirNow website (www.airnow.gov), which allow for regular email alerts to be issued to the employer. An employer with a potentially exposed workplace must also set up a communication system capable of communicating to all affected employees (in a language readily understood) the status of wildfire smoke hazards. The communication system must also provide the employees a process to inform the employer of worsening air quality and/or any adverse symptoms that they may be experiencing (e.g., asthma or chest pain).
Finally, employers are required to add to their Injury and Illness Protection Program (IIPP) the provision of effective training and instruction (i.e., approximately 15 minutes) regarding:
- the health effects of wildfire smoke;
- the right to obtain medical treatment without fear of reprisal;
- how employees can obtain the current AQI for PM2.5;
- the requirements of this regulation;
- the employer's communication system regarding wildfire smoke;
- the employer's methods for protecting employees from wildfire smoke;
- the importance, limitations, and benefits of using a respirator when exposed to wildfire smoke; and
- the proper use and maintenance of respirators.
The Required Provision of Respiratory Protective Equipment
Employers with exposed workplaces are required to provide effective NIOSH-approved respirators (e.g., N95 filtering facepiece respirators) when AQI for PM2.5 levels are 151-200 (unhealthy), 201-300 (very unhealthy), or 301-500 (hazardous). The N95 respirator typically costs less than a dollar per mask and can be easily purchased online. Employers are also required to clean, store, and maintain these respirators for times of need. Employees are free to decide whether to use a respirator when the AQI for PM2.5 level is between 151-500, although employers must be prepared to offer the equipment at an AQI level of 151 or higher. Use of the respirator by an employee exposed to an AQI for PM2.5 level that exceeds 500, however, is required by law.
What Should Potentially Exposed Employers Do Now?
Employers should immediately begin supplementing their IIPP platforms to include this regulation's prescribed training regarding wildfire smoke. Companies should also develop an adequate monitoring and communication plan regarding wildfire smoke hazards and effectively train their supervisors on the same. Finally, acquiring an adequate supply of N95 filtering respirators now will help ensure that employers are prepared for the next wildfire.
Michael Studenka is a partner in Newmeyer Dillion's Labor & Employment practice group. His practice focuses on the life cycle of Employment law. Mike advises and trains companies on proactive measures to keep them protected and in compliance, and leverages his significant trial experience when faced with litigation. You can reach out to him at michael.studenka@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence
October 02, 2015 —
Edward Jaeger & William Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So.3d 256 (Fla. 2015), the Supreme Court of Florida considered whether a party to a contract, in order to be released from liability for its own negligence, needs to include an express reference to negligence in an exculpatory clause. The court held that, unlike an indemnification clause, so long as the language in an exculpatory clause is clear, the absence of the terms “negligence” or “negligent acts” in an exculpatory clause does not, for that reason alone, render the exculpatory clause ineffective.
Background
Give Kids the World, Inc. (“GKW”) is a non-profit organization that provides free vacations to seriously ill children and their families at GKW’s resort village. To use the resort, vacationers have to fill out an application. Stacy and Eric Sanislo filled out an application to bring their seriously ill child to the village for a vacation and GKW accepted their application. Upon arriving at the resort, the Sanislos filled out a liability release form.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward Jaeger, White and Williams LLP and
William Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Meet the Forum's ADR Neutrals: TOM NOCAR
March 25, 2024 —
Marissa L. Downs - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Hahn Loeser & Parks, LLP
Office Location: Columbus, Ohio
Email: tnocar@hahnlaw.com
Website: https://www.hahnlaw.com/professionals/j-thomas-nocar/
Law School: The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Types of ADR services offered: Arbitration and Mediation
Affiliated ADR organizations: AAA Construction Panel
Geographic area served: Nationwide
Q: Describe the path you took to becoming an ADR neutral.
A: I am a former builder turned construction attorney. I spent 26 years building before going to law school. I’ve worn every hat in the industry—D/B business owner, owner’s rep, CM at risk, GC, design/builder, subcontractor, and vendor at some point in my prior career. I chose to adapt these experiences to a law career in 2009 with the focus of practicing construction law. Now I commonly represent commercial builders and developers. AAA added me to the Construction Roster in 2022.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marissa L. Downs, Laurie & Brennan, LLPMs. Downs may be contacted at
mdowns@lauriebrennan.com
California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies
November 12, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPOn August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context.
The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chambers USA Names Peckar & Abramson to Band 1 Level in Construction Law; 29 P&A Lawyers Recognized as Leading Attorneys; Six Regions and Government Contracts Practice Recognized
July 08, 2024 —
Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Peckar & Abramson, P.C. (P&A) is pleased to announce that Chambers USA has recognized the firm at the Band 1 level nationwide in Construction Law. P&A stands alone in being named a Band 1 firm in Construction Law nationally and has been named in the position every year since Chambers USA began awarding the recognition. The firm was also recognized nationally in Government Contracts: Highly Regarded.
P&A’s offices in New York, New Jersey, Florida, and Texas were ranked Band 1 in Construction Law, and the Firm’s California, Illinois, and Washington, DC practices were also highly rated. Additionally, 29 of P&A’s construction lawyers were named leading construction lawyers in their respective jurisdictions – more than any other construction law practice in the country.
As demonstrated by its consistent Chambers USA Rankings, Peckar & Abramson has earned a national reputation for exceptional legal advocacy, representing construction industry members domestically and internationally.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Narrow Promissory Estoppel Exception to Create Insurance Coverage
August 07, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere is an affirmative claim known as promissory estoppel. (Whereas equitable estoppel is used an affirmative defense, promissory estoppel is used as an affirmative claim.)
To prove promissory estoppel, a plaintiff must plead and prove the following three elements: “(1) a representation as to a material fact that is contrary to a later-asserted position; (2) a reasonable reliance on that representation; and (3) a change in position detrimental to the party claiming estoppel caused by the representation and reliance thereon.” Romo v. Amedex Ins. Co., 930 So.2d 643, 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (citation and quotation omitted). Stated differently: “A party will be estopped from denying liability under the principle of promissory estoppel when the party makes ‘[a] promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance…[and] injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.’” Criterion Leasing Group v. Gulf Coast Plastering & Drywall, 582 So.2d 799, 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
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
