Give Way or Yield? The Jurisdiction of Your Contract Does Matter! (Law note)
March 05, 2015 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaHave you ever been to England? If so, you’ve likely seen their version of our “Yield” sign– the “Give Way” sign. It is a bit jarring to those from this side of the “big pond”.
Similarly, contracts can be worded differently– and, interpreted differently– depending on the state that you are in. This is why it is always a good idea to have your contract or proposal vetted for the state(s) where you provide professional services.
When confronted with a “give way” sign you have the general idea of yielding, but might be confused by that whole “left side of the road” thing in some countries, where if you are turning right, you must give way to all vehicles coming towards you including those turning left. Likewise, you might have a good understanding of your construction contract in one state, but not how it would be interpreted in another state.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
My Employees Could Have COVID-19. What Now?
March 23, 2020 —
Amy R. Patton, Leila S. Narvid, Matthew C. Lewis, Robert Tadashi Matsuishi & Sarah J. Odia - Payne & FearsUpdated Guidance as of March 19, 2020.
You are concerned about potentially sick employees in the workplace. One employee is off work sick for a couple of days, and then wants to return to work. Another plans to return to work after a week of travel. Another appears to be sick at work. They are coughing, sneezing, and appear to be short of breath. You are concerned they may have COVID-19. What can you do? You're not the only one concerned -- your other employees are, too.
Your public-facing employees want to wear masks to protect themselves. One employee tells you he doesn’t want to touch anything that others in the office have touched. What are your obligations to these employees?
Below, we address questions relating to keeping employees safe from COVID-19 in the workplace without violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or employee privacy laws.
Can I require an employee returning from days away from work due to illness to report the symptoms the employee was experiencing that kept him/her out of work?
Short answer: yes, so long as the questions are limited to whether the employee has had flu-like symptoms. Though the ADA prohibits asking employees questions related to an employee disability, COVID-19 (like the seasonal flu) likely does not rise to the level of a disability, so asking an employee about flu-like (or COVID-19-like) symptoms is unlikely to elicit information related to a disability. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that an employer may ask if an employee is experiencing flu-like symptoms if the employee reports being ill during a pandemic.
Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys
Amy R. Patton,
Leila S. Narvid,
Matthew C. Lewis,
Robert Tadashi Matsuishi and
Sarah J. Odia
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Ms. Narvid may be contacted at ln@paynefears.com
Mr. Matthew may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com
Mr. Robert may be contacted at rtm@paynefears.com
Ms. Odia may be contacted at sjo@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rise in Single-Family Construction Anticipated in Michigan
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThings are looking up for Michigan home builders. Rovert Filka, the chief executive officer of the Home Builders Association of Michigan said that “home values are starting to rise as a result of so little production over the last five years.” The group anticipates that about 14,000 new homes will be built in Michigan over the next year.
Jason Burton, owner of Price Right Builders, noted that the increase in building has been slow. “Locally we are seeing the climb, but it’s a slow climb,” he said. “We’ve got a long way to go to get back to where we were.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Apartment Boom in Denver a Shortcut Around Condo Construction Defect Suits?
September 24, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFFor every condo currently being built in Denver, there are 40 apartment units. And there are some who think that this is being done to evade construction defect lawsuits. At issue is the statute of limitations for construction defects. Under Colorado law, condominium buyers have six years after the completion of constrution to sue for construction defects, unless the defect isn’t discovered until the fifth or six year, in which case they are given until the eighth year. But what if someone built an apartment building, rented out the units for six years, and then converted the whole thing to condominiums?
Some think that the construction defect clock would be reset. Amie Mayhew, the CEO of the Colorado Association of Home Builders noted that if this is the case, “you’d be back at square one.” But Doug Benson, a construction defect attorney, thinks that if a builder did this, and didn’t make any further construction, no one would be able to sue for construction defects, even if the condo owners found them. Mr. Benson, who represents homeowners, said that “they’re apartment homes and that’s just to avoid liability.”
Mike Gifford, the president of the Associated General Contractors of Colorado, noted that insurance companies were already wary of apartment complexes, fearing that they would be turned into condos. Whatever the cause, Denver seems to have a shortage of condos. But, they’re going to have a lot of apartments available.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Use It or Lose It: California Court of Appeal Addresses Statutes of Limitations for Latent Construction Defects and Damage to Real Property
August 02, 2017 —
Omar Parra & Jesse M. Sullivan - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal recently confirmed California’s latent defect statute of limitations, codified in California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15, bars only claims based on construction defects. Estuary Owners Association v. Shell Oil Company, No. A145516, (Cal. Ct. App. July 26, 2017). The Court also reemphasized that under California’s three-year statute of limitations for damage to real property, delineated in California Code of Civil Procedure section 338(b), the actual and constructive knowledge of the prior landowner is imputed to the current landowner.
Estuary Owners Association concerned the development and construction of a 100-unit condominium by Signature at the Estuary, LLC (“Signature”) on land Shell Oil Company (“Shell”) previously used as a fuel distribution terminal. Construction of the condominiums was completed in 2006. In 2008, it was discovered that residual concentrations of petroleum related chemicals remained in the soil, soil gas, and groundwater beneath the development. Later that year, Signature revealed that the condominiums had been constructed with moisture barriers beneath the building slabs instead of the vapor/gas barriers called for in the corrective action plan.
Reprinted courtesy of
Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Despite Misapplying California Law, Federal Court Acknowledges Virus May Cause Physical Alteration to Property
October 26, 2020 —
Scott P. DeVries, Michael S. Levine & Michael L. Huggins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn August 28, Judge Stephen V. Wilson of the Central District of California, entered the latest ruling in the ongoing saga of the COVID-19 business interruption coverage dispute between celebrity plaintiff’s attorney Mark Geragos and Insurer Travelers.
The case, 10E, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut, was filed in state court. Travelers removed to federal court, where Geragos sought remand and Travelers moved to dismiss. Judge Wilson denied remand and granted the Motion to Dismiss, finding plaintiff did not satisfactorily allege the actual presence of COVID-19 on insured property or physical damage to its property. This holding is inconsistent with long standing principles of California insurance law and appears to improperly enhance the minimal pleading threshold under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need only allege a claim “that is plausible on its face.”).
After rejecting Geragos’ attempt to have the case remanded based on a finding that Geragos had fraudulently joined a defendant to avoid removal, the Judge proceeded to the Motion to Dismiss which raised three issues: (1) the effect of the Virus Exclusion in the Travelers’ Policy, (2) whether plaintiff failed to allege that the governmental orders prohibited access to its property, and (3) whether plaintiff could “‘plausibly allege that it suffered ‘direct physical loss or damage to property’ as required for civil authority coverage.’” Rather than address the effect of the exclusion, which would be the narrowest issue (this exclusion is not present in all policies), the Court proceeded directly to the third issue, which has the broadest potential application.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael L. Huggins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Huggins may be contacted at mhuggins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Do Not Forfeit Coverage Under Your Property Insurance Policy
February 22, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIf you have read prior articles (see
here and
here as an example), then you know that when it comes to first-party property insurance policies, an insured must comply with post-loss obligations in the policy. Failure to comply with a post-loss obligation gives the insurer the argument that the insured materially breached the policy and, therefore, forfeited rights to coverage. Naturally, this is avoidable by ensuring post-loss obligations are complied with, ideally under the guidance of counsel and qualified public adjusters to ensure your rights are being preserved and maximized.
[W]hen an insurer has alleged, as an affirmative defense to coverage, and thereafter has subsequently established, that an insured has failed to substantially comply with a contractually mandated post-loss obligation, prejudice to the insurer from the insured’s material breach is presumed, and the burden then shifts to the insured to show that any breach of post-loss obligations did not prejudice the insurer.
Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Horne, 46 Fla.L.Weekly D201b (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) quoting American Integrity Ins. Co. v. Estrada, 276 So.3d 905, 916 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019).
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
Montana Trial Court Holds That Youths Have Standing to Bring Constitutional Claims Against State Government For Alleged Climate Change-Related Harms
September 18, 2023 —
Paul A. Briganti & Julia Castanzo - White and Williams LLPOn August 14, 2023, in a “landmark” ruling, a Montana state court held that youth plaintiffs had standing to assert constitutional claims against the State of Montana, its governor and state agencies for “ignoring” the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change. Held v. State of Montana, Cause No. CDV-020-307 (1st Judicial Dist. Ct., Lewis & Clark Cty., Mt.). Agreeing with the plaintiffs, the court concluded that a limitation in the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), which prohibited the state from considering climate impacts when issuing permits for energy projects, violated the plaintiffs’ right under the state constitution to a “clean and healthful environment.”
MEPA, enacted in 1971, states that its purposes include “provid[ing] for the adequate review of state actions in order to ensure that . . . environmental attributes are fully considered by the legislature in enacting laws to fulfill constitutional obligations . . . .” In 2011, the legislature amended the statute to curtail the scope of environmental reviews. Under the so-called MEPA limitation, Montana agencies cannot consider “an evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding impacts to the climate in the state or beyond the state’s borders.” Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-201(2)(a). In 2023, the legislature added a provision that eliminated equitable remedies (i.e., the ability to “vacate, void, or delay a lease, permit, license, certificate, authorization, or other entitlement or authority”) for litigants who “claim that [an] environmental review is inadequate based in whole or in part upon greenhouse gas emissions and impacts to the climate in Montana or beyond Montana’s borders . . . .” Id. § 75-1-201(6)(a)(ii).
Reprinted courtesy of
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP and
Julia Castanzo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Castanzo may be contacted at castanzoj@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
