Construction Case Alert: Appellate Court Confirms Engineer’s Duty to Defend Developer Arises Upon Tender of Indemnity Claim
January 27, 2010 —
Steven M. CvitanovicIn the recent case of UDC-Universal Development, L.P. v. CH2M Hill, 2010 Cal.App.LEXIS 47 (filed January 15, 2010), the Sixth District Court of Appeal provided a stunning illustration of the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s holding in Crawford v. Weather Shield Manufacturing Inc. (2008) 44 Cal.4th 541. In Crawford, the Court held the duty to defend under an indemnity agreement arose upon the mere tender of defense of a claim covered by the indemnity.
In the UDC case, CH2M Hill provided engineering and environmental planning services to developer UDC on a project that ultimately wound up in a construction defect lawsuit by the homeowners association ( HOA ). UDC tendered its defense to CH2M Hill, the tender was rejected, and UDC filed a cross-complaint for negligence, breach of contract and indemnity against CH2M Hill and others. After the HOA’s construction defect claims were settled, UDC proceeded to trial against CH2M Hill. The jury found in favor of CH2M Hill on the claims for negligence and breach of contract. At the request of the parties prior to trial, the trial court ruled on the application of the indemnity agreement in light of Crawford and, in so doing, found that the defense obligation arose upon the tender and that CH2M Hill breached that duty despite the jury finding in favor of CH2M Hill.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the defense obligation arose as soon as the defense was tendered and did not depend on the outcome of the litigation, and that the HOA’s general description of the defects along with an allegation that Doe engineers were negligent triggered the duty to defend.
Although this case did not expand the crushing impact of Crawford’s holding, it is
Read the full story...
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
Pine River’s Two Harbors Now Targets Non-Prime Mortgages
November 05, 2014 —
Jody Shenn - BloombergCount Two Harbors Investment Corp. (TWO) among investors looking for profits in riskier home loans -- and expecting a market for bonds backed by them to re-emerge even with safer issuance showing limited signs of life.
The real-estate investment trust, whose 74 percent total return over the past three years is almost double that of peers, recently told the lenders that have been selling it big, high-quality mortgages that it’s now also seeking to purchase non-prime loans and those with low down payments, Chief Investment Officer Bill Roth said today during a conference call for analysts and investors.
“Our expectation and certainly hope would be as this market opens up and becomes fairly meaningful that a securitization market would develop,” he said. Of course, he sees the timeline as “probably measured in years, not months.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jody Shenn, BloombergMs. Shenn may be contacted at
jshenn@bloomberg.net
Approaches in the Absence of a Differing Site Conditions Clause
April 10, 2019 —
Parker A. Lewton - Smith CurrieA contractor who has encountered unforeseen conditions will typically rely on the contract’s differing site conditions clause as a means to recovery. Most construction contracts address those issues directly. In ConsensusDocs Standard Agreement and General Conditions between Owner and Constructor, the starting point is § 3.16.2. But what if the contract does not contain a differing site conditions clause? Or, what if the contract does contain such a clause, but the contractor failed to provide adequate notice or satisfy other conditions or requirements of the contract? When reliance on a differing site conditions clause is impractical, a contractor still may seek recovery in certain instances under one or more of the following legal theories: misrepresentation; fraud; duty to disclose; breach of implied warranty; and mutual mistake.
Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation occurs when an owner “misleads a contractor by a negligently untrue representation of fact[.]” John Massman Contracting Co. v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 24, 31 (1991) (citing Morrison–Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 712, 718–19, 345 F.2d 535, 539 (1965)). A contractor may be able to recover extra costs incurred, under a theory of misrepresentation, if it can show that (1) the owner made an erroneous representation, (2) the erroneous representation went to a material fact, (3) the contractor honestly and reasonably relied on that representation, and (4) the contractor’s reliance on the erroneous representation was to the contractor’s detriment. See T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 132 F.3d 724, 728–29 (Fed. Cir. 1997). These four requirements can be satisfied, for example, through the use of deposition testimony detailing the owner’s representations and the contractor’s reliance thereon. See, e.g., C & H Commercial Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 246, 256–57 (1996).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Parker A. Lewton, Smith CurrieMr. Parker may be contacted at
palewton@smithcurrie.com
Millennium’s Englander Buys $71.3 Million Manhattan Co-Op
September 03, 2014 —
Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergIsrael Englander, the founder and chief executive officer of hedge-fund firm Millennium Management LLC, bought a duplex apartment on New York’s Park Avenue for $71.3 million, a record price for a Manhattan co-op.
The seller was the government of France, New York City property records filed on Aug. 30 show. The six-bedroom unit at 740 Park Ave. was listed for $48 million in April, according to real estate website StreetEasy.com.
The Park Avenue tower, completed in 1931 and designed by Rosario Candela and Arthur Loomis Harmon, has been home to John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, according to StreetEasy. Its 31 units include duplexes and triplexes of as much as 20,000 square feet (1,900 square meters). The 18-room co-op bought by Englander includes a private elevator, 35-foot (10.6-meter) marble gallery and five fireplaces, said the listing by John Burger of Brown Harris Stevens.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, BloombergMs. Carmiel may be contacted at
ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net
Maybe Supervising Qualifies as Labor After All
May 22, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRemember back in 2021 when I
“mused” about Dickson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al.? Remember how the Eastern District of Virginia held that mere supervision does not qualify as “labor” under the federal
Miller Act? Well, the 4th Circuit recently weighed in on the appeal of that case and had some interesting things to say about the definition of labor.
As a quick reminder, Plaintiff worked as a project manager on a project to repair and upgrade certain stairs at the Pentagon. Plaintiff subcontracted with prime contractor Forney Enterprises Inc. on this project. On Dec. 20, 2018, the prime contract was terminated. Plaintiff filed the Miller Act suit on Feb. 5, 2020. Dickson alleged that Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, or F&D, must pay him, pursuant to the Miller Act, the amount he is owed for the labor he performed on the project. Now before the district court were cross-motions for summary judgment. In evaluating Plaintiff’s claims, the district court examined the defendant’s claims that (1) Dickson’s work did not qualify as “Labor” under the Miller Act, and (2) that the suit was not timely filed. The Eastern District of Virginia court agreed with both arguments.
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
A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)
March 06, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelIt is already early in 2022, but several important environmental cases have already been decided by the federal district and federal appellate courts.
THE COURTS OF APPEAL
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
West Virginia State University Board of Governors v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al.
On January 10, 2022, the court decided this case, in which Dow and the other defendants attempted to remove a state groundwater contamination lawsuit to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the presence of a significant federal question. Both the federal district court and the appellate court rejected these arguments and remanded the lawsuit to the state court. For many years, Dow and other parties had been engaged in a RCRA hazardous waste cleanup at an industrial site located in Institute, West Virginia. RCRA permits and corrective action authorizations were issued or supervised by EPA. The plaintiffs complained that the groundwater cleanup, insofar as it affected their property, was deficient, which compelled them to supplement the ongoing federal cleanup with a lawsuit based on West Virginia causes of action and unique to their property. After a careful review of the record, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendants were not acting under the “subjection, guidance or control” of the EPA, and therefore the federal officer removal statute did not apply. Moreover, there was no federal question to resolve as the separate state lawsuit did not challenge a CERCLA cleanup nor did it arise from the RCRA remedial measures that had been taken.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Unlicensed Contractor Shoots for the Stars . . . Sputters on Takeoff
September 20, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogElon Musk . . .
Eccentric engineer.
Technology billionaire.
And, now, litigation bad ass.
Frequent readers of the California Construction Law Blog know that we’ve talked about the importance of being properly licensed when doing construction work and the risks to you if you don’t.
One California contractor recently found this out the hard way.
In Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B269186 (June 13, 2017), contractor Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. (Phoenix) lost its boosters . . . err britches . . when it sued Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (Space X) due to its failure to have a California contractor’s license.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
