COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Legislative Changes that Impact Construction 2017

May 10, 2017 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Well, the Virginia General Assembly has finished its yearly run through the legislative process and this year there are a few highlights for those of us in the construction industry. It is always interesting to see what issues are the big ones that get a lot of attention. This year the changes impacted public procurement, VOSH fines, and employment of unlicensed individuals on a job site. These changes to the various statutes that impact the day to day operation of the construction industry in Virginia will go into effect on July 1, 2017. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status

September 23, 2024 — Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which takes effect September 30, 2024. The Final Rule eases the process for unions in the construction industry to convert their status as collective bargaining representative of bargaining unit employees from Section 8(f) to 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) simply by placing certain recognitional acceptance language in their collective bargaining agreements. As a result, construction industry employers should review their collective bargaining agreements prior to signing to determine if such language exists. Section 9(a) Non-Construction Industry Employers In most industries, not including construction, union recognitional status as collective bargaining representative of the employer’s employees is governed by Section 9(a) of the Act. In order for a Union to obtain recognitional status under Section 9(a), the union must either: (1) file a petition with the NLRB showing support of 30% of the proposed bargaining unit via employee executed authorization cards and win an election of 51% of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit who actually vote; or (2) by reaching an agreement with the employer that the union possesses employee executed authorization cards from 51% of the proposed bargaining unit, which has been confirmed by a neutral arbitrator pursuant to a card count. Once such status is achieved, the union and employer are required to meet and bargain towards reaching a collective bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment of the union represented employees. A Section 9(a) union cannot have its recognitional status revoked absent the loss of majority support of the employees it represents. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com

---

Performance Bonds: Follow the Letter of the Bond and Keep The Surety Informed

December 06, 2021 — Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker, LLP - ConsensusDocs
Construction surety bonds are risk management tools utilized by parties on large construction projects. However, bonds are not insurance, and a surety is not an “insurer” of the project. Different from insurance, a surety’s obligation to act typically arises if the principal fails to perform in accordance with the construction contract, and if the claimant satisfies the conditions precedent to enforcing the bond.[1] This article focuses exclusively on performance bonds on private projects,[2] and highlights practical considerations and surety defenses to enforcement of the performance bond.[3] Spoiler alert – the party making a claim on the bond must strictly adhere to the conditions precedent set forth in the bond throughout the construction project and when calling upon the surety to take action, otherwise the performance bond may be rendered void and unenforceable. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Shaughnessy, Jones Walker, LLP
Mr. Shaughnessy may be contacted at bshaughnessy@joneswalker.com

---

Downtown Sacramento Building Riddled with Defects

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
The Board of Equalization tower in Sacramento, California has gone through $60 million in repairs to deal with issues such as bats, floods, leaky windows, mold, and glass panels that would “pop off the building with no warning and shatter on the sidewalk,” according to Insurance News. However, an additional $115 million in repairs are planned to deal with “crumbling core plumbing” and “concrete-and-glass exterior,” among other problems. Now, “a Sacramento attorney filed a $50 million tort claim this month, a first step toward suing the tax-collecting department on behalf of employees who say their bosses downplayed the building's ailments and put workers' health at risk.” "Even though my lawyers told me not to say this, I don't think it's safe," board Chairman Jerome Horton told Insurance News. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Pool Contractor’s Assets Frozen over Construction Claims

October 22, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
The State of Florida has frozen the assets of Nationwide Pools over claims of deceptive practices. Nationwide will be allowed to engage in pool construction during the lawsuit. The Florida Attorney General’s office alleges that Nationwide Pools failed to pay subcontractors, misrepresented warranties, and left customers with unfinished pools. The State of Florida is seeking restitution to consumers who did business with Nationwide Pools. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Water Backup Payment Satisfies Insurer's Obligation to Cover for Rain Damage

February 16, 2017 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The insured's attempt to secure additional coverage beyond a $10,000 payment for water damage after a rain storm damaged the interior of its building failed. Bible World Christian Ctr. v. Colony Insurance Co, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175766 (M.D La. Dec. 20, 2016). The interior of Bible World's building was damaged by water that leaked in from the roof after a heavy rain storm. Bible World's officials met with Robert Chandler, an employee of Omni Insurance Group, the day after the rain event. Chandler had assisted Bible World in procuring its commercial property policy with Colony Insurance Company. Chandler told Bible World to fix the property and that its costs would be covered under the policy. Bible World spent $79,876.81 in repairs. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

North Carolina Federal Court Holds “Hazardous Materials” Exclusion Does Not Bar Duty to Defend Under CGL Policy for Bodily Injury Claims Arising Out of Direct Exposure to PFAs

December 07, 2020 — Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLP
On October 19, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina held that a “hazardous materials” exclusion contained in a CGL policy did not preclude a duty to defend the insured against claims alleging bodily injury resulting from direct exposure to perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which are man-made chemicals within the group of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs).[1] In Colony Insurance Company v. Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, the insured was named a defendant in hundreds of underlying suits relating to its manufacture of fire equipment containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a fire suppressant.[2] The underlying plaintiffs alleged that: (a) the AFFF contained PFOS and PFOA; (b) PFOA and PFOS are highly carcinogenic; and (c) exposure to AFFF contained in the defendants’ products caused bodily injury or property damage. Around a third of the underlying complaints alleged harm from both direct exposure to the foam and exposure through the environment. Representative language from those complaints was: “[d]uring [underlying plaintiff’s] employment as a firefighter and firefighter instructor, he was significantly exposed to elevated levels of PFOS and PFOA in their concentrated form as a result of regular contact with [d]efendant’s AFFF products and through PFOS and PFOA having contaminated the FireCollege well system.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Subcontractors Found Liable to Reimburse Insurer Defense Costs in Equitable Subrogation Action

August 03, 2020 — Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Pulte Home Corp. v. CBR Electric, Inc. (No. E068353, filed 6/10/20), a California appeals court reversed the denial of an equitable subrogation claim for reimbursement of defense costs from contractually obligated subcontractors to a defending insurer, finding that all of the elements for equitable subrogation were met, and the equities tipped in favor of the insurer. After defending the general contractor, Pulte, in two construction defect actions as an additional insured on a subcontractor’s policy, St. Paul sought reimbursement of defense costs solely on an equitable subrogation theory against six subcontractors that had worked on the underlying construction projects, and whose subcontracts required them to defend Pulte in suits related to their work. After a bench trial, the trial court denied St. Paul’s claim, concluding that St. Paul had not demonstrated that it was fair to shift all of the defense costs to the subcontractors because their failure to defend Pulte had not caused the homeowners to bring the construction defect actions. The appeals court reversed, holding that the trial court misconstrued the law governing equitable subrogation. Because the relevant facts were not in dispute, the appeals court reviewed the case de novo and found that the trial court committed error in its denial of reimbursement for the defense fees. The appeals court found two errors: First, the trial court incorrectly concluded that equitable subrogation requires shifting of the entire loss. Second, the trial court applied a faulty causation analysis – that because the non-defending subcontractors had not caused the homeowners to sue Pulte, thereby necessitating a defense, St. Paul could not meet the elements of equitable subrogation. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---