Top Talked-About Tech at the 2023 ABC Joint Tech Summit
May 15, 2023 —
Grace Arnold - Construction ExecutiveAt the
2023 ABC Joint Tech Summit in Tysons Corner, Virginia, on April 27, there was talk, of course, of various construction technologies, including AI, VR, autonomous vehicles, impairment detection, digital twins, blockchains and Spot the Robot Dog. All this different tech, however, was discussed for the same two reasons: safety and efficiency.
While some companies are just discovering the vast uses for and benefits of smart technology in construction, other companies are already well into adoption and implementation. Here is a breakdown of some of the contech showcased at the Joint Tech Summit, which was presented by four ABC chapters: Chesapeake Shores, Greater Baltimore, Metro Washington and Virginia.
AUTONOMOUS MACHINES
The talk of the Tech Summit was Spot the Robot Dog from
Boston Dynamics. Spot can walk, run, crawl, climb stairs and tortuous terrain, right itself from a fall, return to its charging port when its battery runs low and is compatible with a variety of add-ons, like 360 cameras. Spot is controlled via tablet and can be programmed to run on its own, allowing for increased worker and jobsite safety and productivity.
Reprinted courtesy of
Grace Arnold, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Appellate Court Addresses “Trigger of Coverage” for Asbestos Claims and Other Coverage Issues
November 30, 2020 —
Paul A. Briganti - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterOn October 9, 2020, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decided an appeal from a trial court’s 2018 summary judgment ruling on a number of coverage issues arising out of asbestos-related bodily injury claims against plaintiffs Carrier Corporation (Carrier) and Elliott Company (Elliott). See Carrier Corp. v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 396 CA 18-02292, Mem. & Order (N.Y. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 4th Dep’t Oct. 9, 2020).
The Fourth Department reversed the trial court’s ruling that, under New York’s “injury in fact trigger of coverage,” injury occurs from the first date of exposure to asbestos through death or the filing of suit as a matter of law. The parties agreed that, because the policy language at issue required personal injury to take place “during the policy period,” “the applicable test in determining what event constitutes personal injury sufficient to trigger coverage is injury-in-fact, ‘which rests on when the injury, sickness, disease or disability actually began.’” Id. at 3 (quoting Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Rapid-American Corp., 609 N.E.2d 506, 511 (N.Y. 1993)). The Fourth Department concluded that, in resolving the issue, the trial court erred by relying on inapposite decisions in other cases where: (1) the parties had stipulated or otherwise not disputed that first exposure triggered coverage[1]; or (2) the issue had not been resolved on summary judgment, but rather at trial based on expert medical evidence[2]. The Fourth Department further explained that, even if plaintiffs here had met their initial burden on summary judgment by submitting admissible evidence that asbestos-related injury actually begins upon first exposure, the defendant-insurer’s opposition – which included affidavits of medical experts contradicting that evidence and averring instead that “harm occurs only when a threshold level of asbestos fiber or particle burden is reached that overtakes the body’s defense mechanisms” – raised a triable issue of fact. Id. at 4. The Fourth Department also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the defendant-insurer was collaterally estopped on the “trigger” issue by a California appellate court’s decision in Armstrong World Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 52 Cal. Rptr. 2d 690 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996). The Fourth Department reasoned that the issues litigated in the two cases were not identical because, among other things, California and New York “apply different substantive law in determining when asbestos-related injury occurs.” Carrier, Mem. & Order at 4.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLPMr. Briganti may be contacted at
brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Latest Updates On The Coronavirus Pandemic
March 30, 2020 —
ENR Editors - Engineering News-RecordCoronavirus has struck a heavy blow against the world economy as it forces countries into lockdown with "closed for business" signs, hollows out the tourism, travel and hospitality sectors, turns out the lights on business gatherings and events, sends employees home to work and drives the stock market into a dizzying tumble.
ENR Editors
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story for ENR's ongoing reporting, analysis and commentary on construction sector developments
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hunton Insurance Partner Syed Ahmad Named to Benchmark Litigation’s 2019 40 & Under Hot List
October 14, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & David M. Costello - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogBenchmark Litigation has named
Syed Ahmad, a partner in Hunton Andrews Kurth’s Insurance Coverage practice, to the publication’s 40 & Under Hot List. Benchmark Litigation is the definitive guide to America’s leading litigation firms and attorneys. The 40 & Under Hot List honors the most notable up-and-coming litigation attorneys in the United States. Those named to the list have proven their eligibility as individuals at the partner level of their respective firms who are 40 years of age or younger.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
David Costello, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract
May 10, 2022 —
Ted Senet & Christopher Trembley - Gibbs GidenCalifornia local public agencies and their contractors should take note of a recent appellate decision pertaining to late progress payments on public works projects. In Clark Bros., Inc. v. North Edwards Water Dist., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 331, filed on April 22, 2022, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a local agency’s late progress payments to a general contractor did not constitute breach of contract under the prompt payment penalty statute, Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Notwithstanding this holding, the contractor recovered damages, interest, fees, and costs in excess of its contract amount.
In 2013, the North Edwards Water District awarded a $6.2 million contract to Clark Bros., Inc. to construct a water treatment facility. The District’s water contained excessive levels of arsenic, and the project was sponsored by the State of California with funds earmarked to provide safe drinking water. The State agreed to disburse funds to the District during construction upon the State’s review and approval of the contractor’s progress payment applications. The contract required completion of the work within one year following the District’s issuance of a notice to proceed to the contractor.
As a result of factors arguably outside the control of the contractor, including unforeseen site conditions and the failure of the District’s equipment supplier to meet delivery deadlines, the project was significantly delayed beyond the deadline for completion. The District nonetheless terminated the contractor, which in turn filed suit against the District and the State. The contractor asserted claims for breach of contract, including breach of contract for the District’s failure to pay the contractor’s progress payment applications within the time specified under Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Subsection (b) of the statute provides:
Any local agency which fails to make any progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract shall pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ted Senet, Gibbs Giden and
Christopher Trembley, Gibbs Giden
Mr. Senet may be contacted at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com
Mr. Trembley may be contacted at Ctrembley@gibbsgiden.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Mezzanine Financing
March 29, 2017 —
Tim Davis & Steven Coury - White and Williams LLPConstruction mezzanine lending is on the rise and more development deals are getting done with a capital stack that includes mezzanine debt in addition to the traditional components of sponsor equity and senior mortgage debt. Below are important issues and concepts to bear in mind when structuring the financing of a construction project that includes a mezzanine debt component.
Funding Sequence
Funding Sequence
When will the proceeds of the mezzanine loan be advanced? In some instances, the mezzanine loan proceeds will be advanced only after all of the borrower’s equity has been contributed to the construction of the project. In other instances, the borrower’s equity and the mezzanine loan proceeds go in either pari passu or simultaneously at another ratio. If the equity is not entirely contributed in advance, the mezzanine lender may require that the uncontributed equity be held by the mezzanine lender or held in a pledged account. The mezzanine lender may also further mitigate the risk of non-funding of the equity by requiring an equity funding guaranty (as discussed below).
Additionally, when will the mezzanine loan proceeds be advanced in relation to the senior mortgage loan proceeds? Will the entire mezzanine loan be advanced prior to any senior mortgage loan advance or will they be advanced pari passu? Depending on the business deal, the mezzanine loan agreement will need to reflect how and when the equity, the mezzanine debt, and the mortgage debt will be advanced.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tim Davis, White and Williams LLP and
Steven Coury, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Davis may be contacted at davist@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Coury may be contacted at courys@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
President Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” Executive Order and the Construction Industry
June 05, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogOn April 18, 2017, President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13788 implementing his “Buy American, Hire American” campaign promise.
Federal construction contractors familiar with “Buy American” clauses in federal contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)–which require materials to be manufactured in the United States (or, depending on the clause, not manufactured in certain countries) unless a waiver is obtained–have waited anxiously to see what Trump’s “Buy American, Hire American” promise would mean for them.
Well . . . as it turns out, not much, at least not yet.
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
Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations
May 27, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Tennessee Supreme Court has refused to construe an ambiguous definition of actual cash value to allow for deduction of labor costs as part of depreciation calculations where that subset of repair costs are not clearly addressed in the policy. Despite the split of authority nationwide, the Tennessee case presents a straightforward application of policy interpretation principles to a common valuation issue in first-party property claims.
In Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Co., No. M2017-2546-SC-R23-CV (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2019), insureds brought a class-action lawsuit against their property insurer, Auto-Owners, alleging breach of contract. The plaintiffs each owned buildings damaged by a hail storm and had each submitted claims to Auto-Owners. Auto-Owners accepted the claims and determined that the losses would be determined on an actual cash value basis. In performing those valuations, Auto-Owners depreciated both the building materials and the labor costs associated with repairing the properties. The insureds challenged the labor cost depreciation. Auto-Owners moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response, the insureds requested that the district court certify to the Tennessee Supreme Court whether, “[u]nder Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as ‘the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss,’ or (2) states that ‘actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation?”’
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
