America’s Bridges and the Need for Bridge Infrastructure Investment
January 07, 2025 —
Lisa D. Love - The Dispute ResolverDuring the October 2024 meeting of the American Bar Association’s Forum on Construction held in Pittsburgh, a city of many bridges, the importance of bridges to our nation’s transportation infrastructure was apparent. Just two years ago, the Forbes Avenue bridge in Pittsburgh collapsed—resulting in several vehicles and a bus falling into a ravine. Ten people were injured in the event. It was later reported that the bridge had received a “poor” rating but was still permitted to remain open to traffic. The event resulted in several lawsuits which, just this past September, the City of Pittsburgh requested $500,000 from the city council to settle. The Forbes Avenue bridge is hardly a unique case and is just one example of the litigation that can ensue if we fail to maintain our aging infrastructure.
The State of Our Nation’s Bridges
As of June 2024, the United States has more than 616,000 bridges located on public roads, including interstate highways, U.S. highways, state and county roads, as well as publicly accessible bridges on federal and tribal lands.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa D. Love, JAMS
Private Project Payment Bonds and Pay if Paid in Virginia
January 05, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsOne of the many items of construction law that has always been about as clear as mud has been the interaction between a contractual pay if paid clause and payment bond claims either under the Federal Miller Act or Virginia’s “Little Miller Act.” While properly drafted contractual “pay if paid” clauses are enforceable by their terms in Virginia, what has always been less clear is whether a bonding company can take advantage of such a clause when defending a payment bond claim. As always, these questions are very fact specific both under the Federal Act and the state statute. I wish that this post would answer this question, but alas, it will not.
A recent case from the City of Roanoke, Virginia looked at the interaction between a payment bond and a “condition precedent” pay if paid clause as it relates to a private project that is not subject to the Little Miller Act. In the case of IES Commercial, Inc v The Hanover Insurance Company, the Court examined a contractual clause between Thor Construction and IES Commercial in tandem with the bond language between Hanover Insurance Company and Thor as it related to a surprisingly familiar scenario. The general facts are these: IES performed, Thor demanded payment from the owner for the work that IES performed and the owner, for reasons that are left unstated in the opinion, refused to pay. IES sues Hanover pursuant to the payment bond and Hanover moves to dismiss the suit because Thor hadn’t been paid by the owner and therefore Hanover could take advantage of the pay if paid language.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
The “Unavailability Exception” is Unavailable to Policyholders, According to New York Court of Appeals
September 10, 2018 —
William S. Bennett & Warsame Y. Hassan - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The New York Court of Appeals recently upheld a prior appellate division decision finding that policyholders facing environmental claims, spanning multiple years, cannot force their insurers partially on the risk to provide coverage for years where the insurers did not issue policies, even though pollution insurance was unavailable in the marketplace.
In Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v. Munich Reins. Am., Keyspan Gas East Corporation (“Keyspan”) argued other insurers should cover the period when pollution property insurance was unavailable in the marketplace, according to their pro-rata share of coverage. 31 N.Y.3d 51 (2018). In a unanimous decision, the Court emphasized the Appellate Division’s prior ruling that stated, “spreading risk should not by itself serve as a legal basis for providing free insurance to an insured.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
Summary Judgment for Insurer on Construction Defect Claim Reversed
January 07, 2025 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's granting of summary judgment to the insurer on a construction defect claim asserted against the insured. TIG Ins. Co. v. Woodsboro Farmers Cooperative, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24003 (5th Cir. Sept. 20, 2024).
In March 2013, Woodsboro Farmers Cooperative contracted with E.F. Erwin, Inc. to construct two Brock 105' diameter grain silos. Erwin hired subcontract AJ Constructors, Inc. (AJC) to construct the silos. Erwin was responsible for supervising the work.
Brock silos were kits shipped by the manufacturer and then assembled according to the manufacturer's manuals and specifications. The silos are constructed section by section. AJC began erecting the silos in May 2013 and completed its work in June or early July. Erwin occasionally inspected the work and found the silos were structurally sound and not defective. AJC left the job site after completing the assembly.
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
New York City Construction: Boom Times Again?
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFConstruction spending in New York City is expected to reach $31.5 billion this year, which would be the first time has exceeded $30 billion since 2006. Further , construction spending is projected to grow to $37 billion in 2015. During that same period, construction jobs are expected to grow from 120,000 to 130,000.
Richard Anderson, the president of the New York Building Congress noted that “just five years after the worst downturn since the Great Depression, the city’s construction industry finds itself on the brink of yet another building boom.” Much of the increase is due to new residential construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mid-Session Overview of Colorado’s 2017 Construction Defect Legislation
March 16, 2017 —
David McClain - Colorado Construction LitigationAs the 2017 Colorado legislative session reaches the halfway point, I thought it an opportune time to provide a quick overview of the construction defect bills introduced so far this session.
Senate Bill 17-045, “Concerning a Requirement for Equitable Allocation of the Costs of Defending a Construction Defect Claim,” sponsored by Senators Grantham and Angela Williams and Representatives Duran and Wist, was introduced on January 11th and assigned to the Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee. This bill affects construction defect actions in which more than one insurer has a duty to defend a party by providing that if the carriers cannot agree regarding how to allocate defense costs within 45 days of the filing of a contribution action, a court must conduct a hearing regarding the apportionment of the costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, among all carriers sharing in the duty to defend within 60 days after an insurer files its claim for contribution, unless the carriers agree to resolve the issue through a mutually agreeable, alternative process. The bill further provides that the court must make a final apportionment of costs after entry of a final judgment resolving all of the underlying claims against the insured. The bill also makes clear that an insurer seeking contribution may also make a claim against an insured or additional insured who chose not to procure liability insurance during any period of time relevant to the underlying action. Finally, the bill states that a claim for contribution may be assigned and that bringing such a claim does not affect any insurer’s duty to defend. The Senate Business, Labor, and Technology Committee heard SB 17-045 on February 8th and referred the bill, as amended, to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums
June 29, 2017 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogDeveloper transition is the process by which governance over a condominium unit owners’ association (“condominium association”) is transferred from condominium developer to unit owner control. Below is an overview of the legal requirements in the District of Columbia that govern this transition process as well as a “transition checklist” for unit owner-elected boards of directors that have recently transitioned from developer control.
TRANSITION LAW OVERVIEW
PERIOD OF DEVELOPER CONTROL
A developer initially controls a condominium association because it owns all unsold units in the newly created condominium. As such, the condominium developer has the controlling votes associated with majority ownership and can appoint its own employees as the initial members of the board of directors and thereby control how the association conducts its affairs. This is referred to as the “period of developer control,” during which the condominium developer makes all decisions on behalf of the condominium association.
The developer also creates a condominium association’s governing documents allowing it to dictate, subject to applicable law, the procedures and time periods under which control over the association’s board of directors is ultimately transferred to the unit owners.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.Mr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
What to Expect From the New Self-Retracting Devices Standard
November 29, 2021 —
Andre Pelland - Construction ExecutiveOne of the latest and most anticipated changes to occur this year relevant to fall protection is the publishing of the ANSI/ASSP Z359.14 2021 revision. Although the effective date isn’t until August 2022, this change is prompting the need for end user to prepare for using and understanding the new terminology performance requirements that will ultimately alter equipment selection criteria.
The reason for its relevance is mostly due to its industry dependence and the increasing popularity of these types of devices. This voluntary consensus standard accounts for a vast portion of the fall protection market equipment and has been adopted as the industry standard, even though it is not the legal requirement. To assure a smooth transition, the immediate priority should be to understand the changes and what it means from a usability standpoint. A clear understanding of what changes devices need to comply will allow users to proceed with a comprehensive transition plan.
What Are the Most Relevant Changes for the User?
Classes
The most significant changes are for Class A and B devices used to designate arrest distances and forces and the introduction of the Class 1 and 2 devices. These classes were known as designators for arresting falls at 24 inches and under with higher forces (Class A), and 54 inches and under with lower forces (Class B). Class 1 devices allow anchoring on overhead anchorages only and limitg freefall to no more than two feet.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andre Pelland, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Pelland may be contacted at
andre.pelland@puresafetygroup.com
