Let’s Get Surety Podcast – #126 Building the Future: AI, Construction and Law
December 31, 2024 —
Denis Serkin - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Denis Serkin, partner in P&A’s New York and New Jersey offices, joins the latest episode of the NASBP podcast “
Let’s Get Surety” to delve into the transformative impact of AI on the construction industry and construction law.
In this insightful discussion, Denis explores how AI tools are already enhancing design and supply chains and shares his vision for AI’s eventual integration across every facet of the industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denis Serkin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Serkin may be contacted at
dserkin@pecklaw.com
Building Stagnant in Las Cruces Region
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere was an increase in the number of building permits issued in Las Cruces, New Mexico through the first ten months of 2013, but the 2,162 permits represent only a minimal increase over last year’s 2,158 permits. To make matters worse for building suppliers and workers, builders can “pull all the permits for a subdivision at one time but might not start some of those for six months,” said Lee Rawson, the owner of Rawson Builders Supply.
For a comparison, during the building boom of 2006, Las Cruces issued 3,529 building permits. The values are down too. Although fewer permits were issued in 2012, their valuation was $147 million, while the marginally larger number in 2013 is worth only $128 million.
As a result, the area is losing skilled labor. After 25 consecutive months of declining construction, workers are leaving the construction industry. Mr. Rawson noted that “you can’t just go find that skilled labor, it doesn’t exist.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong
January 20, 2020 —
Brian S. Wood & Alex Gorelik - ConsensusDocsIn April 2018, the Department of Justice announced a $5M settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently-admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles, and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly.
Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act.
The Statute
Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the Government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP and
Alex Gorelik, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP
Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com
Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
WATCH: 2023 Construction Economic Update and Forecast
January 09, 2023 —
Construction ExecutiveConstruction Executive presented its "2023 Construction Economic Update and Forecast" webinar with
Associated Builders and Contractors Chief Economist Anirban Basu on Dec. 14, sponsored by
Aerotek,
Bluebeam,
CMiC and
Raken.
Basu started by announcing the Federal Reserve’s rate increase of 0.5%, the latest in a series of increases aimed at combating inflation. Calling 2022 a “year of tumult and a year of surprise,” Basu further noted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine surprised many, further disrupting global supply chains and causing a shockwave to ripple through global energy prices.
Citing the U.S. Consumer Price Index, with 7.1% year-over-year inflation in November, Basu believes we’ve “peaked in terms of inflation for this cycle”; while inflation hit higher-than-expected levels throughout 2022, it leveled off at lower-than-expected rates by the end of the year. Basu predicted inflation will continue to be problematic through 2023 as it has shifted from transitory inflation due to supply-chain disruptions in 2020 and 2022 to broader inflation due to the labor market, noting that the worst of the supply-chain issues seem to be over, reaching a high point in late 2021.
Blaming the injection of fiscal stimulus coming from the federal government, monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve and the fact that inflation has now become ingrained in the economy and in people’s expectations, leading to wage and price increases, Basu calls the economy “overheated.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Connecticut Court Clarifies Construction Coverage
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Connecticut Supreme Court has recently ruled on a case in which breach of contract and bad-faith claims were made against an insurer in an construction defect case. Joseph K. Scully of Day Pitney LLP discussed the case in a piece on Mondaq.
Mr. Scully noted that the background of the case was that Capstone Building was the general contractor and project developer of a student housing complex for the University of Connecticut. Unfortunately, the building had a variety of problems, some of which were violations of the building code. Mr. Scully noted that the building had “elevated carbon monoxide levels resulting from inadequate venting, improperly sized flues.” Capstone entered into mediation with the University of Connecticut. Capstone’s insurer, the American Motorists Insurance Company (AMICO), declined involvement in the participation. Afterward, Capstone sued AMICO. The issues the court covered involved the insurance on this project.
The court addressed three questions. The first was “whether damage to a construction project caused by construction defects and faulty workmanship may constitute ‘property damage’ resulting from an ‘occurrence.’” The court concluded that it could “only if it involved physical injury or loss of use of ‘nondefective property.’”
The second question dealt with whether insurers were obligated to investigate insurance claims. The court, “agreeing with the majority of jurisdictions,” did not find “a cause of action based solely on an insurer’s failure to investigate a claim.” Under the terms of the contract, it was up to AMICO to decide if it was going to investigate the claim.
Thirdly, the court examined whether “an insured is entitled to recover the full amount of a pre-suit settlement involving both covered and noncovered claims after an insurer wrongfully disclaims coverage.” The court concluded that the limits are that the settlement be reasonable, the policy limit, and the covered claims.
Mr. Scully concludes that the decision will limit “the scope of coverage for construction defect claims” and “also imposes reasonable requirements on an insured to allocate a settlement between covered and noncovered claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rihanna Gained an Edge in Construction Defect Case
January 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn depositions taken last week, the former owner of Rihanna’s “dream home” in Los Angeles, California, alleged “that he’d told brokers Prudential California Realty of the house’s issues,” according to Inquisitr. However, Rihanna, the singer and recent Grammy Award winner, claims that Prudential “didn’t inform” her “of these problems before she moved in, in 2009.”
Rihanna has claimed that roof leaks “ruined a sound system that she’d had custom-fitted into her new abode, which cost her $6.9 million, and it also lead to mold growing on some of her designer garments too.” The singer claims to have been “tricked” into purchasing the property: “’the actual value of the property at the time of purchase, taking into consideration the extensive construction defects… was millions of dollars less’” than what she ultimately paid for it.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.S. District Court for Hawaii Again Determines Construction Defect Claims Do Not Arise From An Occurrence
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn a decision authored by Judge Leslie E. Koybayashi, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii followed its prior decisions that construction defect claims were not covered because such claims do not arise from an occurrence. Nautilus Ins. Co. v. 3 Builders, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88480 (D. Haw. June 24, 2013).
3 Builders, the insured, was sued by the Apartment Owners of Mililani Pinnacle for the faulty installation of a new roof. Pinnacle claimed the completed roofs were not properly installed.complaint alleged breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and other causes of action.
3 Builders tendered the defense to Nautilus, who accepted the tender and defended for three years. Nautilus, however, filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment on its coverage obligations. Nautilus sought summary judgment, contending there was no coverage because all of the claims arose from the contractual relationship to perform the roof work, and a breach of contract was not the type of fortuitous event covered by a CGL policy under Hawaii law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Fifth Circuit Certifies Eight-Corners Duty to Defend Issue to Texas Supreme Court
June 21, 2021 —
Jeremy S. Macklin - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn the recent case of Bitco Gen. Ins. Corp. v. Monroe Guar. Ins. Co., No. 19-51012, 2021 WL 955155 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2021), certified question accepted (Mar. 19, 2021), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the Texas Supreme Court the question of whether a court can consider extrinsic evidence when determining an insurer’s duty to defend. The underlying lawsuit stems from a construction contract in which J&B Farms of Texas hired 5D, a construction company, to drill a commercial irrigation well through the Edwards Aquifer. Two years after beginning the project, J&B Farms sued 5D and its President for breach of contract and negligence. J&B Farms alleged that while drilling, 5D “stuck the drilling bit in the bore hole, rendering the well practically useless for its intended/contracted for purpose.” 5D then “failed and refused to plug the well, retrieve the drill bit, and drill a new well.” J&B Farms asserted that 5D drilled the well “with unacceptable deviation” and then “abandon[ed] the well.”
5D notified its insurers, BITCO and Monroe, of the lawsuit and demanded a defense from both. BITCO agreed to provide a defense to 5D, but Monroe refused arguing that the alleged property damage fell outside the relevant policy period, and therefore, it had no duty to defend 5D. BITCO then filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a finding that Monroe owed 5D a duty to defend.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub LiebermanMr. Macklin may be contacted at
jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
