Jobsite Safety, Workforce Shortage Drive Innovation in Machine Automation
August 07, 2018 —
Scott Crozier - Construction ExecutiveFrom driverless cars and drones, to robots working in operating rooms, manufacturing plants and fast food restaurants, machine automation is making headlines – and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. And when it comes to machine automation, the construction industry is poised to be a hotbed of innovation. Equipment manufacturers and technology providers in the construction industry have the benefit of using the lessons learned from the manufacturing and automotive industries to meet the needs of contractors, project owners and machine operators through more efficient, highly automated equipment.
According to the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), there are six stages of automation, ranging from zero autonomy to full automation, where a vehicle is capable of performing all driving functions under all conditions. The construction industry is somewhere in the middle of these six stages, with some automation functionality available on some equipment today, but still requiring an operator to remain engaged with the driving task and the environment.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Crozier, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Recommendations for Healthy and Safe Housing Conditions
May 19, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe National Center for Healthy Housing (NCHH) and the American Public Health Association (APHA) jointly “released the National Healthy Housing Standard, which provides recommendations for the maintenance and condition of occupied dwellings,” reported Big Builder.
According to Big Builder, “The standard's provisions aim to fill gaps where there are no property maintenance policies and to complement the International Property Maintenance Code and other federal, state, and local policies in place regarding the upkeep of existing homes.”
Some of the recommendations included room access to daylight, no or low-VOC building materials, and water management.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CGL Insurer’s Duty to Defend Insured During Pre-Suit 558 Process: Maybe?
December 20, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn earlier postings, I discussed the issue of whether Florida Statutes Chapter 558′s pre-suit construction defects process triggers a CGL insurer’s duty to defend. The issue was whether Florida’s 558 pre-suit notice of a construction defect and repair process met the definition of “suit” within a standard CGL policy.
A standard CGL policy defines the term “suit” as:
“Suit” means a civil proceeding in which damages because of “bodily injury,” “property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” to which this insurance applies are alleged. “Suit” includes:
a. An arbitration proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured must submit or does submit with our consent; or
b. Any other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in which such damages are claimed and to which the insured submits with our consent.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
New California "Construction" Legislation
November 08, 2018 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq. & Chelsea L. Zwart, Esq. - Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerGovernor Jerry Brown signed two potentially impactful Senate Bills relating to the construction of apartment buildings late last month. These Bills, discussed further below, were introduced, in part, in response to the Berkeley balcony collapse in June 2015, which was determined by the California Contractors State License Board to be caused by the failure of severely rotted structural support joists the repair of which were deferred by the property manager, despite indications of water damage.
SENATE BILL 721 ESTABLISHES HEIGHTENED “LOAD-BEARING” INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
On August 21, 2018, the California State Senate passed SB 721, one of two bills by Senator Jerry Hill introduced this year seeking to address the safety of multifamily rental residences. Now that the Governor has signed the Bill, a new section will be added to the California Health and Safety Code, requiring that every 6 years, destructive testing be performed on at least 15% of each type of load-bearing, wood framed exterior elevated element (such as balconies, walkways, and stair landings) in apartment buildings with 3 or more units. Interestingly, prior to being passed by the State Senate, SB 721 was revised in June 2018, such that the inspection requirements do not apply to common interest developments (i.e., condominiums).
As set forth in the new Health and Safety Code Section 17973:
"the purpose of the inspection is to determine that exterior elevated elements and their associated waterproofing elements are in a generally safe condition, adequate working order, and free from any hazardous condition caused by fungus, deterioration, decay, or improper alteration to the extent that the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants is not endangered."
The inspection must be paid for by the building owner and performed by a licensed contractor, architect, or civil or structural engineer, or a certified building inspector or building official from a recognized state, national, or international association. Emergency repairs identified by the inspector must be made immediately. For non-emergency repairs, a permit must be applied for within 120 days and the repair completed within 120 days of the permit’s issuance. If repairs are not completed within 180 days, civil penalties of $100-$500 per day may be imposed.
The required inspection must be completed by January 1, 2025 and every 6 years thereafter, unless an equivalent inspection was performed during the 3 years prior to January 1, 2019, the effective date of the new law. For a building converted to condominiums that will be sold after January 1, 2019, the inspection required by Health and Safety Code Section 17973, must be performed prior to the first close of escrow.
SENATE BILL 1465 SETS CONTRACTOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Governor also signed SB 1465, adding Sections 7071.20, 7071.21, and 7071.22 to the California Business and Professions Code. The new law requires that a contractor licensed with the Contractors’ State License Board "report to the registrar in writing within 90 days after the licensee has knowledge of any civil action resulting in a final judgment, executed settlement agreement, or final arbitration award in which the licensee is named as a defendant or crossdefendant, filed on or after January 1, 2019," that meets certain and specific criteria, including that it is over $1 million and arises out of an action for damages to a property or person allegedly caused by specified construction activities of the contractor on a multifamily rental residential structure.
Where more than one contractor was named as a defendant or cross-defendant, each of the contractors apportioned more than $15,000 in liability must report the action. Importantly, the new statute also imposes similar reporting requirements on insurers of contractors. SB 1465 also addresses an impacted party’s failure to comply with the reporting requirements.
COMMENT
Both SB 721 and SB 1465 are potentially significant and seek “legislative reform” to address construction issues by placing a greater burden on apartment owners as well as builders and subcontractors. How pragmatic and what impact they will have on the industry is obviously developing. If you are interested in receiving further detail concerning the Bills, please contact us. We are analyzing the new legislation and its intent and will be providing our ongoing comments.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
RICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ. CHELSEA L. ZWART, ESQ., CGDRBChelsea L. Zwart may be contacted at
czwart@cgdrblaw.com
Ruling Closes the Loop on Restrictive Additional Insured Endorsement – Reasonable Expectations of Insured Builder Prevails Over Intent of Insurer
July 31, 2019 —
Theodore L. Senet, Esq., Jason M. Adams, Esq. and Clayton Calvin - Gibbs GiddenOn June 5, 2019, the Court of Appeal in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company, 35 Cal. App. 5th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) issued an important opinion on the scope of additional insured insurance coverage for developers and general contractors in California. Specifically, the “care, custody and control” (“CCC”) exclusion will be read to only exclude coverage for additional insureds who exercised exclusive control over the damaged property. Thus, general contractors who share control of the property with their subcontractors, as is typical on most projects, will not be denied coverage under this exclusion.
I. Facts & Procedural History
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. was a Southern California developer and general contractor. In 2014, homeowners sued McMillin for roofing defects in a case called
Galvan v. McMillin Auburn Lane II, LLC. Pursuant to a subcontract, the roofer, Martin Roofing Company, Inc., provided McMillin with additional insured coverage under Martin’s general liability insurance policy. The insurer, National Fire and Marine Insurance Company, covered McMillin under an ISO Form CG 20 09 03 97 Additional Insured (“AI”) endorsement. After McMillin tendered its defense of the Galvan lawsuit under the AI endorsement, National Fire declined to provide McMillin with a defense to the homeowners’ lawsuit, relying on a CCC exclusion contained in the AI endorsement for property in the care, custody or control of the additional insured. McMillin then sued National Fire for breach of the policy, bad faith and declaratory relief in
McMillin Homes Construction, Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Insurance Company.
In
McMillin Homes, the trial court found the CCC exclusion in the AI endorsement applied and held in favor of the insurer, National Fire. The trial court found the exclusion for damage to property in McMillin’s “care, custody, or control” precluded coverage for the roofing defect claims, as well as any duty on the part of the insurer to defend the home builder, McMillin. McMillin filed an appeal from the trial court’s ruling.
II. Case Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed to hold in favor of McMillin, interpreting the CCC exclusion narrowly and finding a duty on the part of the insurer to defend the general contractor pursuant to the AI endorsement on the roofer’s insurance policy. It held that for the CCC exclusion to attach, it would require the general contractor’s exclusive control over the damaged property, but here, the general contractor shared control with the roofer. The Court of Appeal noted that where there is ambiguity as to whether a duty to defend exists, the court favors the reasonable belief of the insured over the intent of the insurer. Here, that reasonable belief was that the coverage applied and the exclusion was narrow.
The Court of Appeal relied upon
Home Indemnity Co. v. Leo L. Davis, Inc., 79 Cal. App. 3d 863 (Ct. App. 1978) (“Davis”), as a judicial interpretation of the CCC exclusion. That case synthesized a string of case law into a single conclusion: that courts may hold the exclusion inapplicable where the insured’s control is not exclusive. In the opinion in McMillin Homes, coverage turned upon whether control was exclusive: “[t]he exclusion is inapplicable where the facts at best suggest shared control.” The Court of Appeal stated the “need for painstaking evaluation of the specific facts of each case. Here, McMillin coordinated the project’s scheduling, but Martin furnished the materials and labor and oversaw the work; they therefore shared control.
Even if the rule in Davis did not apply and the exclusion was found to be ambiguous, the court stated that “control” requires a higher threshold than merely acting as a general contractor. Liability policies are presumed to include defense duties and exclusions must be “conspicuous, plain, and clear.” Furthermore, because “construction defect litigation is typically complex and expensive, a key motivation [for the endorsement] is to offset the cost of defending lawsuits where the general contractor’s liability is claimed to be derivative.” This is especially true because the duty to defend is triggered by a mere potential of coverage. Under the insurer’s construction of the exclusion, coverage would be so restrictive under the AI endorsement that it was nearly worthless to the additional insured.
III. Reasonable Expectation of the Insured Prevails over the Intent of the Insurer
Like most commercial general liability policies, National Fire’s policy excluded coverage for property damage Martin was contractually obliged to pay, with an exception for “insured contracts.” Typically, “insured contracts” include prospective indemnification agreements for third party claims. The National Fire policy contained a form CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement, which deleted indemnity agreements from the definition of “insured contracts” to effectively preclude coverage for the indemnity provision between McMillin and Martin. National Fire argued that this endorsement demonstrated its intent to exclude coverage to McMillin for the homeowners’ defect lawsuit. The Court of Appeal stated that the insurer’s intent is not controlling and that the insureds reasonable expectation under the AI endorsement would control. As a result of its ruling, the Court also dealt a significant blow to the argument that the CG 21 39 endorsement is effective as a total bar to additional insured coverage for all construction defect claims.
IV. Conclusion
The decision is good news for developers and general contractors who rely on subcontractors to provide additional insured coverage. Unless the general contractor exercises exclusive control over a given project, the CCC exclusion in the CG 20 09 03 97 additional insured endorsement may not preclude the duty to defend. Demonstrating that a general contractor exercised exclusive control over the project would be extremely difficult to show under normal project circumstances because the any subcontractor participation appears to eliminate the general contractor’s exclusive control.
The case also highlights the need for construction professionals to regularly review their insurance programs with their risk management team (lawyers, brokers, and risk managers). As is often the case, a basic insurance policy review at the outset of the McMillin project could likely have avoided the entire dispute. For owners and general contractors, CG 20 10 (ongoing operations) and CG 20 37 (completed operations) additional insured forms are preferable to the CG 20 09 form at issue in the McMillin case because they do not contain the CCC exclusion. The CG 20 10 and 20 37 forms are readily available in the marketplace and are commonly added to most policies upon request. Had those forms been added, AI coverage likely would have been extended to McMillin without the need for litigation. Similarly, carriers will routinely delete the CG 21 39 Contractual Liability Limitation endorsement upon request. Deletion of the CG 21 39 would have circumvented National Fire’s second argument in its entirety.
Additionally, insurance policies, endorsements, and exclusions are subject to revision and are not always issued on standard forms. As a result, it is incumbent upon developers, contractors, and subcontractors to specify the precise overage requirements for construction projects and to review all endorsements, certificates, and policies carefully. Due to the difficulty in monitoring compliance with insurance requirements, project owners and general contractors are finding that it is better to insure projects under project specific wrap-up insurance programs which eliminate many of the issues pertaining to additional insured coverage. Wrap-up programs vary greatly as to their terms and conditions, so however a project is insured, insurance requirements and evidence of coverage should be carefully reviewed by experienced and qualified risk managers, brokers, and legal counsel to assure that projects and parties are sufficiently covered.
Gibbs Giden is nationally and locally recognized by U. S. News and Best Lawyers as among the “Best Law Firms” in both Construction Law and Construction Litigation. Chambers USA Directory of Leading Lawyers has consistently recognized Gibbs Giden as among California’s elite construction law firms. The authors can be reached at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com (Theodore Senet); jadams@gibbsgiden.com (Jason Adams) and ccalvin@gibbsgiden.com (Clayton Calvin). Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Renee Zellweger Selling Connecticut Country Home
August 06, 2014 —
Emily Heffter – BloombergYou had me at seven fireplaces (and a bread oven).
Actress Renee Zellweger’s Connecticut country home, on the market for $1.6 million, is hardly roughing it.
The luxury farmhouse, built in 1770 and updated in 2004, is a stylish and luxurious country getaway. Set on 38 acres overlooking the Quinebaug River in rural Pomfret Center, the retreat at 96 Cotton Rd is 3,463 square feet with a top-of-the-line kitchen, a bread oven in the family room and a swimming pool.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Emily Heffter, Zillow
Corps, State Agencies Prep for Flood Risks From California Snowmelt Runoff
May 29, 2023 —
Michael Powell - Engineering News-RecordIn the wake of record-setting snowfalls in the Sierra Nevada Mountains over the past six months, California and federal officials are preparing to handle the flooding threat posed by imminent meltwater runoff. The efforts include releasing water from the state's key dams to allow for the expected capacity, preparing emergency responses for imperiled area's in the state's Central Valley and launching groundwater recharge projects.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Powell, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Were Quake Standards Illegally Altered for PG&E Nuclear Power Plant?
October 29, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAn environmental group has brought a lawsuit alleging that “[f]ederal regulators secretly and illegally revised the license for California’s last nuclear power facility — PG&E’s Diablo Canyon — to mask the aging plant’s vulnerability to earthquakes,” according to SF Gate.
Friends of the Earth’s “suit claims that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. last year changed a key element of the plant’s license related to seismic safety without allowing public input as required by law — or even notifying the public at all.”
However, spokesman Blair Jones claimed that “Friends of the Earth continues to mischaracterize the facts regarding seismic safety at Diablo Canyon. The facts are Diablo Canyon was built with earthquake safety at the forefront, is a seismically safe facility, and is in compliance with NRC licensing requirements.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
