Second Circuit Clarifies What Must Be Alleged to Establish “Joint Employer” Liability in the Context of Federal Employment Discrimination Claims
March 14, 2022 —
Kevin J. O’Connor, Aaron C. Schlesinger & Lauren Rayner Davis - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The “joint employer” doctrine has been used with increasing frequency by the plaintiffs’ bar to broaden the scope of target defendants in discrimination cases beyond those who would be traditionally regarded as the employer. This is true even in the construction industry, which has seen a rise in cases where general contractors or construction managers are being targeted when discrimination is alleged on a construction project, even when the GC or CM is far removed from the underlying events and had no control over the employees in question.
Until now, the Courts in the federal circuit which includes New York City (the Second Circuit) have been left to decipher a patchwork of case law to ascertain the scope and extent of joint employer liability in discrimination cases. This week, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Felder v. United States Tennis Association, et al., 19-1094, issued a comprehensive decision which provides a helpful summary of what must be pled and proven to broaden liability under the joint employer theory in discrimination cases.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. O’Connor, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. O'Connor may be contacted at koconnor@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ldavis@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Virginia Decision Emphasizes Importance of Naming All Necessary Parties
June 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFNate Budde on the Construction Payment Blog, discussed the potential of mechanics liens, and the pitfalls that occur when not all necessary parties are named. Budde analyzed the case Johnson Controls Inc. v. Norair Eng’g Corp. that involved a “claimant’s failure to name all the necessary parties in his claim against a bond,” resulting “in the claimant losing his claim against the bond, and with it, an opportunity to get paid.”
Budde concluded, “Unfortunately, as was the case here, when the bond claim is not handled correctly procedurally, a party can be left with no recourse for payment. It’s important to understand which of the parties involved should be named in both mechanics lien claims and bond claims.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?
January 28, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs anyone who reads this construction blog on a regular basis knows, I believe that the move to newer sustainable building practices (while bringing about a new or different set of potential risks) is both necessary and laudable. Because of this fact, you may be asking why the headline for today’s post. After all, I am a LEED AP and assisted in the drafting of the LEED/Green Building addendum to the ConsensusDOCS so I must be pro LEED (or any other) certification of buildings. To the extent that such certification encourages best practices and more sustainable building stock, I am pro certification.
However, certification is not a necessary carrot to bring builders around to such practices. As a recent article in EcoHome Magazine (thanks to Todd Hawkins at BuilderFish for alerting me to the article) points out, companies are already moving toward these practices with or without certification and it’s added layer of expense. Economic, air quality, and moral (“its the right thing to do”) factors are pushing executives to such practices. According to EcoHome Magazine, while LEED retains the lions share of green certifications, more and more companies are either using internal standards or trying out other certification programs, including Energy Star.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Roof Mounted Solar Panels: Lower Your Risk of Fire
September 25, 2023 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsAs the federal government, individual states, businesses and consumers take steps to address climate change, the use of renewable energy – including roof-mounted solar panels – has steadily increased. Over the past decade, the use of solar energy solutions has grown by 33% annually. This is driven by tax-based incentives for clean energy, combined with installation costs that are down more than 50% from 10 years ago.1
As more companies execute climate-focused goals to limit greenhouse emissions, reduce their carbon-footprint and lower energy costs, the use of solar power for commercial buildings is likely to increase. Currently, it's estimated that only 3.5% of commercial buildings have rooftop solar panels, but 70% are potential targets for solar.2
We know the use of solar power can have positive impacts on the environment and generate long-term energy cost savings. However, there are several considerations and potential risks that commercial property owners and facilities managers should consider prior to investing in solar, says Tracey Greene, underwriting director for Middle and Large Commercial Real Estate at The Hartford.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
Colorado General Assembly Sets Forth Prerequisites for an Insurance Company to Use Failure to Cooperate as a Defense to a Claim for First Party Insurance Benefits
August 10, 2020 —
Christine Kroupa, John Palmeri & Katelyn Werner - Gordon & ReesDespite first party insurance policies generally requiring cooperation from an insured in the investigation of a claim, insurers can no longer rely on the failure to cooperate as a defense in a claim for first party insurance benefits in Colorado unless certain conditions are met.
The Bill:
On July 2, 2020, Colorado Governor Jared S. Polis signed House Bill 20-1290 which addresses the ability of an insurer to use a failure to cooperate defense in an action where the insured has made a claim for benefits under an insurance policy. This bill bars an insurer from raising the failure to cooperate unless the following conditions are met:
- The insurer submitted a written request to the insured or the insured’s representative for the information (via electronic means if consent was given by insured or insured’s representative, or via certified mail);
- The information is not available to the insurer without the assistance of the insured;
- The written request provides the insured 60 days to respond;
- The written request is for information a reasonable person would determine the insurer needs to adjust the claim filed by the insured or to prevent fraud; and
- The insurer gives the insured an opportunity to cure, which must:
- Provide written notice to the insured of the alleged failure to cooperate, describing with particularity the alleged failure within 60 days after the alleged failure; and
- Allow the insured 60 days after receipt of the written notice to cure the alleged failure to cooperate.
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon & Rees attorneys
Christine Kroupa,
John Palmeri and
Katelyn Werner
Ms. Kroupa may be contacted at ckroupa@grsm.com
Mr. Palmeri may be contacted at jpalmeri@grsm.com
Ms. Werner may be contacted at kwerner@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.
February 14, 2023 —
David Humphreys - Carson Law Group, PLLCThis article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog
One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance.
A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage.
When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases.
Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense.
A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage.
Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed.
However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is
included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added).
It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
“Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS
F. Symbols
1. Plus Sign
A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that:
“Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion.
Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it
and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck.
This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . .
“Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.”
To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.”
David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast.
*See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Duty to Defend Under Renter's Policy
May 03, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court agreed that the insurer had no potential liability under a policy where the insured allegedly concealed facts and made misrepresentations regarding the condition of the property it sold. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. TFG Enterprises, LLC, 2021 Neb. LEXIS 27 (Neb. Feb. 19, 2021).
TFG sold a house to Jeffrey Barkhurst. Thereafter, Barkhurst filed suit alleging that TFG failed to disclose and actively concealed several defects, including water intrusion, the presence of mold, substandard repairs and structural issues. State Farm agreed to TFG defend under a reservation of rights. State Farm then filed a declaratory judgment action to determine its obligations under the policy.
State Farm relied upon various exclusions in the rental policy issued to TFG. The exclusions provided there would be no liability coverage for "property damage to property owned by an insured"; "property damage to property rented to, occupied or used by or in the care of the insured"; or "property damage to premises the insured sells. . . if the property damage arises out of these premises."
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
Coffee Beans, Mars and the 50 States: Civil Code 1542 Waivers and Latent Defects
March 19, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogA few years ago, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Charles Duhigg wrote a book that was on the New York Times bestseller list for over 60 weeks,
The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business. As its title suggests, the book is about habits, but more importantly about how we can change our habits to make ourselves happier, healthier and more productive.
In his book, Duhigg talks about how habits are “encoded into the structures of our brain” and how this is an advantage because, as an example, “it would be awful if we had to relearn how to drive after every vacation.”
Duhigg’s driving example made me think about how much we assume as well, and how, from a practical perspective, it is almost essential that we do so. Using his car example, when we put our key into the ignition and turn it, we assume that the engine will start, and further assume that when we put our foot on the gas pedal that the car will move. If we didn’t or couldn’t assume this, and the many other things we assume in our daily lives, our brains would likely go into overload.
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
