LA Lakers Partially Survive Motion to Dismiss COVID-19 Claims
June 13, 2022 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiWhile the appellate court affirmed dismissal of a majority of the claims submitted by the Los Angeles Lakers for closure of the Staples Center and other properties due to COVID-19, a portion of their claims survived. L.A. Lakers v. Fed Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31503 (C.D. Calif. March 17, 2022).
Government orders closed the Staples Center in March 2020. The Lakers alleged they lost tens of millions of dollars in revenue. They further alleged that the presence of coronavirus particles on fixtures and building systems caused physical alterations to the covered properties. The Lakers had to upgrade their properties to include new air filters, touchless light switches, toilets and sinks; sleeves or coatings for high-touch surfaces; and plexiglass dividers. The Lakers also alleged that five Metro stations within a mile of the Staples Center, that was used to get to games, were closed by civil authorities due to the presence of COVID-19.
The Lakers submitted a claim for property damage and business interruption to Federal. The claim was denied and the Lakers filed suit. In February 2021, the court granted Federal's motion to dismiss without prejudice, after concluding that the Lakers' allegations of direct physical loss or damage were mere legal conclusions and not sufficient to state a claim.
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
EPA Coal Ash Cleanup Rule Changes Send Utilities, Agencies Back to Drawing Board
February 21, 2022 —
Corinne Grinapol - Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to deny requests by three power facilities for extended deadlines to close unlined coal ash impoundments that are risks to groundwater, while offering only a provisional extension to another. The decision came as part of a larger agency push to strengthen regulation of coal combustion residuals disposal and facilities with unlined storage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Corinne Grinapol, 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
Where Breach of Contract and Tortious Interference Collide
January 11, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsClaims for breach of contract are numerous in the construction law world. Without these claims we construction attorneys would have a hard time keeping the doors open. A 2021 case examined a different sort of claim that could arise (though, “spoiler alert” did not in this case) during the course of a construction project. That type of claim is one for tortious interference with business expectancy.
In Clark Nexsen, Inc. et. al v. Rebkee, the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia gave a great explanation of the law of this type of claim in analyzing the following basic facts:
In 2018, Clark Nexsen, Inc. (“Clark”) and MEB General Contractors, Inc. (“MEB”) responded to Henrico County’s (“Henrico”) Request for Proposals (“RFP”) for the design and construction of a sport and convocation center (the “Project”). Henrico initially shortlisted Clark and MEB as a “design-build” team for the Project, but later restarted the search, issuing a second RFP. Clark and MEB submitted a second “design-build” proposal, but Henrico selected Rebkee Co. (“Rebkee”) for certain development aspects of the Project. MEB also submitted proposals to Rebkee, and Rebkee selected MEB as the design-builder for the Project. MEB, at Rebkee’s request, solicited proposals from three design firms and ultimately selected Clark as its design partner. From December 2019 to May 2020, Clark and MEB served as the design-build team to assist Rebkee in developing the Project. In connection therewith, Clark developed proprietary designs, technical drawings, and, with MEB, several cost estimates. In February 2020, MEB submitted a $294,334.50 Pay Application to Rebkee for engineering, design, and Project development work. Rebkee never paid MEB. Henrico paid MEB $50,000.00 as partial payment for MEB’s and Clark’s work. MEB then learned that Rebkee was using Clark’s drawings to solicit design and construction proposals from other companies. On July 23, 2020, Rebkee told MEB that Henrico directed it to cancel the design-build arrangement with MEB and Clark and pursue a different planning method. MEB and Clark sued and Rebkee for, among other claims, tortious interference with a business expectancy. Rebkee moved to dismiss the tortious interference claim.
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
The Buck Stops Over There: Have Indemnitors Become the Insurers of First and Last Resort?
September 17, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogInsurance and indemnity are the primary risk management strategies on construction projects. Insurance, such as commercial general liability insurance, insures against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage, and in the case of builder’s risk insurance, insures against first party claims during construction.
Indemnity, on the other hand, shifts liability from one party to another and can be broader than the types of claims covered by insurance although anti-indemnity statutes can limit the breadth of those claims.
Sometimes though insurance and indemnity work in ways you might never have expected, like in the next case, Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido, Inc., Case No. G049060 (July 2, 2015), in which the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth District held a subcontractor liable in the face of both an indemnity claim brought by a general contractor as well as a subrogation claim brought by the general contractor’s insurance company.
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
Will Protecting Copyrights Get Easier for Architects?
November 28, 2022 —
Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation BlogLike any creative business, architects rely on their intellectual property. Their designs are at the center of their work. For example, as we discussed in a previous post, many architects nowadays focus on creating new ways for their building designs to be environmentally friendly and sustainable.
However, nearly every form of intellectual property faces the risk of theft or infringement in the business world.
Architects face unique challenges with their copyrights – as well as risks.
Copyright Issues in the Architecture World
One of the biggest issues, of course, is that there are many aspects of building designs that architects
cannot protect by copyright. This is simply because various details are fundamental in the construction of every building. One person cannot own the rights to such a common design.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott L. Baker, Baker & AssociatesMr. Baker may be contacted at
slb@bakerslaw.com
Not If, But When: Newly Enacted Virginia Legislation Bans “Pay-If-Paid” Clauses In Construction Contracts
August 22, 2022 —
Joseph A. Figueroa & Thomas E. Minnis - ConsensusDocsRecently passed legislation in Virginia is likely to dramatically change contractual relationships between prime contractors and subcontractors in the Commonwealth. Abrogating well-established common-law principles set forth by the Supreme Court of Virginia, on April 27, 2022, the Virginia General Assembly, after receiving input from Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, passed Senate Bill 550 banning “pay-if-paid” clauses in public and private construction contracts. Contractors performing work in Virginia should take note of the new law, which goes into effect next year and will apply to any contracts executed after January 1, 2023.
The History Of Pay-if-Paid Clauses In Virginia
Broadly speaking, “pay-if-paid” clauses are a commonly used tool by prime contractors on construction projects to shift the risk to subcontractors in the event that the owner does not pay the prime contractor for work. Such clauses usually include language creating an express condition precedent to the subcontractor’s right to be paid for work under a subcontract, stating that the prime contractor shall be under no obligation to pay the subcontractor for work unless and until the prime contractor first receives payment for that work by the project owner. The “pay-if-paid” clause also has a less extreme cousin, the “pay-when-paid” clause, which merely delays the time in which the prime contractor is obligated to pay the subcontractor to the time in which the prime contractor is paid by the owner. It does not, however, extinguish the prime contractor’s ultimate obligation to pay the subcontractor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph A. Figueroa, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and
Thomas E. Minnis, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Figueroa may be contacted at jfigueroa@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Performance Bond Liable for Delay Damages?
October 20, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere is an argument that a performance bond is not liable for delay damages UNLESS the bond specifically allows for the recovery of such damages. Keep this in mind when requiring a performance bond so that the bond covers the associated risks (and damages) you contemplate when requiring the bond. This argument is supported by the Florida Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in American Home Assur. Co. v. Larkin General Hosp., Ltd., 593 So.2d 195, 198 (Fla. 1992):
The language in the performance bond, construed together with the purpose of the bond, clearly explains that the performance bond merely guaranteed the completion of the construction contract and nothing more. Upon default, the terms of the performance bond required American [performance bond surety] to step in and either complete construction or pay Larkin [obligee] the reasonable costs of completion. Because the terms of the performance bond control the liability of the surety, American’s liability will not be extended beyond the terms of the performance bond. Therefore, American cannot be held liable for delay damages.
However, the Eleventh Circuit in National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Fortune Const. Co., 320 F.3d 1260(11th Cir. 2003), also analyzing an issue relating to the recoverability of delay-type damages against a performance bond, did not narrowly interpret the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Larkin General Hospital.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
EPA Will Soon Issue the Latest Revision to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Chemical Release Rules
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn November 21, 2019, EPA released a pre-publication copy of its Reconsideration of the revised Risk Management Program (RMP) Rules. In an accompanying statement, the agency noted that it has taken steps to “modify and improve” the existing rule to remove burdensome, costly and unnecessary requirements while maintaining appropriate protection (against accidental chemical releases) and ensuring responders have access to all of the necessary safety information. This action was taken in response to EPA’s January 13, 2017 revisions that significantly expanded the chemical release prevention provisions the existing RMP rules in the wake of the disastrous chemical plant explosion in West, Texas. The Reconsideration will take effect upon its publication in the Federal Register.
Background
As recounted by the D. C. Circuit in its August 2018 decision in the case of Air Alliance Houston, et al. v. EPA, in 1990, the Congress amended the Clean Air Act to force the regulation of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 USC Section 7412). An initial list of these hazardous air pollutants was also published, at Section 7412 (b). Section 112(r) (codified at 42 USC Section 7412 (r)), authorized EPA to develop a regulatory program to prevent or minimize the consequences of a release of a listed chemical from a covered stationary source. EPA was directed to propose and promulgate release prevention, detection, and correction requirements applicable to stationary sources (such as plants) that store or manage these regulated substances in amounts determined to be above regulated threshold quantities. EPA promulgated these rules in 1996 (see 61 FR 31668). The rules, located at 40 CFR Part 68, contain several separate subparts devoted to hazard assessments, prevention programs, emergency response, accidental release prevention, the development and registration of a Risk Management Plan, and making certain information regarding the release publicly available. EPA notes that over 12.000 RMP plans have been filed with the agency.
In January 2017, in response to the catastrophe in West, EPA issued substantial amendments to these rules, covering accident prevention (expanding post-accident investigations, more rigorous safety audits, and enhanced safety training), revised emergency response requirements, and enhanced public information disclosure requirements. (See 82 FR 4594 (January 13, 2017).) However, the new administration at EPA, following the submission of several petitions for reconsideration of these revised rules, issued a “Delay Rule” on June 14, 2017, which would have extended the effective date of the January 2107 rules until February 19, 2019. On August 17, 2018, the Delay Rule was rejected and vacated by the D.C. Circuit in the aforementioned Air Alliance case (see 906 F. 3d 1049 (DC Circuit 2018)), which had the effect of making the hotly contested January 2017 RMP revisions immediately effective.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
