Texas Walks the Line on When the Duty to Preserve Evidence at a Fire Scene Arises
October 14, 2019 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistThe extent to which a loss scene can be altered before adversaries can legitimately cry spoliation has long been a mysterious battleground in the world of subrogation. In the case of In re Xterra Constr., LLC, No. 10-16-00420-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 3927 (Tex. App. – Waco, May 15, 2019), the Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, addressed the question of when a party has a duty to preserve evidence. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing sanctions on the defendants for the spoliation of evidence as the evidence at issue was already gone by the time the defendants knew or reasonably should have known there was a substantial chance a claim would be filed against them.
In this matter, Xterra Construction, LLC, Venturi Capital, Inc. d/b/a Artisan Cabinets and Keith D. Richbourg (collectively, Xterra) leased a commercial space from building owners Daniel Hull and William H. Beazley, Jr. (collectively, Hull) to be used as a woodworking and cabinet making warehouse. On October 18, 2014, there was a fire at the warehouse. By October 20, 2014, Xterra informed its insurance carrier, Cincinnati Insurances Companies (“Cincinnati”) of the loss and Cincinnati’s adjuster, Leann Williams (Williams), met with Keith D. Richbourg (Richbourg) at the site. Williams also hired expert Jim Reil (Reil) to inspect the fire scene to perform a cause and origin investigation. The next day, Williams informed Hull’s attorney that Reil would inspect the scene on October 23, 2014. Hulls attorney, however, did not send anyone to the scene to participate in the inspection.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Microwave Transmission of Space-Based Solar Power: The Focus of New Attention
July 24, 2023 —
Robert A. James & William E. Fork - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogScientists have long proposed that solar electricity generation in space could be an integral component of the world’s carbon-free future. In the 1970s, a U.S. Navy experiment showed that it might be possible to capture solar power and wirelessly transmit it from outer space using microwave beams. Progress stalled after that early test—the models used were at such a massive scale that creating a real-world system felt like science fiction. Recently, amid growing concerns about power grid security and intensifying legislation around carbon emissions, renewed attention focused on a smaller, more lithe microwave transmission system. This time around, the military is not the only interested party. Scientists around the world are conducting similar research. As investors and governments stand at the edge of a fresh green power opportunity, we look at microwave power transmission and some of the projects in this emerging field.
The basic premise of space-based solar power technology is simple enough: photovoltaic panels on a satellite in space convert the sun’s energy to electromagnetic waves at microwave frequencies. The satellite then beams the microwave energy to a receiver on Earth that transforms it into direct current. Until recently, this technique had been performed on the ground over short distances, but nobody had attempted to launch a solar panel into space. The status quo has shifted over the past few years as researchers have begun to send prototypes into orbit. In early 2023, CalTech was the first to report a breakthrough. Its model successfully beamed power from space back to their receiver atop a building in California.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert A. James, Pillsbury and
William E. Fork, Pillsbury
Mr. James may be contacted at rob.james@pillsburylaw.com
Mr. Fork may be contacted at william.fork@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Orange County Home Builder Dead at 93
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFRandall E. Presley was a homebuilder in Southern California for more than thirty years, acting as head of Presley Development Company from 1956 until selling the firm to Lyon Homes in 1987. The two companies merged in 1991 as the Presley Cos. Mr. Presley saw the need in the 1950s to provide people in Southern California with low- to medium-priced quality homes.
His firm built more than 160 communities and was among the ten largest homebuilding firms in the country, expanding beyond California. Mr. Presley was 93 when he succumbed to pneumonia. He is survived by a wife, three children, seven grandchildren, and 11 great-grandchildren.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction
December 02, 2019 —
Ken Van Bree - Construction ExecutiveHere’s an attention-getting statistic: A typical case of fraud in the construction industry has a median loss of $227,000, according to the 2018 Report to the Nations issued by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) on occupational or internal fraud. This report further showed that the construction industry’s median loss is approximately $119,000 higher than the average fraud losses across all industries.
Construction companies are most at risk for fraud related to corruption (such as bribes and kickbacks), billing related schemes, expense reimbursements, check tampering and equipment or material theft.
This brings up three important questions:
- What are the fraud schemes affecting your company?
- How can contractors keep their companies from experiencing these types of fraud?
- What is the profile of fraudster?
The threat of fraud can never be wholly removed; however, companies should take steps to identify likely fraud schemes they might face. Below are a number of schemes frequently used to defraud construction companies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ken Van Bree, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Indiana Court of Appeals Rules Against Contractor and Performance Bond Surety on Contractor's Differing Site Conditions Claim
April 03, 2013 —
Brian M. Falcon - Frost Brown Todd LLCEarlier this year, the Indiana Court of Appeals issued an important opinion that impacts contractors and sureties alike. The decision should give contractors in Indiana pause before ceasing work while a dispute with the owner is pending. Sureties also have been placed on notice that strict compliance with the terms of their bonds is amongst their best defenses to claims made by owners and bond claimants.
In Dave's Excavating, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. City of New Castle, Indiana, 959 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the contractor (“Dave’s”) was the successful bidder on a public sanitary sewer and water main extension project. Dave's procured a performance bond from Liberty Mutual to guarantee its performance obligations to the owner (the "City"). After encountering what it deemed different subsurface conditions—and indeed after having been previously granted a change order to use excavated materials as backfill in light of the subsurface conditions on site—Dave’s placed the project engineer on notice of a differing site conditions claim. The total claim amounted to an 84% increase in the total contract price. With the claim, Dave's advised the project engineer it was ceasing further work until the project engineer provided direction.
While the project engineer reviewed the claim, it reminded Dave's of its contractual obligation to "carry on the work and adhere to the progress schedule during all disputes or disagreements with the OWNER." A dispute immediately occurred regarding whether Dave's was required to continue to work while the project engineer resolved the differing site condition claim. After Dave's maintained its position that it was not required to continue to work, the project engineer placed it on notice of default and copied the letter to Liberty Mutual.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brian M. FalconBrian M. Falcon can be contacted at http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/contact.html
Montana Supreme Court: Insurer Not Bound by Insured's Settlement
December 02, 2019 —
K. Alexandra Byrd - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In Draggin’ Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Junkermier, et al.1 the Montana Supreme Court held that where an insurer defends its insured and the insured subsequently settles the claims without an insurer’s participation, a court may approve the settlement as between the underlying plaintiff and underlying defendant, but the settlement will not be presumed reasonable as to the insurer. Therefore, an insurer who defends its insured cannot be bound by a stipulated settlement that the insurer did not expressly consent to.
The case involved Draggin’ Y Cattle Company (the “Cattle Company”), a ranching and cattle business that utilized the services of an accounting firm, Junkermier, Clark, Campanella, Stevens, P.C. (“Junkermier”), to structure the sale of real property to take advantage of favorable tax treatment. It was discovered that Junkermier’s employee misinformed the Cattle Company’s owners of the tax consequences of the sale. The Cattle Company’s owners subsequently filed suit against Junkermier and its employee and alleged nearly $12,000,000 in damages due to the error. Junkermier’s insurer, New York Marine, provided a defense for Junkermier and its employee.
The Cattle Company’s owners offered to settle the claims against Junkermier and its employee for $2,000,000, the policy limit of the New York Marine policy. New York Marine refused to give its consent or tender the policy’s limit. Subsequently, Junkermier, its employee, and the Cattle Company entered into their own settlement agreement for $10,000,000. The settlement was contingent upon a reasonableness hearing to approve the stipulated agreement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
K. Alexandra Byrd, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Byrd may be contacted by
kab@sdvlaw.com
Federal Courts Reject Insurers’ Attempts to Recoup Defense Costs Expended Under Reservation of Rights
April 11, 2022 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Margo Meta - White and WilliamsIn situations where there is a dispute over a duty to defend, an insurer may provide a defense to its insured, subject to a reservation of rights, to not only deny coverage for a defense, but also to file a declaratory judgment action and recoup defense costs in the event it is determined there is no duty to defend. But are defense costs recoupable? Last week, federal trial courts in Georgia and Pennsylvania answered this question with a resounding “no”.
In Chemical Equipment Labs, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Case No. 19-3441, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61298 (E.D.Pa. Mar. 31, 2022), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was called to determine whether Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) was entitled to reimbursement of defense costs after it was determined that it had no duty to defend its insured in an arbitration for breach of a charter agreement. The Travelers’ policies did not contain an express reimbursement provision. The court found that Travelers was not entitled to reimbursement because under Pennsylvania law, “[r]eimbursement of defense costs requires an express provision in the written insurance contract.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Margo Meta, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Meta may be contacted at metam@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
