Out of the Black
May 30, 2022 —
John Drentlaw - Construction ExecutiveEven if you previously weren’t familiar with the term “black swan event,” you’ve likely become intimately familiar with what one looks like over the past two years. Coined by author Nassim Taleb in his book The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, the term refers to a rare, unpredictable event—perhaps, say, a pandemic—that has an extreme impact.
“Extreme” certainly seems to be an accurate description of the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the construction industry, at nearly every level. The Commercial Construction Index (CCI) fell from 74 to 56 during Q2 2020 and remained statistically unchanged through Q3 of that year. Recovery has been slow, with the CCI remaining eight points below pre-pandemic levels through the end of 2021. Prices for raw materials such as lumber and steel have been extremely volatile, reaching historic highs and dramatic lows. March and April of 2020 alone saw 1.1 million jobs disappear from the industry—roughly half as many jobs as were lost throughout the entire Great Recession (although many of these jobs have since returned).
While the industry has persevered through what should be the worst of these effects, many contractors and project owners are now wondering: How can we predict the next black swan event?
Reprinted courtesy of
John Drentlaw, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
No Coverage for Additional Insured
December 17, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiTwo insurers disputed who was responsible for coverage the additional insured contractor. Endurance Am. Spec. Ins. Co. v. Century Sur. Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19194 (2nd Cir. Nov. 4, 2015). The district court granted summary judgment to Endurance, finding there was coverage for the additional insured general contractor after being sued by an employee of a subcontractor.
Century's policy included an Action Over Exclusion clause, which excluded insurance coverage for injury to certain employees as follows:
Exclusions:
. . .
e. Employer's Liability
"Bodily injury" to:
(1) an "employee" of the
named insured arising out of and in the course of:
- (a) Employment by the named insured; or
- (b) Performing duties related to the conduct of the named insured's business.
The named insured was Pinnacle Construction & Renovation Corp.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Application Of Two Construction Contract Provisions: No-Damages-For-Delay And Liquidated Damages
February 14, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Florida opinion between a prime contractor and a Florida public body touches upon two important issues: (1) the application of a no-damage-for-delay provision; and (2) the application of a liquidated damages provision. Both provisions find there way into many construction contracts. Unfortunately, the opinion is sparse on facts. Nevertheless, the application of these provisions is worthy of consideration.
In this opinion, Sarasota County v. Southern Underground Industries, Inc., 2022 WL 162977 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), a county hired a contractor to install sanitary and water piping underneath a waterway. During construction, a nearby homeowner complained that vibration from the drilling caused damage to his home. As a result, the county stopped the contractor’s work to address a potential safety issue, as it was contractually entitled to do. The contractor hired a structural engineer to inspect the house and the engineer issued a report determining that any alleged damage was cosmetic and that there was sufficient monitoring of the vibrations to prevent future damage. The contractor also had an insurance policy to cover any homeowner claim for damage. However, upon receipt of the engineer’s report, the county did not lift its stop work order. Rather, the stop work order remained in place for an additional 71 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Safeguarding the U.S. Construction Industry from Unfair Competition Abroad
November 07, 2022 —
Ric Macchiaroli - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIn April 2015, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issued an exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain foreign-made crawler cranes into the United States for a period of at least 10 years. That order was the result of a 20-month investigation by the ITC, initiated by a Wisconsin-based crane manufacturer based on allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation by a China-based company. Defined by powerful injunctive remedies, unique rules, and a lightning-fast docket, the ITC can help protect American industry from unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States. This post explores the traits that make the ITC an attractive venue for potential complainants.
ITC Site Plan
The ITC is a specialized trade court located in Washington, D.C., that has broad authority to investigate and remedy unfair trade practices. One of the ITC’s primary functions is to conduct unfair import investigations, also known as “section 337” investigations, after the authorizing statute. A section 337 investigation can be instituted based on any number of unfair acts, including, but not limited to, patent infringement (utility and design), registered and common law trademark infringement, copyright infringement (including violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act), trade dress infringement, and trade secret misappropriation. Business torts such as passing off, false advertising, and tortious interference with business relations have also formed the bases of investigations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ric Macchiaroli, PillsburyMr. Macchiaroli may be contacted at
ric.macchiaroli@pillsburylaw.com
Pennsylvania Federal Court Addresses Recurring Asbestos Coverage Issues
March 04, 2019 —
Craig O’Neill & Laura Rossi - Complex Insurance Coverage ReporterIn a pair of recent asbestos coverage decisions, a Pennsylvania federal court issued rulings addressing expedited funding orders, number of “occurrences,” and the applicability of aggregate limits under the Fourth Circuit’s Wallace & Gale approach.
Zurn Industries, LLC v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197481 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 20, 2018)
Policyholder Zurn, a manufacturer and distributor of boilers, was named as a defendant in thousands of underlying asbestos-related bodily injury suits. After its primary insurers claimed exhaustion, Zurn moved on an expedited basis to require two of its excess insurers to each assume fifty percent of its defense and indemnity costs until they reached a permanent cost-sharing agreement. In denying Zurn’s expedited request for interim funding, the court held that the record was insufficient “in the opening stages of litigation, before discovery has occurred” to determine whether the underlying coverage had been properly exhausted but left the door open for Zurn to refile its motion on a more developed record.
Reprinted courtesy of
Craig O’Neill, White and Williams LLP and
Laura Rossi, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Levine may be contacted at oneillc@whiteandwilliams.com
Ms. Rossi may be contacted at rossil@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Court Finds that Two Possible Causes Can Prove a Product Malfunction Theory of Liability
September 29, 2021 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Allstate Ins. Co. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., No. 19-3529, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127014, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania considered whether plaintiff’s expert engineer’s opinion that there were two possible causes of a fire—both related to alleged product defects within a refrigerator manufactured by the defendant—was sufficient to support the malfunction theory of products liability. The court found that because both potential causes imposed liability on the product manufacturer and the expert ruled out misuse of the product, as well as all external causes of the fire, it was not necessary for the engineer to identify a specific cause under the malfunction theory. The court also found that the expert’s investigation and opinions met the criteria set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and the Federal Rules of Evidence and, thus, were admissible.
LG Electronics arose from a fire at the home of Thomas and Lisa Ellis. The public sector fire investigator identified the area of fire origin as the top of a refrigerator manufactured by LG Electronics USA, Inc. (LG). The Ellises filed a claim with their homeowner’s insurance carrier, Allstate Insurance Company (Insurer). Insurer retained a fire investigator and an electrical engineer to investigate the origin and cause of the fire. The fire investigator agreed with the public sector investigator that the fire originated at the top of the refrigerator. The engineer conducted a forensic inspection of the scene and ruled out all potential external ignition sources. He then examined the internal components of the refrigerator. He found arcing activity on a wire at the front top of the refrigerator. He opined that there were two possible causes of the fire: either the heater circuit insulation failed over time due to mechanical damage, or the heat from the internal light fixture ignited combustible components of the refrigerator. Since the engineer ruled out improper use of the refrigerator, he opined that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices
September 23, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAs most public works contractors know, Labor Code section 1777.5 requires the hiring of apprentices on public works projects and, under Labor Code section 1777.7, violations are subject to civil penalties of up $100/day and up to $300/day days for repeated violations within a three-year period.
In
Lusardi Construction Co. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 102 Cal.App.5th (2024), a prime contractor learned the hard way that not only could it be penalized for its failure to hire apprentices but that it could also be liable for its subcontractor’s failure to hire apprentices. Forewarned is to be forearmed.
The Lusardi Construction Case
In 2014, general contractor Lusardi Construction Company hired subcontractor Pro Works Contracting to perform iron reinforcing work on a public works project owned by the San Marcos Unified School District.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Insurer's Bad Faith is Actionable Tort for Purposes of Choice of Law Analysis
January 08, 2024 —
Janeen M. Thomas - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.When an insurer handles a claim in violation of its duty to act in good faith, policyholders are often eager to sue the insurer for bad faith, seeking extra contractual damages. Before filing suit, however, it is critical that policyholders consider what state’s law applies to the bad faith claim.
In the recent case of Scott Fetzer Co. v. Am. Home Assurance Co., Inc.1, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Restatement (Second), Conflict of Laws, § 145 (“Section 145"), governed the choice of law dispute, which meant that the insured would be able to obtain discovery of Travelers’ claims-handling procedures, guidelines, internal documents, and communications relating to the claim.2 The insured, Scott Fetzer, argued that the materials were discoverable because documents evidencing an insurer’s bad faith are not protected by attorney-client privilege in Ohio. In response, Travelers argued that the laws of either Indiana (the place where the parties entered into the insurance contract), or Michigan (the location of the insured risk) governed the discovery dispute because Restatement (Second) § 193 (“Section 193”) governs the choice of law analysis for claims that “arise out of insurance contracts.”3 The laws of either Indiana or Michigan were more favorable for Travelers because Indiana does not allow discovery of materials covered by attorney-client privilege, and Michigan does not even recognize a cause of action for bad faith.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Janeen M. Thomas, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Thomas may be contacted at
JThomas@sdvlaw.com
