Update to Washington State Covid-19 Guidance
November 23, 2020 —
Brett M. Hill - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCYesterday, November 15, 2020, Governor Inslee announced modifications to the current COVID-19 restrictions in response to the current rise in cases across Washington State.
There are no additional restrictions on construction at this time. However, during the Governor’s press conference yesterday, he did indicate that positive cases were increasing on construction sites, and that they would be tracking the statistics over the next 2 – 3 weeks – to see if additional restrictions would be necessary for construction sites in the future. Additionally, the construction industry group is meeting with the Governor’s office today, November 16, 2020, and we will keep you informed of any changes as a result of that meeting.
Unless otherwise specifically noted, the modifications take effect at 12:01 a.m., Tuesday, November 17, 2020. All modifications to existing prohibitions set forth herein shall expire at 11:59 p.m., Monday, December 14, 2020, unless otherwise extended. If an activity is not listed below, currently existing guidance shall continue to apply. If current guidance is more restrictive than the below listed restrictions, the most restrictive guidance shall apply. These below modifications do not apply to education (including but not limited to K-12, higher education, trade and vocational schools), childcare, health care, and courts and judicial branch-related proceedings, all of which are exempt from the modifications and shall continue to follow current guidance. Terms used in this proclamation have the same definitions used in the Safe Start Washington Phased Reopening County-by-County Plan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brett M. Hill, Ahlers Cressman Sleight PLLCMr. Hill may be contacted at
brett.hill@acslawyers.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
Delay In Noticing Insurer of Loss is Not Prejudicial
April 28, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's determination that untimely notice of the loss was prejudicial, eliminating the insurer's coverage obligations. B.S.C. Holding, Inc. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4492 (10th Cir. March 11, 2014).
In January 2008, the insured's employees detected an inflow of water in a salt mine and feared dissolution of the salt or structural problems. The insured tried to devise a solution. Two and a half million dollars were spent to find the cause of the water inflow and to identify a solution. In April 2010, the insured determined the inflow was caused by an improperly sealed oil well. In July 2010, the insured notified Lexington of the water inflow. The ultimate proof of loss was for $7.5 million, which included remediation measures that the insured had performed before notifying Lexington.
Lexington's all-risk policy required the insured to notify the company in writing as soon as practicable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Flint Water Crisis and America’s Clean Water Access Failings
June 28, 2021 —
Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-RecordGrowing up on a Navajo reservation in Arizona, Jay Yazzie, now a senior environmental engineer at Brown and Caldwell, did not have running water in his home. To get its water supply, the family would take a 55-gallon drum to a livestock well or to a distribution point to obtain potable water for everyday use. He was 10 when his family was finally hooked up to a reliable supply.
Reprinted courtesy of
Pam Radtke Russell, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
ISO’s Flood Exclusion Amendments and Hurricane Ian Claims
October 03, 2022 —
Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLPI understand that it may seem early to be addressing possible coverage issues, under homeowner’s policies, for the devastation in Florida caused by Hurricane Ian. At the moment, those affected are dealing with a major catastrophe and possibly life-altering situation.
But I’m a realist. While we all have those impacted in our thoughts and prayers, that’s not going to rebuild the state or people’s lives. Money is. And when it comes to the source of money to do so, insurance will be far and away the first and principal place that people turn.
Indeed, even before it started to rain, Florida Governor DeSantis was discussing the availability of insurance for his citizens, as well as plenty of articles written forecasting how significant the insurance impact could be. If Covid-19 taught us anything about the pursuit of insurance, the discussion begins the second the need arises.
When it comes to insurance coverage for hurricanes, the starting place is always the same. Homeowner’s [and commercial property] policies generally cover wind damage and exclude flood damage. For flood coverage, a flood policy is needed, offered by the National Flood Insurance Program or the private market.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLPMr. Maniloff may be contacted at
maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.com
Biggest U.S. Gas Leak Followed Years of Problems, State Says
June 10, 2019 —
Mark Chediak & Edvard Pettersson - BloombergThe worst natural gas leak in U.S. history, which broke out at a Sempra Energy storage field near Los Angeles almost four years ago, was caused by corrosion, according to a report commissioned by California regulators.
The rupture of a 7-inch (18-centimeter) well casing at Sempra Energy’s Aliso Canyon storage complex was due to “microbial corrosion” brought on by contact with groundwater, an independent analysis conducted by Blade Energy Partners and commissioned by two state agencies found.
The report also concluded there had been more than 60 leaks in the field dating back to the 1970s, and Sempra didn’t carry out detailed inspections after they occurred, the California Public Utilities Commission and Department of Conservation said in a joint statement. The company’s Southern California Gas lacked “any form of risk assessment” to manage the integrity of its wells and hadn’t established systematic practices to protect against corrosion and monitor well pressure, the agencies said.
Reprinted courtesy of
Mark Chediak, Bloomberg and
Edvard Pettersson, Bloomberg
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine Addresses Earth Movement Exclusion
March 01, 2021 —
James M. Eastham - Traub LiebermanIn Bibeau v. Concord Gen. Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 WL 243867, 2021 ME 4, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine addressed an earth movement exclusion contained in a residential homeowners policy. In 2017, the insured submitted a claim to Concord for damage to the insured’s home which included foundation cracks and settlement resulting in interior damage to the home. The insured contended that the damage was the result of a 2006 water line leak. Concord denied the claim based on the Earth Movement exclusion contained in it’s policy which precluded coverage for losses caused by earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, mudflow, subsidence, sinkholes or “[a]ny other earth movement including earth sinking, rising or shifting; caused by or resulting from human or animal forces or any act of nature”.
The insured filed suit asserting a breach of the policy and unfair claims settlement practices. According to the insured’s expert, the damage was caused by a 2006 water line leak -- which in turn caused the foundation to settle. Concord's expert, however, concluded that the settling was caused by the house being built on “unprepared or uncontrolled fill” which allowed the house to settle at different rates. Despite the disagreement regarding the cause of the settling, the parties ultimately agreed that the damage was the result of earth moving under the house's foundation. Concord moved for summary judgment and the trial court entered summary judgment for Concord, reasoning that because there was no genuine dispute that the losses were caused by “subsurface soils being undermined and earth movement,” the Earth Movement exclusion precluded coverage. The trial court further concluded that the disagreement over the cause of the settlement was not material because regardless of the cause of the earth movement, the losses were clearly excluded by the policy's Earth Movement exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James M. Eastham, Traub LiebermanMr. Eastham may be contacted at
jeastham@tlsslaw.com
Greystone on Remand Denies Insurer's Motion for Summary Judgment To Bar Coverage For Construction Defects
June 28, 2013 —
Tred EyerlyA prior post here discussed the Tenth Circuit's decision in Greystone Constr., Inc. v. National Union Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 661 F. 3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2011). The court found a duty to defend construction defect claims where damage caused by the faulty workmanship was unintentional. The Tenth Circuit remanded for a determination on whether any policy exclusions precluded a defense or indemnity for damage arising from faulty workmanship. On remand, the district court denied National Union's Motion for Summary Judgment, seeking to establish the policy exclusions precluded its duty to defend and to indemnify. See Greystone Constr., Inc. v. v. National Union Fire & Marine ins. Co., 2013 U. S. LEXIS 46707 (D. Colo. March 31, 2013).
Greystone was sued for construction defects in homes it built. The suit alleged that Greystone failed to recognize defects in the soil where the house was built. National Union refused to defend. The district court initially granted summary judgment to National Union because claims arising from construction defects were not covered. As noted above, the Tenth Circuit vacated because the damage in the underlying suit did not categorically fall outside coverage under the policy.
On remand, National Union first argued there was no duty to defend based upon an exclusion precluding coverage for damage arising out of work done by subcontractors unless the subcontractors agreed in writing to defend and indemnify the insured and carried insurance with coverage limits equal to or greater than that carried by the insured. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument because National Union had to rely on facts outside of the underlying complaint.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
