Contractor Definition Central to Coverage Dispute
July 22, 2024 —
Stacy R. Goldscher & Tracy M. Lewis - Wood Smith Henning & BermanHow do you define the term "contractor?" In the case of California Specialty Insulation Inc. v. Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company, No. B324805 (2024), the court ultimately honored the reasonable expectations of the insured and ordered that the insurer defend and indemnify in an underlying suit stemming from the policy. This case involves a commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Allied) to California Specialty Insulation, Inc. (CSI). The central issue is whether Allied World is obligated to defend and indemnify CSI against a negligence claim stemming from a construction site accident. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of a policy exclusion for bodily injury to employees of any "contractor," a term not defined in the policy.
Factual Background
In 2017 Air Control Systems. Inc. (Air Control) was contracted to perform improvement work at a Los Angeles building and subsequently hired CSI to install duct insulation. In 2019, Jason Standiford, and Air Control employee, filed a negligence lawsuit against CSI, alleging injuries from a 2017 incident where a CSI employee allegedly drove a scissor lift into a ladder Standiford was on, causing him to fall. CSI requested Allied World to defend it in the Standiford lawsuit. Initially, Allied World accepted the defense, but later withdrew, citing the Contractor Exclusion in the policy. CSI filed for declaratory relief, leading to cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled in favor of CSI, finding the term contractor ambiguous and construing it in CSI's favor. Allied World appealed the decision.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stacy R. Goldscher, Wood Smith Henning & Berman and
Tracy M. Lewis, Wood Smith Henning & Berman
Ms. Goldscher may be contacted at sgoldscher@wshblaw.com
Ms. Lewis may be contacted at tlewis@wshblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Global Insurer Agrees to Pay COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims
July 06, 2020 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogAXA, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world, has agreed to pay COVID-related business interruption claims by a group of restaurants in Paris after a court ruled that the restaurants’ revenue losses resulting from COVID-19 and related government orders were covered under AXA’s policies.
AXA initially took the position that its insurance policies did not cover business interruption caused by COVID-19. The restaurant then sued AXA in a French court, seeking coverage for operating losses resulting from a government order issued in March mandating the closure of restaurants and bars in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court concluded that the government orders, which prohibited restaurants from receiving the public and offering traditional sit-down dining services, triggered the policy’s coverage for business interruption coverage. The court rejected AXA’s argument that the pandemic was uninsurable, and made clear that if AXA intended to exclude such a risk it should have done so expressly in its policy. The court also rejected AXA’s argument that there must be a prerequisite of an insured event for the application of the “administrative closure” provision, noting that no prerequisite was required by the policy. AXA’s argument that the government orders did not require the restaurant to be closed because the restaurant was authorized to maintain take-away services was also rejected. As a result, the court ruled in favor of the policyholders, holding that the business interruption loss resulting from the government orders qualified for insurance coverage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of National Debt Limit Suspension
June 12, 2023 —
The American Society of Civil EngineersThe following is a statement by Tom Smith, Executive Director, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE):
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) applauds Congress for passing a measure to avoid a U.S. debt default while safeguarding the critical funding allotments for our nation's infrastructure from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (
H.R. 3746) will not only protect funding from the IIJA, but it also takes steps to advance permitting reform, a major priority for ASCE and the civil engineering community.
Streamlining permitting is crucial to ensuring we make the most of available funding mechanisms. ASCE is pleased to see that many elements of the
BUILDER Act made it into the debt ceiling suspension, including setting deadlines for environmental reviews and providing clarity around permitting requirements. Although further actions are needed to streamline these processes, the Fiscal Responsibility Act is a crucial first step towards implementing much-needed permitting reform to keep valuable projects moving and bring benefits to communities across the country.
ASCE once again applauds Congress and the Administration for taking these necessary steps to protect the U.S. economy and infrastructure systems.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders Seek to Modify Scaffold Law
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFNew York’s scaffold law dates back to 1885 and requires contractors and building owners to take measures to protect worker from falls through “proper protection.” And although the law is more than 125 years old, Lou Colettie of the Building Trades Employers Association clams that the law “is going to destroy the construction industry.” On the other side, a former director of the NYC Central Labor Council says that builders want to get rid of the law because of “greed.”
The New York Daily News notes that when workers using scaffolds or ladders are injured, the contractor must prove the site was safe. According to the claims of the building industry, this would let workers get settlements if their injuries were their own fault, such as working while intoxicated or failing to observe their employer’s safety procedures. A bill is currently working its way through the New York legislature that would make the employee’s actions relevant in an injury lawsuit.
There have been past unsuccessful attempts to repeal the law, this year opponents are pushing to just amend it.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sometimes a Reminder is in Order. . .
February 18, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsRecently, I was talking with my friend Matt Hundley about a recent case he had in the Charlottesville, VA Circuit Court. It was a relatively straightforward (or so he and I would have thought) breach of contract matter involving a fixed price contract between his (and an associate of his Laura Hooe) client James River Stucco and the Montecello Overlook Owners’ Association. I believe that you will see the reason for the title of the post once you hear the facts and read the opinion.
In James River Stucco, Inc. v. Monticello Overlook Owners’ Ass’n, the Court considered Janes River Stucco’s Motion for Summary Judgment countering two arguments made by the Association. The first Association argument was that the word “employ” in the contract meant that James River Stucco was required to use its own forces (as opposed to subcontractors) to perform the work. The second argument was that James River overcharged for the work. This second argument was made without any allegation of fraud or that the work was not 100% performed.
Needless to say, the Court rejected both arguments. The Court rejected the first argument stating:
In its plain meaning, “employ” means to hire, use, utilize, or make arrangements for. A plain reading of the contractual provisions cited–“shall employ” and references to “employees”–and relied on by Defendant does not require that the persons performing the labor, arranged by Plaintiff, be actual employees of the company or on the company’s payroll. It did not matter how the plaintiff accomplished the work so long as it was done correctly. The purpose of those provisions was to allocate to Plaintiff responsibility for supplying a sufficient workforce to get the work done, not to impose HR duties or require the company to use only “in house” workers. So I find that use of contracted work does not constitute a breach of the contract or these contractual provisions.
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
Philadelphia Court Rejects Expert Methodology for Detecting Asbestos
October 11, 2017 —
Christian Singewald, Wesley Payne & Jonathan Woy - White and Williams LLPLawsuits against talcum powder manufacturers have recently made headlines for the multimillion dollar verdicts returned in favor of plaintiffs with ovarian cancer. However, lawsuits brought by individuals with mesothelioma who did not work in occupations traditionally associated with asbestos exposure represent another potential liability for talcum powder manufacturers and retailers. In such cases, expert testimony linking mesothelioma to trace amounts of asbestos in talcum powder should be carefully scrutinized.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Christian Singewald,
Wesley Payne and
Jonathan Woy
Mr. Singewald may be contacted at singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Payne may be contacted at paynew@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Woy may be contacted at woyj@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
So a Lawsuit Is on the Horizon…
August 10, 2021 —
Sean Donoghue - Construction ExecutiveAs certain as death and taxes, documents will need to be exchanged in the event of a lawsuit. Here is what to expect and a few tips for reducing costs and protecting the case.
What Needs to Be Produced?
Discovery is broad, but proportional to the needs (i.e., usually the dollar value) of the case. Cost reports, bid back up and scheduling information are often at the heart of damages issues in construction disputes. Thus, while it will depend on the nature of the dispute, these items will generally need to be produced.
It is no secret that electronically stored information (ESI) can be a big part of discovery in litigation, particularly in a document intensive industry like construction. In addition to electronically stored project files, expect that the inboxes of employees who are close to the dispute will need to be searched. How many will depend on the size of the dispute and the number of players involved. Hard-drives and text messages of those employees may also be discoverable.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sean Donoghue, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Donoghue may be contacted at
sdonoghue@eckertseamans.com
Joint Venture Dispute Over Profits
January 27, 2020 —
David R. Cook - AHC Construction and Procurement BlogA recent Georgia Court of Appeals case demonstrates the risk of joint ventures failing to carefully define accounting rules in their joint venture agreement. Two trade contractors teamed up to accomplish certain tasks on a job at a wastewater lift station at Fort Gordon. A joint venture agreement provided for an equal split of the profits and losses. Unfortunately, the parties did not define “profit,” and particularly did not define what cost would be deducted in calculating profit. They disputed in particular whether certain large payments to individuals and 15% overhead charges should be deducted in calculating profits.
One party presented the expert testimony of an accountant while the other did not. The party presenting expert testimony asked the court to dismiss the other party’s claim because it was not supported by expert testimony of an accountant. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook, Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
