White and Williams Obtains Reversal on Appeal of $2.5 Million Verdict Against Electric Utility Company
September 03, 2014 —
Edward Koch, Mark Paladino, Luke Repici, & Andrew Susko – White and Williams LLPPPL Electric Utilities successfully argued on appeal that the $2.5 million plaintiff’s molded verdict awarded to an injured painting subcontractor should be vacated because the alleged evidence was legally insufficient and therefore the utility was not liable.
In Nertavich v. PPL Electric Utilities, the plaintiff argued that although the utility was a landowner out of possession of the worksite, the utility was liable because it controlled the work of the subcontractor both by contract and by conduct. PPL argued on appeal before the Superior Court of Pennsylvania that the alleged evidence of the utility company’s control was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute control over the means and methods of the subcontractor’s work, and thus, PPL was not liable as a landowner out of possession.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Edward Koch,
Mark Paladino,
Luke Repici and
Andrew Susko
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com;
Mr. Paladino may be contacted at paladinom@whiteandwilliams.com;
Mr. Repici may be contacted at repicil@whiteandwilliams.com;
and Mr. Susko may be contacted at suskoa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ten ACS Lawyers Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars
August 30, 2021 —
Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCACS is very honored and pleased to announce ten members of our firm were awarded the distinction of top attorneys in Washington. Our blog articles usually cover Construction Legal News, but we feel this is a newsworthy accolade to be shared with friends and clients.
To become candidates to receiving the Super Lawyer nomination, lawyers are nominated by a peer or identified by research. After completing this first step in the process, Super Lawyer’s research department analyzes 12 indicators, such as experience, honors/awards, verdicts/settlements, and others. As for the third step, there is a peer evaluation by practice area. Finally, for step four, candidates are grouped into four firm-size categories. In other words, solo and small firm lawyers are compared only with other solo and small firm lawyers, and large firm lawyers are compared with other large firm lawyers. The process is very selective and only 5 percent of the total lawyers in Washington are nominated as Super Lawyers.
John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, was recognized as
the third Top Lawyer out of all Washington lawyers in the State.
Named partner Scott R. Sleight and partner Brett M. Hill were both recognized as one of the 100-Best Lawyers in the State.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Sheldon may be contacted at
cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com
Enforcement Of Contractual Terms (E.G., Flow-Down, Field Verification, Shop Drawing Approval, And No-Damage-For-Delay Provisions)
May 04, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhat you contractually agree to matters, particularly when you are deemed a sophisticated entity. This means you can figuratively live or die by the terms and conditions agreed to. Don’t take it from me, but it take it from the Fourth Circuit’s decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Modern Mosaic, Ltd. v. Turner Construction Co., 2019 WL 7174550 (4th Cir. 2019), where the Court started off by stressing, “One of our country’s bedrock principles is the freedom of individuals and entities to enter into contracts and rely that their terms will be enforced.” Id. at *1.
This case involved a dispute between a prime contractor and its precast concrete subcontractor on a federal project. The subcontractor filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. The trial court ruled against the subcontractor based on…the subcontract’s terms! So, yes, what you contractually agree to matters.
Example #1 – The subcontractor fabricated and installed precast concrete panels per engineering drawings. However, the parking garage was not built per dimensions meaning the panels it fabricated would not fit. The subcontractor had to perform remedial work on the panels to get them to fit. The subcontractor pursued the prime contractor for these costs arguing the prime contractor should have field verified the dimensions. The problem for the subcontractor, however, was that the subcontract required the subcontractor, not the prime contractor, to field verify the dimensions. Based on this language that required the subcontractor to field verify existing conditions and take field measurements, the subcontractor was not entitled to its remedial costs (and they were close to $1 Million). Furthermore, and of importance, the Court noted that the subcontract contained a flow down provision requiring the subcontractor to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of the prime contract and assume those duties and obligations that the prime contractor was to assume towards the owner. While this flow-down provision may often be overlooked, here it was not, as it meant the subcontractor was assuming the field verification duties that the prime contractor was responsible to perform for the owner.
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
Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision
June 06, 2018 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee.
In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How BIM Helps Make Buildings Safer
July 01, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThere are many uses for building information models that are yet to be discovered. One Finnish team collaborated with a city and fire & rescue authority to explore how BIM would help make buildings safer.
“Imagine a fire inspector in a building with an AR headset. He can retrieve data from the building’s digital model and hence get an x-ray view of the pipes and cables behind the lowered ceiling.”
That’s a scenario that Timo Lehtoviita pictured when we discussed the experimentation project which he led at Saimia, Saimaa University of Applied Sciences.
Saimia, the city of Lappeenranta and their real estate company LATO, and the Rescue Department of South Karelia partnered in 2018 to explore the possibilities of using BIM to make buildings safer. The project, titled “Enhancing building safety using information models,” formed part of the national KIRA-digi built environment digitalization program.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
South Carolina’s New Insurance Data Security Act: Pebbles Before a Landslide?
June 13, 2018 —
Richard Borden, Sedgwick Jeanite & Joshua Mooney - White and Williams LLPThe ramp-up of cybersecurity regulation, albeit in a patchwork fashion through state-level legislation, has begun. On May 18, 2018, South Carolina enacted the Insurance Data Security Act (Act), becoming the first state to pass legislation based upon the Insurance Data Security Model Law that was approved by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) last October. The Act makes very little change to the model law’s text, which in turn, is based on 23 NYCRR § 500, et seq., the cybersecurity regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Financial Services in March 2017. The Act establishes stringent standards for both data security programs, and an entity’s response to a “cybersecurity event” through an organized and methodical investigation and notification to the state’s Department of Insurance. Like New York’s cybersecurity regulations, the Act requires insurers to submit to the Department of Insurance annual certification of compliance and has a ratcheted implementation of portions of the legislation on insurers and brokers operating or otherwise licensed to do business in the state. It does not create a private cause of action.
Reprinted courtesy of White and Williams LLP attorneys
Richard Borden,
Sedgwick Jeanite and
Joshua Mooney
Mr. Borden may be contacted at bordenr@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Jeanite may be contacted at jeanites@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Mooney may be contacted at mooneyj@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
MTA’S New Debarment Powers Pose an Existential Risk
July 15, 2019 —
Steven M. Charney, Gregory H. Chertoff & Paul Monte - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The normal project and contractual risks faced by contractors, consultants and suppliers to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority are considerable. A new law and regulations mandating that the MTA debar contractors, consultants and suppliers for unexcused schedule and cost overruns creates a new and unfair existential risk.
The new law, Public Authorities Law Section 1279-h, slipped into the New York State budget bill and passed without public comment, was enacted on April 12, 2019. Implementing regulations were issued on June 5, 2019, and mandate that the MTA debar contractors (defined to include consultants, vendors and suppliers) if they: (1) fail to achieve substantial completion of their contractual obligations within 10% of the adjusted contract time; or (2) present claims for additional compensation that are denied in an amount that exceeds the total adjusted contract amount by 10% or more.[1]
To say that your business and your livelihood are at risk is not an overstatement. The MTA umbrella includes the New York City Transit Authority, MTA Capital Construction, Bridges & Tunnels, Long Island Railroad and Metro North, among others. A debarment by one of these authorities will lead to a debarment by all of them, and then to a debarment by all New York State agencies and authorities,[2] and possibly debarment across state lines. Public and major private owners, as part of their RFP and procurement processes, routinely inquire regarding a bidding contractor’s debarment history.
The risk is to new contracts and, because the MTA has decided to give retroactive effect to the law and regulations, to contracts that are already ongoing (even though these risks could not have been considered, priced or agreed to by contractors or their sureties).
Reprinted courtesy of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. attorneys
Steven M. Charney,
Gregory H. Chertoff and
Paul Monte
Mr. Charney may be contacted at scharney@pecklaw.com
Mr. Chertoff may be contacted at gchertoff@pecklaw.com
Mr. Monte may be contacted at pmonte@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Equitable Subrogation Part Deux: Mechanic’s Lien vs. Later Bank Deed of Trust
September 15, 2016 —
Kevin J. Parker – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogThis post follows, almost two years to the day, Rick Erickson’s post of August 29, 2014. As noted by Rick Erickson in his August 29, 2014 post, the Arizona Supreme Court in the Weitz case (2014) had determined that equitable subrogation principles were applicable to enable an earlier-recorded mechanic’s lien to be trumped by a later-recorded bank deed of trust, if the loan secured by the later deed of trust paid off a lien that had been ahead of the mechanic’s lien. In a decision filed August 9, 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals further clarified the scope of such equitable subrogation.
In Markham Contracting Co., Inc. v. FDIC, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0752 (August 9, 2016), the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed a situation where a first-recorded deed of trust was followed by a second-recorded mechanic’s lien; and then, after the mechanic’s lien was recorded, a new lender made a secured construction loan that was used, in part, to pay off the loan that was secured by the first-position deed of trust. The key being “in part.” The subsequent lender loaned $4.8 million, but only $2.9 million went to pay off the balance owing on the first-position deed of trust.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kevin J. Parker – Snell & WilmerMr. Parker may be contacted at
kparker@swlaw.com
