Judge Nixes SC's $100M Claim Over MOX Construction Delays
February 16, 2017 —
Engineering News-RecordA federal judge on Feb. 8 dismissed a claim by the state of South Carolina against the U.S. Dept. of Energy over delayed construction of the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility, near Aiken, S.C. The claim for financial compensation was part of a lawsuit the state filed in February 2016 seeking payment of $1 million per day—or an annual maximum of $100 million—for the MOX facility not producing fuel by Jan. 1, 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Embracing Generative Risk Mitigation in Construction
February 12, 2024 —
Georgia Stillwell - Construction ExecutiveProject delays have long plagued the construction industry, with risk often identified as the primary culprit. However, finding effective solutions to mitigate risk on complex projects has remained daunting. Traditional methods for simulating risk primarily focus on extending project timelines, overlooking the diverse range of opportunities available for risk mitigation. With the construction industry’s digital transformation, generative methodologies have emerged to handle complex decision-making in uncertain situations. This article aims to shed light on the limitations of existing risk modeling and introduce a novel approach known as generative risk mitigation to enhance decision-making under deep uncertainty.
According to McKinsey, 98% of megaprojects experience cost overruns exceeding 30%. Project delays have become so pervasive that the industry has grown accustomed to them. For example, in 2022, the UK government issued ‘
The Green Book,’ which requires contingency funds in projects, such as a 44% contingency budget for standard civil projects. This implies that for a $100 million project, you should allocate $144 million to manage expected risks. There is no denying significant academic literature on the root cause of these delays: it is ‘risk,’ and there is an entire industry based on it.
Conversations with project directors and risk experts reveal the same issue, different project. And that issue is that we cannot easily forecast risk, qualify the impacts or fully understand the opportunities that exist to mitigate risks and make timely decisions. A method that will finally help us overcome this has emerged within the industry.
Reprinted courtesy of
Georgia Stillwell, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Shifting Sands of Alternative Dispute Resolution
February 03, 2020 —
Tim Scully - Porter Law GroupIn California there are few tools which work to protect the employer, and California employers may have just lost another one. On October 10, 2019, Governor Gavin Newson signed into law AB 51, which bans the use of mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts.
More specifically, AB 51 adds Section 432.6 to the California Labor Code, making it unlawful to require a prospective employee, or current employee, to waive any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of any provision of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)(Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code) or the California Labor Code, starting January 1, 2020. Additionally, an employer is also prohibited from threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant or employee who may choose not to sign a voluntary arbitration agreement.
Previously, an employer was able to require employees and prospective employees to agree to arbitration to resolve almost any and all disputes between the employee and the employer as a term of their employment. These terms were often the bulk of employers’ written contracts. Employers could have employees waive the right to a jury trial, the right to court costs, and other expenses, provided that the employer paid for the expenses of the alternative dispute resolution. The injured employees right to recover attorney’s fees was always a non-waivable right under the Labor Code. There were only a few actions which could not be arbitrated, the most prominent exception being the right to seek recovery under the Private Attorney’s General Action (PAGA).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tim Scully, Porter Law GroupMr. Scully may be contacted at
tscully@porterlaw.com
California Supreme Court Holds “Notice-Prejudice” Rule is “Fundamental Public Policy” of California, May Override Choice of Law Provisions in Policies
November 12, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPOn August 29, 2019, in Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Insurance Company, 2019 Cal. LEXIS 6240, the California Supreme Court held that, in the insurance context, the common law “notice-prejudice” rule is a “fundamental public policy” of the State of California for purposes of choice of law analysis. Thus, even though the policy in Pitzer had a choice of law provision requiring application of New York law – which does not require an insurer to prove prejudice for late notice of claims under policies delivered outside of New York – that provision can be overridden by California’s public policy of requiring insurers to prove prejudice after late notice of a claim. The Supreme Court in Pitzer also held that the notice-prejudice rule “generally applies to consent provisions in the context of first party liability policy coverage,” but not to consent provisions in the third-party liability policy context.
The Pitzer case arose from a discovery of polluted soil at Pitzer College during a dormitory construction project. Facing pressure to finish the project by the start of the next school term, Pitzer officials took steps to remediate the polluted soil at a cost of $2 million. When Pitzer notified its insurer of the remediation, and made a claim for the attendant costs, the insurer “denied coverage based on Pitzer’s failure to give notice as soon as practicable and its failure to obtain [the insurer’s] consent before commencing the remediation process.” The Supreme Court observed that Pitzer did not inform its insurer of the remediation until “three months after it completed remediation and six months after it discovered the darkened soils.” In response to the denial of coverage, Pitzer sued the insurer in California state court, the insurer removed the action to federal court and the insurer moved for summary judgment “claiming that it had no obligation to indemnify Pitzer for remediation costs because Pitzer had violated the Policy’s notice and consent provisions.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Timothy Carroll, White and Williams and
Anthony Miscioscia, White and Williams
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Law Client Alert: California Is One Step Closer to Prohibiting Type I Indemnity Agreements In Private Commercial Projects
June 15, 2011 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPOn June 1, 2011 by majority vote, the California Senate passed Senate Bill 474, which would amend Civil Code section 2782, and add Civil Code section 2782.05. The passage of this new law is a critical development for real estate developers, general contractors and subcontractors because it will affect how these projects are insured and how disputes are resolved.
Civil Code section 2782 was amended in 2007 to prohibit Type I indemnity agreements for residential projects only. Since 2007, various trade associations and labor unions have lobbied to expand those very same restrictions to other projects. These new provisions apply to contracts, entered into after January 1, 2013, that are not for residential projects, and that are not executed by a public entity. The revisions provide that any provision in a contract purporting to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend another for their negligence or other fault is against public policy and void. These provisions cannot be waived.
A provision in a contract requiring additional insured coverage is also void and unenforceable to the extent it would be prohibited under the new law. Moreover, the new law does not apply to wrap-up insurance policies or programs, or a cause of action for breach of contract or warranty that exists independently of the indemnity obligation.
The practical impact of this new law is that greater participation in wrap-up insurance programs will likely result. While many wrap-up programs suffer from problems such as insufficient limits, and disputes about funding the self-insured retention, the incentive for the developer or general contractor to utilize wrap-up insurance will be greater than ever before because they will no longer be able to spread the risk of the litigation to the trades and the trade carriers.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Construction Heading Off the Fiscal Cliff?
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFAfter a period of growth, the construction industry lost 20,000 jobs in November, based on the federal jobs data. Damon Scott of New Mexico Business Weekly suggests that contractors may have laid off employees in anticipation of the “fiscal cliff.” Ken Simpson, the chief economist of the National Association of Home Builders said in a press release that “it is discouraging that construction employment is still struggling after three years of expansion in the overall economy.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Homeowner Has No Grounds to Avoid Mechanics Lien
September 01, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals has rejected a motion by a homeowner in a dispute with the contractor who built an extension to his home. In McCracken v. Pirvulete, Mr. McCracken filed a mechanics lien after Mr. Pirvulete failed to complete payment. The matter went to trial with a series of exhibits that showed “the contractual relationship was strained and the parties disagreed over performance and payment.” As a result of the trial, the court awarded Mr. McCracken, the contractor, $1,922.22.
Mr. Pirvulete appealed, contending that the court had not allowed his daughter to act as a translator, that the court had failed to give him sufficient time to present his case, that the mechanics lien should have been dismissed, and several other claims, all before a formal judgment was issued. After the court formalized its judgment and rejected the appeal, Mr. Pirvulete appealed again.
The appeals court found that Mr. Pirvulete did not provide an adequate record for review. The court dismissed Mr. Pirvulete’s claims. The court notes that Mr. Pirvulete claimed that a request for a discovery period was denied, however, he has provided neither the request nor the denial. The trial court has no record of either.
Nor was there a record of a request that Mr. Pirvulete’s daughter provide translation. The court notes, “so far as we can glean from the record provided, the Register of Actions states, ‘Trial to proceed without Romanian Interpreter for Defendant; Daughter present to interpret if needed.’” Additionally, the court found that “there has been no showing that his facility with the English language is or was impaired in any way or that there was any portion of any proceeding, which he did not understand.”
Further, the appeals court found there were no grounds for a new trial, despite Mr. Pirvulete’s filings. The court concluded, “The owner has failed to provide a record adequate for review of most, if not all, of the claims of error. Some issues are not cognizable because they relate to entirely separate proceedings, and not the trial below. To the limited extent that the claims are examinable, the owner has made no showing of error.” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court against Mr. Pirvulete.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury Attorneys Featured in 2021 Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones To Watch!
August 16, 2021 —
Wilke Fleury LLPWilke Fleury congratulates attorneys David Frenznick, Adriana Cervantes and Dan Egan on their inclusion in the 2021 Edition of Best Lawyers in America!
Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Almost 108,000 industry leading lawyers are eligible to vote (from around the world), and they have received over 13 million evaluations on the legal abilities of other lawyers based on their specific practice areas around the world. For the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America©, 9.4 million votes were analyzed.
Daniel L. Egan – Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2021
- First year recognized in Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law: 2021
David A. Frenznick – Recognized in Best Lawyers since 2016
- First year recognized in Litigation – Real Estate: 2016
Adriana C. Cervantes – Recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch*
- First year recognized in Medical Malpractice Law – Defendants: 2021
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wilke Fleury LLP
