2017 California Employment Law Update
January 13, 2017 —
Evelin Y. Bailey - California Construction Law BlogBelow are some of the new laws going into effect this year that affect the construction industry. Unless otherwise noted, the laws go into effect on January 1, 2017.
Public Works and Prevailing Wages
You can read more about the new laws—AB 326, AB 1926 and SB 954—relating to public works and prevailing wages in an earlier blog post.
Employment Contracts
Choice of Forum and Choice of Law. Under SB 1241, an employer cannot require an employee who primarily works and resides in California to agree to file a lawsuit or bring a claim in another state when the claim arises in California. This is usually referred to as the choice of forum clause.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Evelin Y. Bailey, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP Ms. Bailey may be contacted at
ebailey@wendel.com
Angela Cooner Named "Top Lawyer" by Phoenix Magazine in Inaugural Publication
October 10, 2022 —
Angela L. Cooner - Lewis BrisboisPhoenix, Ariz. (September 7, 2022) – Phoenix Partner Angela L. Cooner was recently recognized for her work in Commercial Litigation by Phoenix Magazine in its inaugural list of Top Lawyers.
Ms. Cooner was named a Top Lawyer after Phoenix Magazine partnered with research firm Data Joe to collect and tally online survey results from local practicing attorneys. The survey asks respondents to provide the names of up to three attorneys they deem the best in 39 legal specialties. After the votes are tallied and the nominees are confirmed to be members of Valley-based firms and in good standing, the top 10-20% of vote-getters in each category are named to the Top Lawyers list.
Ms. Cooner is a member of Lewis Brisbois’ Construction and General Liability Practices. For more than two decades, she has managed an array of matters, including construction litigation, complex commercial litigation, professional liability cases, product liability issues, premises liability cases, and real estate litigation. Earlier this year, she was appointed vice-chair of the State Bar of Arizona’s inaugural Board of Legal Specialization Construction Defect Law Advisory Commission.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Angela L. Cooner, Lewis BrisboisMs. Cooner may be contacted at
Angela.Cooner@lewisbrisbois.com
California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies
July 20, 2020 —
Scott P. DeVries & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews KurthOn May 26, 2020, a California Court of Appeals (4th District) issued its decision in Mosley et al. v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. The case arose in the context of a marijuana-growing tenant who rerouted a home’s electrical system and caused an electrical fire. The issue was whether the homeowner’s policy covered the loss. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and, in a divided decision, the Court of Appeals reversed in part.
The policy excluded losses “resulting from any manufacturing, production or operation, engaged in … the growing of plants.” The parties agreed that the fire resulted from the rewiring of the electrical system, but disagreed on “whether that means the damage” “result[ed] from” “the growing of plants.” The Court held that “resulting from” “broadly links a factual situation with the event creating liability, and connotes only a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship.” In doing so, it equated the terms “results from” and “arising from.” Concluding that a “common sense” approach was to be used, it found a “minimal causal connection” to be present. This expansive standard could be beneficial to policyholders in arguing the causal connection between COVID-19 and ensuing business interruption losses; specifically, that the pandemic, a covered event, is the underlying and proximate cause of the insureds’ physical loss and/or damage and the insured’s resulting business interruption loss, and that intervening events, whether they be orders of civil authority, prevention of ingress/egress or otherwise, would not sever the chain of causation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Got Licensing Questions? CSLB Licensing Workshop November 17th and December 15th
November 15, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogA rare opportunity to hear it straight from the folks who process the applications . . .
CSLB Licensing Workshop Offers Helpful Information for Applicants
The Contractors State License Board (CSLB) is hosting free workshops for those looking to become a licensed contractor. Current licensees are encouraged to pass this information along to their workers and to those who might be interested in learning more about the application process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP Mr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
For US Cities in Infrastructure Need, Grant Writers Wanted
July 22, 2024 —
Patrick Sisson - BloombergIt’s a big windfall of federal investment. Together, bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the CHIPS Act present a substantial shift in how the US government funds local economic development, clean energy and environmental justice efforts, potentially giving cities and towns a huge boost.
That is, if the nation’s 90,000-plus municipalities and tribal governments can finish filling out all the paperwork.
The trillion-dollar trifecta of Biden administration legislation from 2022 underscores just how important grant writing has become. In many ways, the ability of cities to enact new policies and tap federal resources rests on the desks of the staffers or contract workers who research, write and submit applications for funding. Uncle Sam will cheerfully write a check for cities to install solar panels via Clean Electricity Investment and Production Tax Credits, for example, or provide tax credits for buying electric vehicles. But first, you have to ask.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg
A New Way to Design in 3D – Interview with Pouria Kay of Grib
August 24, 2017 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessIn this podcast interview with Pouria Kay, CEO and Co-founder at Grib, we talk about the startup’s new, intuitive 3D design tool.
Grib® is a cloud–based software that turns a mobile device into a universal controller. With Grib, both young and professional designers can sketch complex objects without first having to learn cumbersome 3D software.
You work intuitively in actual 3D space and interact with your environment using augmented reality. All you need is pen, paper, and your mobile device. You can share models with friends, order a print, or export them if needed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
info@aepartners.fi
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Benefits and Pitfalls of Partnerships Between Companies
December 21, 2016 —
Aarni Heiskanen – AEC BusinessTo bring innovations to the market, companies almost always need partnerships. Partnerships can offer scalability, productivity, and open up new markets. However, partnerships are not easy to establish and manage.
The benefits of partnering
Construction companies have always done joint ventures. The reason has been to simply be able to bid for and deliver a project that would be too big for one company at that specific moment. Partnering allows you to become larger than you are and to get work that would otherwise be out of your reach. It also lets you spread the risk in a demanding project among the members.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aarni@aepartners.fi
