When Are General Conditions and General Requirements Covered by Builder's Risk
December 18, 2022 —
Michael V. Pepe & Grace V. Hebbel - Saxe Doernberger & VitaGeneral conditions and general requirements are terms of art in the construction industry that describe the indirect costs necessary to complete a construction project. After physical loss or damage to a project, the following question often arises: Are “general conditions” and “general requirements” covered under a builder’s risk policy?
General Conditions vs. General Requirements
General conditions are usually described as the cost of managing a construction project. Examples include salaries for personnel like project managers, supervisors, engineers, field office staff, as well as the cost of field trailers, office equipment and supplies, and anything necessary to support the staff.
General requirements are the non-management indirect costs of executing the project, including items such as pre-development costs, permits, security, dumpsters, fences, temporary lighting, worker amenities, and clean-up costs.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael V. Pepe, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Grace V. Hebbel, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Pepe may be contacted at MPepe@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Hebbel may be contacted at GHebbel@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will the Hidden Cracks in the Bay Bridge Cause Problems During an Earthquake?
June 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDespite a “no cracks” welding code and contract provision for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, in 2008 Caltrans proceeded with the project despite welding cracks created by the Chinese firm hired to build the roadway, according to the Sacramento Bee. By the time the cracks had been discovered, the costs were at $6.5 billion and climbing, and fixing the cracks would be time-consuming and expensive.
However, there is some dispute as to rather the welding “cracks represent a hazard to the traveling public.”
“Examine history,” Brian Maroney, Caltrans’ chief engineer for the bridge, said in a recent interview by the Sacramento Bee. “… Caltrans reviewed major quakes around the globe and never found a case in which weld cracks caused bridge-roadway fractures.”
However, the Sacramento Bee reported that there was a case where welding cracks led to fractures. For instance, after the southern California earthquake in 1994 centered in Northridge, the Santa Clara River Bridge “suffered several fractures in steel girders. The breaks were traced to tiny cracks in welds, likely present before the quake, and worsened by vibrations of heavy trucks passing overhead. When the quake struck, the girders fractured.”
The Santa Clara bridge did not collapse. Sacramento Bee claimed it remained standing because the I-beam-shaped girders were “not fracture-critical.” However, the Bay Bridge’s “roadway consists of box-girder segments welded together. In effect, they create one contiguous, fracture-critical girder,” Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, UC Berkeley engineering professor told the Sacramento Bee. “If welds crack and grow rapidly during a large quake, the entire roadway could fail.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Australians Back U.S. Renewables While Opportunities at Home Ebb
March 16, 2020 —
Natalia Kniazhevich & Matthew Burgess - BloombergSome of Australia’s biggest funds are pouring money into U.S. clean-energy projects as they butt up against a shortage of green opportunities at home.
AustralianSuper, the country’s largest pension fund, recently joined Queensland Investment Corporation in a $1 billion funding round for Generate, a San Francisco-based green-finance company. And Construction and Building Unions Superannuation, another pension giant, made its first U.S. clean-power investments last year.
The investments come as the wildfires that charred an area about the size of New York State have put increasing pressure on funds to do more to fight global warming. The problem, investors say, is the Australian government isn’t promoting clean-energy development, leaving the nation without enough sizable projects to back.
“At this point the platforms of scale don’t exist in Australia,” said Nik Kemp, head of infrastructure at AustralianSuper. “The size of the U.S. market makes for a much larger market and much better long-term growth opportunities.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natalia Kniazhevich & Matthew Burgess, Bloomberg
Federal Court Ruling Bolsters the “Your Work” Exclusion in Standard CGL Policies
October 27, 2016 —
Daniel E. Levin – Florida Construction Law NewsIn Evanston Insurance Company v. Dimucci Development Corportion of Ponce Inlet, Inc., the United states District Court for the Middle District of Florida further clarified the standard CGL policy exclusion (L) – the “Your Work” exclusion, one of the several business risk exclusions in a standard CGL policy which insurers and insureds are most likely to encounter in a typical construction defect claim. No. 6:15-cv-486-Orl-37DAB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123678, at *26 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 13, 2016).
The lawsuit between Evanston Insurance Company and DiMucci Development Corp. of Ponce Inlet Inc. (“DiMucci”) arose out of initial claims by the homeowners’ association at the Towers Grande high rise in Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, against DiMucci for various construction defect related issues. The lawsuit alleged that DiMucci’s work was defective on a portion of the high rise condominium project, which caused property damage to other elements of the building that DiMucci was also responsible for constructing. Specifically, pertinent here, the Association alleged water damage as a result of DiMucci’s improper waterproofing of the building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel E. Levin, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Levin may be contacted at
daniel.levin@csklegal.com
Newmeyer & Dillion Welcomes Three Associates to Newport Beach Office
January 26, 2017 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – JANUARY 24, 2017 – Enjoying rapid expansion in many primary practice areas, Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to welcome new associates
Jenny Guzman and
Jason Moberly Caruso, and welcomes back
Lily (Toubi) Razai to the Newport Beach office. The addition of these three associates fortifies the firm’s commitment to provide unparalleled service to our clients.
Firm Managing Partner,
Jeff Dennis, explained that each hire addresses the immediate and long-term needs of our clients, and firm's desire for strategic growth. "We always remain focused on what will allow us to better represent our clients, not just now but far into the future. We are excited to bring these three talented lawyers aboard as we continue to expand our capabilities across practice areas.”
Guzman, Caruso and Razai each practice business and real estate litigation, with Razai’s practice including land use and eminent domain matters. Caruso also practices construction law and Guzman's practice also focuses on business and real estate transactions.
Each attorney has unique strengths that continue to diversify the firm’s approach to their clients. In addition to serving clients in state and federal courts, Razai has extensive experience in alternative dispute resolution proceedings, and has served as a mediator in state courts. Awarded Super Lawyers 2016 Rising Star, Caruso utilizes his extensive judicial experience to argue on behalf of his clients at various levels from arbitration to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Guzman draws on her past experience in private equity and venture capital to protect businesses and help them achieve their full potential. These three associates, along with their diverse experience and cohesive strengths, further reinforce N&D’s foundation for continued growth and excellence.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Shifting Fees and Costs in Nevada Construction Defect Cases
November 26, 2014 —
Casey J. Quinn - Newmeyer & Dillion LLPIn Nevada, homeowners who sue a builder for residential constructional defects may recover attorneys’ fees and costs caused by the defect. Many times, the request for attorneys’ fees can outpace the size of the actual claim for defects. However, Nevada provides builders with two ways to potentially shift the right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs away from the homeowner and to the builder.
The first arises during the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 40 process (Nevada’s Right to Repair law). After a builder receives notice of construction defects, it is required to provide the claimant with a written response to each defect, which may include a proposal for monetary compensation (including contribution from a subcontractor, supplier, or design professional). See NRS 40.6472. If a claimant unreasonably rejects a reasonable written offer of settlement included in the response and decides to commence litigation, the court may deny the claimant’s attorneys’ fees and costs and award attorneys’ fees and costs to the builder. See NRS 40.650. Thus, by including a reasonable offer of monetary compensation in a Chapter 40 response, a builder could possibly avoid paying any fees and costs and even recover its own fees in defending against the claim.
A second method for shifting fees and costs is through a written offer of judgment (OOJ). See NRS 17.115 and NRCP 68. Not limited solely to construction defect matters, an OOJ is a useful tool in all kinds of litigation. OOJs are designed to facilitate and encourage pre-trial settlement by incentivizing parties to make reasonable settlement offers that—when unreasonably rejected—have the consequence of shifting the right to recover attorneys’ fees. Basically, when a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, the court cannot award any attorneys’ fees and costs to the rejecting party and may award attorneys’ fees incurred from the date of the offer to the entry of judgment, as well as all reasonable costs, to the party who made the offer. In a recent decision, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed that when a homeowner rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, it can wipe out that homeowner’s right to Chapter 40 fees and costs. See Gunderson, et al. v. D.R. Horton, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 9 (Feb. 27, 2014). In other words, “While NRS Chapter 40 permits an award of reasonable attorney fees proximately caused by a construction defect, it does not guarantee it.” Id.
Because of the potentially harsh consequences of rejecting an OOJ, there are specific requirements that must be met to trigger them. An offer of judgment must be made in writing, can be made at any time at least 10 days before trial, and is irrevocable for 10 days with no provision for withdrawal before the 10 days expire. See Nava v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 396, 46 P.3d 60 (2002). A party may make successive offers of judgment, but the most recent offer extinguishes previous offers and is controlling for determining the date from which attorneys’ fees may be awarded. See Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006).
In Beattie v. Thomas, 99 Nev. 579, 668 P.2d 268, 274 (1983), the Nevada Supreme Court explained that the purpose of OOJs are not to cause plaintiffs to unfairly forego legitimate claims. However, when a valid offer of judgment is made, the offer is rejected, and the party rejecting the offer fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, a court must evaluate whether the plaintiff's claim was brought in good faith; whether the offer of judgment was reasonable and in good faith in both its timing and amount; whether the plaintiff's decision to reject the offer and proceed to trial was grossly unreasonable or in bad faith; and whether the fees sought by the offer are reasonable and justified. “After weighing the foregoing factors, the district judge may, where warranted, award up to the full amount of fees requested.” Id.
It is worth noting that in Albios v. Horizon Communities, Inc. 132 P.3d 1022 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that when a party rejects a reasonable OOJ and is foreclosed from recovering fees and costs, the party is likewise foreclosed from an award of fees and costs under Chapter 40. This means that even if a builder fails to include a monetary settlement offer as part of a Chapter 40 response, it may still avoid paying the claimant’s fees and costs with a reasonable and timely OOJ.
Finally, it is important to remember that OOJs are a powerful tool that can cut both ways. If an OOJ is not reasonable and timely, or if it fails to contemplate all the potential recovery of an offeree, the OOJ may have no effect on the outcome of a case. Moreover, if a party rejects an OOJ and fails to obtain a more favorable judgment, that party could end up paying the offeror’s costs and attorney’s fees incurred from the date of the offer. Given this powerful impact, OOJs should be an integral part of pre-litigation planning and overall litigation strategy.
About the Author
Casey J. Quinn is an associate in the Las Vegas office of
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP. His practice focuses on complex commercial, construction, and insurance litigation and appellate work. Casey can be reached by email at Casey.Quinn@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Recent Third Circuit OSHA Decision Sounds Alarm for Employers and Their Officers
October 14, 2019 —
John Baker - White and Williams LLPThe Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that should serve as a warning not only to employers, but to their corporate officers. The case against Altor, Inc., a New Jersey-based construction company, began in 2012 when the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) directed Altor and its sole director and officer to pay a $412,000 penalty (Payment Order) to OSHA for several violations, including the failure to comply with fall protection standards. The company refused to pay, arguing that it did not possess sufficient assets. The Secretary of Labor filed a Petition for Civil Contempt against Altor and its President, Vasilios Saites. The court acknowledged that the company and Mr. Saites could defend against a contempt finding by showing that he and the company were unable to comply with the Payment Order. Beyond merely stating that they could not pay, the court required that they must show that they made good faith efforts to comply with the Order.
After considering all of the evidence, the court ultimately relied on Altor’s bank records, which reflected that the company ended each month during a two-year period after the violations with a positive bank balance. Thus, the court determined that Altor could have made “at least relatively modest” payments and emphasized that the company never attempted to negotiate a reduced sum or a payment plan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Baker, White and Williams LLPMr. Baker may be contacted at
bakerj@whiteandwilliams.com
Between Scylla and Charybids: The Mediation Privilege and Legal Malpractice Claims
August 19, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogI attended a mediation earlier this month in a real estate case. I won’t say more through because . . . well . . . it’s confidential.
The confidentiality of mediations and of settlement discussions generally – the idea being that parties are more likely to resolve their differences if they can speak honestly and frankly with one another without fear that their words or actions can later be used against them in trial – has long been a hallmark of California law.
But that may not be the case for long. In 2012, the California State Legislature directed the California Law Review Commission (“Commission”), the state agency responsible for recommending reforms to California law, to review and make recommendations regarding the relationship between California’s laws which make mediation discussions confidential and attorney malpractice. And it appears that the Commission will be reaching a recommendation soon.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
