Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes
October 25, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe California Supreme Court doesn’t often delve into construction-related issues, but this year we’ve got two cases, both related to the payment of prevailing wages on California public works projects.
The first, Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1118 which we discussed in our last blog post, concerned whether mobilization work qualifies as a “public work” and in turn requires the payment of prevailing wages. On the same day that the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mendoza, it issued a decision in Busker v. Wabtec Corporation, et al. , Case No. S251135 (August 16, 2021). This is the equivalent of being struck by lightning twice.
In Busker, the California Supreme Court considered whether on a public transportation project “field work” (e.g., building and outfitting radio towers on land adjacent to train tracks) and “onboard work” (e.g., installing electronic components on train cars and locomotives”) requires the payment of prevailing wage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Exact Dates Not Needed for Construction Defect Insurance Claim
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Texas Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court in Vines-Herrin Custom Homes v Great American Lloyds Insurance Company on December 21, 2011. Vines-Herrin Custom Homes built a single-family home in Plano, Texas in 1999. They obtained a commercial general liability policy from Great American, later purchasing coverage from Mid-Continent, which the decision describes as “a sister company of Great American.”
While the home was under construction, Emil G. Cerullo sought to purchase it. At the time, it was under contract to another buyer. Two months later, Vines-Herrin told Cerullo that the deal had “fell through.” Cerullo bought the house with modifications from the original plan. Upon moving in, Cerullo began having water intrusion and other problems. “Cerullo noticed water gathering on window sills and damage to the sheetrock and baseboard.” Additional problems followed, including cracks, leaks, “and in early 2002, the ceiling and roof began to sag.”
Cerullo sued Vines-Herrin, claiming negligent construction. Vines-Herrin filed a claim seeking defense and indemnification under the insurance policies. Coverage was denied and Vines-Herrin filed suit to require coverage and also bringing claims for “breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and DTPA and insurance code violations.”
In May, 2006 Vines-Herrin stated that it had no more defense funds and went into arbitration with Cerullo. The underlying construction defect action was settled for about $2.5 million. As part of the settlement, “Cerullo became the rightful owner of all remaining claims, rights, and causes of action against” Vines-Herrin’s insurers. He then joined the coverage lawsuit.
The non-jury trial was held under the controlling law of the time which “imposed a duty to defend only if the property damage manifested or became apparent during the policy period.” The court concluded in Cerullo’s favor. During the post-judgment motions, the Texas Supreme Court rejected the manifestation rule. Under this ruling, the trial court set aside its judgment and found in favor of the insurance companies. The trial court noted that although “the Residence was covered by an uninterrupted period of insurance (which began before the Residence was constructed) and that the damages to the Residence manifested during the uninterrupted period of insurance coverage,” “Mr. Cerullo failed to allege the date when actual physical damage to the property occurred.”
The first claim by Cerullo and Vines-Herrin was that the “Final Judgment” occurred in October 2004, and that all proceedings thereafter were void. The court rejected this as the “final judgment” is not “final for the purposes of an appeal unless it actually disposes of every pending claim and party or unless it clearly and unequivocally states that it finally disposes of all claims and all parties.” Despite the use of the word “final,” the trial court’s decision did not do this.
The second issue was the application of the Texas Supreme Court case Don’s Building Supply Inc. v. OneBeacon Insurance. In this case, framing rot due to defective stucco was not discovered until after the end of the policy period. The Supreme Court noted that “the key date is when injury happens, not when someone happens on it.”
The appeals court found that the trial court misapplied the Don’s Building Supply decision. Rather than an exact date, “so long as that damage occurred within the policy period, coverage was provided.” The appeals court noted that “Cerullo alleged the house was constructed in 1999 and he purchased it in May 2000.” “By April of 2001, Cerullo noticed that the windowsills in the study were showing signs of leakage and water damage.” As the court put it, “the petitions then alleged a litany of defects.”
The court noted that coverage by Great American was in effect from November 9, 1999 to November 9, 2000. In May of 2000, the house suffered “substantial flooding from a rainstorm that caused damage.” This was during the policy period. “As a matter of law, actual damages must occur no later than when they manifest.”
The court concluded that as damage manifested during the period of coverage, so must have the damage. The court ruled that “contrary to the trial court’s determination otherwise, the evidence showed Great American’s duty to indemnify was triggered, and expert testimony establishing the exact date of injury was not required to trigger the duty.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Fracking Fears Grow as Oklahoma Hit by More Earthquakes Than California
July 09, 2014 —
Zain Shauk – BloombergSquinting into a laptop perched on the back of his pickup, Austin Holland searches for a signal from a coffee-can-sized sensor buried under the grassy prairie.
Holland, Oklahoma’s seismology chief, is determined to find the cause of an unprecedented earthquake epidemic in the state. And he suspects pumping wastewater from oil and gas drilling back into the Earth has a lot to do with it.
“If my research takes me to the point where we determine the safest thing to do is to shut down injection -- and consequently production -- in large portions of the state, then that’s what we have to do,” Holland said. “That’s for the politicians and the regulators to work out.”
So far this year, Oklahoma has had more than twice the number of earthquakes as California, making it the most seismically active state in the continental U.S. As recently as 2003, Oklahoma was ranked 17th for earthquakes. That shift has given rise to concern among communities and environmentalists that injecting vast amounts of wastewater back into the ground is contributing to the rise in Oklahoma’s quakes. The state pumps about 350,000 barrels of oil a day, making it the fifth largest producer in the U.S.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zain Shauk, BloombergMr. Shauk may be contacted at
zshauk@bloomberg.net
Parol Evidence can be Used to Defeat Fraudulent Lien
March 27, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesParol or extrinsic evidence can be used to defeat an argument that a lien is a fraudulent lien. And, just because a lien amount exceeds the total contract amount does not presumptively mean the lien is willfully exaggerated or recorded in bad faith. Finally, a ruling invalidating a construction lien can create the irreparable harm required to support a petition for writ of certiorari. All of these issues are important when dealing with and defending against a fraudulent lien and are explained in a recent case involving a dispute between an electrical subcontractor and its supplier.
In Farrey’s Wholesale Hardware Co., Inc. v. Coltin Electrical Services, LLC, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D130a (Fla. 2d DCA 2019), there were various revisions to the supplier’s initial purchase order, both from a qualitative and quantitative perspective, and a ninth-revised purchaser order was issued and accepted. The electrical subcontractor claimed that deliveries were late, unassembled, and did not include the required marking (likely the UL marking), to pass building inspections. As a result, the subcontractor withheld money from the supplier and the supplier recorded a lien in the amount of $853,773.16 and filed a foreclosure lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Subcontractors Essential to Home Building Industry
February 14, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), Eye on Housing reports that subcontractors are essential to the home building industry—a point that is often overlooked by those outside of the industry. According to the NAHB, “71 percent of those employed in the home building industry are subcontractors.”
The average number of subcontractors used in single-family detached homes in 2012 was twenty-five, however larger builders used more subcontractors: “On average, builders who built more than 25 units used 32 subcontractors during 2012, compared to 23 for builders who built less than 25 units.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Affordable Housing, Military Contracts and Mars: 3D Printing Construction Potential Builds
September 05, 2022 —
Adam J. Weaver & Lindsey Mitchell - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogThe 3D printing construction market is likely on the cusp of a boom.
This unique construction method boasts many advantages in comparison to traditional forms of construction. Projects can be completed more quickly and at a fraction of the cost, given fewer laborers are required and the materials used are much cheaper. Though market growth stalled during the COVID-19 pandemic, industry leaders expect 3D printing construction to experience exponential growth in the coming years.
While 3D printing technology has risen in popularity and prominence in the past couple of decades, it is only recently that 3D printing companies have begun making strides in the construction industry. Critical to the construction process is the software that is used to create and model the planned structure. A software program turns a building’s blueprint into code that then dictates the movement of a 3D printer on the construction site. After a concrete-like mix is loaded into the printer, the printer begins to build the walls by laying one cylindrical layer of concrete at a time, in accordance with the blueprint. There is no one-size-fits-all approach in 3D printing construction: some companies print the core structure as well as the roof and floor of the structure, while others print only the core and shell and install those portions separately using traditional methods and materials.
Reprinted courtesy of
Adam J. Weaver, Pillsbury and
Lindsey Mitchell, Pillsbury
Mr. Weaver may be contacted at adam.weaver@pillsburylaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
COVID-19 Win for Policyholders! Court Approves "Direct Physical Loss" Argument
October 12, 2020 —
Gregory D. Podolak & Christine Baptiste-Perez - Saxe Doernberger & VitaLate last week, a Missouri federal district court provided a significant victory for insurance policyholders for COVID-19 losses. In Studio 417, Inc. v. The Cincinnati Insurance Company 6:20-cv-03127-SRB (W.D. MO, So. Div., Aug. 12, 2020), the Court was called upon to decide whether allegations involving the presence of COVID-19 in and around physical structures qualify as “direct physical loss or damage” to covered property. For those actively monitoring the COVID-19 insurance coverage litigation landscape, this has been a central question – and hotly contested debate – in virtually all first-party property and business interruption claims. Through a detailed and well-reasoned discussion, the Court answered the question with an emphatic “Yes.”
The Plaintiffs – a proposed class of hair salons and restaurants - purchased “all-risk” property insurance policies (the “Policies”) from Cincinnati. The Policies provide that Cincinnati would pay for “direct ‘loss’ unless the ‘loss’ is excluded or limited.” They also defined a “Covered Cause of Loss” as “accidental [direct] physical loss or accidental [direct] physical damage.” The Policies did not contain a virus exclusion. Anecdotally, Cincinnati has been vocal about the general lack of virus exclusions on its standard forms, having recently publicized that the company considers such exclusions “unnecessary” because, in its view, “a virus does not produce direct physical damage or loss to property.” From Cincinnati’s perspective, the insuring agreement is not triggered by these events, so there’s no need to analyze exclusions. Cincinnati relied heavily on that analysis in this case.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory D. Podolak, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Christine Baptiste-Perez, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Podolak may be contacted at gdp@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Baptiste-Perez may be contacted at cbp@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NYC Design Firm Executives Plead Guilty in Pay-to-Play Scheme
June 18, 2019 —
Engineering News-RecordTwo former top executives of New York City-based engineer HAKS pleaded guilty in city court May 13 to bribe charges related to efforts to gain municipal water infrastructure contracts, according to court filings, an attorney for its ex-chief financial officer and plea agreements provided to ENR by the Manhattan district attorney's office.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
