The Air in There: Offices, and Issues, That Seem to Make Us Stupid
October 28, 2015 —
Eric Roston – BloombergIt's tempting to conclude from the climate change debate that all that carbon dioxide in the air is making everybody dumber.
In fact, all that carbon dioxide in the air is making everybody dumber.
Workers showed diminished cognitive functioning after spending several hours in office air that had normal levels of CO2 and chemical pollutants and ordinary ventilation, in a study published this week in Environmental Health Perspectives. Researchers tinkered with the levels of carbon dioxide and volatile organic compounds (airborne chemicals) and the amount of outside air pumped in, while the subjects did their regular work, though at a Syracuse University lab. The levels were chosen to simulate the indoor environment of conventional offices, LEED Platinum "green" buildings, and green buildings with an elevated outdoor ventilation rate ("Green+"). The 24 participants, including architects, engineers, and marketing professionals, were exposed to different conditions on different days during the six-day study, not knowing of the changes.
At 3 pm every day, the researchers administered computer-based cognitive tests of strategy-setting and focus, for example, and recorded the results and the kind of air the participants had been breathing. A day spent in the air of an extra-ventilated green building correlated with the best performance on the tests. Participants performed 61 percent better in green-building air than in conventional air, and 101 percent higher in the Green+ scenario. The research was supported in part by a United Technologies gift to Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. United Technologies, which makes building systems, wasn't involved in the experiment itself.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric Roston, Bloomberg
A Bill for an Act Concerning Workers’ Compensation – 2014 Edition
January 13, 2014 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Esq. - Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCWorkers’ compensation (“WC”) costs are a significant portion of the labor costs experienced by construction companies. These costs have typically risen over time due to the “experience modification factor.” This term means the amortized cost of past claims recovered through future premiums charged by an insurer to an employer. As a company’s claims go up in both number of claims and total expense of claims over time, the experience modifier increases as a multiplier of the base WC premium. As with other general medical costs, the question is not whether the cost of claims with a medical component will go up, but rather the rate at which they will increase from year to year.
It is with these facts of life in mind that it is reported that the Colorado legislature will take up a bill concerning WC benefits in the 2014 session. This bill, if passed, will have the likely effect of dramatically increasing the cost of WC claims to the construction industry - along with all other Colorado employers.
The draft bill has three distinct changes for the current law, each of which serves to change the delicate balance of rights and obligations of employers and employees under existing law.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Esq.W. Berkeley Mann, Esq. can be contacted at
mann@hhmrlaw.com
Congratulations to Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, Karen Baytosh, and Associate Matthew Cox for Their Inclusion in 2022 Best Lawyers!
September 13, 2021 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce Partners Nicole Whyte, Keith Bremer, Peter Brown, and Karen Baytosh have been selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2022 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America, and Associate Matthew Cox has been included in the Second Edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch. Each person is being recognized for their diligent work in the areas of Family Law, Construction, Commercial, and Personal Injury Litigation.
Best Lawyers is the most respected peer-review publication in the history of the legal profession. Acknowledgment in both The Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch edition is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, bestowed on a lawyer by his or her peers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Construction Attorneys Tell DBR that Business is on the Rise
October 08, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Daily Business Review reported that Florida “attorneys anticipate lawsuits over construction defects, workmanship, change orders and warranties.”
"We construction lawyers know this wave of litigation is coming, and we are getting ready," said attorney Jason Kellogg, a partner at Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman in Miami, told the Daily Business Review.
Kellogg also stated that “there is a shortage of skilled workers in areas such as plumbing, electrical and other specialities that almost inevitably will lead to subpar work and defect litigation.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is Settling a Bond Claim in the Face of a Seemingly Clear Statute of Limitations Defense Bad Faith?
October 11, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWe have often discussed payment and performance bonds here at Construction Law Musings, most often in the context of payment bond claims relating to federal and state-owned. construction projects. A late 2020 case out of the Eastern District of Virginia federal court examined what happens after such a claim, in this case, based upon a developer’s subdivision bonds, is made and negotiations commence between the surety and the claimant. Specifically, Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Ransgate Corp., et. al. looked at claims for indemnity by a surety and the principal/indemnitors in the event that the Surety settled such a claim.
In the Ramsgate case, Surety provided two separate subdivision subcontract bonds to Ramsgate. Pursuant to those bonds and the indemnity clause of its indemnity agreement, the Surety sought reimbursement of its $80,000.00 settlement payment to the local building authority that it paid to resolve what was originally a claim for over $420,000.00 by the City. The project was started in 2002 and after many years of failures to complete (according to the City of Suffolk), the City made its claim for expenses in 2017. Ramsgate claimed that it completed the subdivisions in 2003.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Another Colorado City Passes Construction Defects Ordinance
February 18, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFLone Tree, Colorado’s City Council passed an ordinance to distinguish its construction defect laws from the state’s, according to the Denver Business Journal. The city of Lakewood passed a similar ordinance last October.
The Denver Business Journal reported that the new “ordinance makes changes such as establishing time frames for notifying the builder of a construction defect, allowing the builder to inspect the property and allowing the builder to repair the problem, with the homeowners' agreement.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
One Colorado Court Allows Negligence Claim by General Contractor Against Subcontractor
December 20, 2012 —
HEATHER ANDERSON , HIGGINS, HOPKINS, MCLAIN & ROSWELLJudge Paul King of the Douglas County District Court recently confirmed that subcontractors in residential construction owe an independent duty, separate and apart from any contractual duties, to act without negligence in the construction of a home in Colorado. See Order, dated September 7, 2010,
Sunoo v. Hickory Homes, Inc. et al., Case No. 2007CV1866; see also
Cosmopolitan Homes, Inc. v. Weller, 663 P.2d 1041 (Colo. 1983);
A.C. Excavating v. Yacht Club II Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 114 P.3d 862 (Colo. 2005). He also verified that the holding in the
B.R.W. Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66 (Colo. 2004)[1] case does not prohibit general contractors, such as Hickory Homes, from enforcing a subcontractor’s independent duty to act without negligence in the construction of a home.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Anderson, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC.Ms. Anderson can be contacted at
anderson@hhmrlaw.com
