AECOM Out as General Contractor on $1.6B MSG Sphere in Las Vegas
January 18, 2021 —
Doug Puppel - Engineering News-RecordDevelopers of the $1.66-billion MSG Sphere in Las Vegas have removed AECOM as general contractor on the project and will bring construction management in-house for the 875,000-sq-ft entertainment venue, according to a Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. statement released Dec. 17.
Reprinted courtesy of
Doug Puppel, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal District Court Finds Coverage Barred Because of Lack of Allegations of Damage During the Policy Period and Because of Late Notice
December 29, 2020 —
Robert Dennison - Traub LiebermanIn American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, 2020 WL 5630017 (Sept. 21, 2020), the Northern District of California of the United States District Court had occasion to consider whether allegations in an underlying complaint triggered a duty to defend and a late notice defense to coverage.
The underlying actions were a suit against the City of Walnut Creek for damages from flooding allegedly caused by the City’s failure to develop and maintain its storm drains.The City settled the cases then sued its liability insurers who issued its coverage in the period 1968 to 1986 for indemnification of the amounts spent to defend and settle the cases.The published decision involved three Travelers’ policies issued to the City between 1968 and 1976, as to which Travelers sought summary judgment as to the lack of coverage in its policies.
The district court first found that the definition of an “occurrence” in the policies, in one policy “an event or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions which causes injury to person or damage to property during the policy period” and in the other two “an accident, including injurious exposure to conditions, which results during the period this policy is in effect, in bodily injury or property damage,” fell within the rule of Montrose Chemical Corp. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 645, that injury or damage during the policy period must occur in order for the policy to be triggered.The court agreed with Travelers that while there were allegations of flooding for many years, the only claims/allegations of property damage were for the period 2000 and later.Therefore the property damage coverage in the policies was never triggered.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert Dennison, Traub LiebermanMr. Dennison may be contacted at
rdennison@tlsslaw.com
Residential Construction: Shrinking Now, Growing Later?
August 17, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFJim Haugey, the Chief Economist for Reed Construction Data noted that new residential construction spending fell 0.2% in June and a slightly larger drop of 0.5% in residential remodeling. While economic growth is still low, Haugey states that homebuilders have “record low inventories.” He forecasts a shrinkage of 1.5% in 2011, followed by about 20% growth in 2012.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Mandatory Bond Notice Forms in Florida
December 16, 2019 —
Brian A. Wolf & Miles D. Jolley - Smith CurrieSubcontractors and suppliers must now use new, statutory notice of nonpayment forms to preserve payment bond claims, and sign each notice of nonpayment under oath.
The State of Florida instituted changes to the statutes governing public-project payment bonds (section 255.05, Florida Statutes) and private-project payment bonds (section 713.23, Florida Statutes). The changes went into effect on October 1, 2019. Previously, notices of nonpayment were not required to be signed under oath. Now, the law requires the use of specific statutory notice forms that claimants must sign under oath. Previously, there were no statutory penalties for claimants who exaggerated the amount claimed against a payment bond. Now there are specific statutory penalties against a claimant who willfully or negligently signs a notice of nonpayment that includes a claim for work not performed or materials not furnished, or who is guilty of signing a notice prepared with willful or gross negligence.
Public construction payment bonds are governed by section 255.05, Florida Statues, also known as Florida’s Little Miller Act. This statute requires all payment bond claimants who don’t have a direct contract with the general contractor to serve both the bonding company and the general contractor with a notice of nonpayment no later than 90 days after their last date of work or last delivery of materials. The amended statute now requires that the claimant use the statutory notice form and sign the form under oath. If the claimant includes exaggerated claims, or intentionally makes a claim for work or materials not provided, or otherwise prepares a notice with gross negligence, then the bonding company and the general contractor will be able to use such as a complete defense to an otherwise valid bond claim.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brian A. Wolf, Smith Currie and
Miles D. Jolley, Smith Currie
Mr. Wolf may be contacted at bawolf@smithcurrie.com
Mr. Jolley may be contacted at mdjolley@smithcurrie.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on Greystone
November 18, 2011 —
Derek J. Lindenschmidt, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCOn November 1, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the certified question of whether property damage caused by a subcontractor’s faulty workmanship is an “occurrence” for purposes of a commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., No. 09-1412 (10th Cir. Nov. 1, 2011), the Tenth Circuit determined that because damage to property caused by poor workmanship is generally neither expected nor intended, it may qualify under Colorado law as an occurrence and liability coverage should apply. Id. at 2.
The short history of the Greystone case is as follows. In Greystone Const., Inc. v. National Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1213 (D. Colo. 2009), two contractors and one of their insurers brought an action against a second insurer after the second insurer refused to fund the contractors’ defense in construction defect actions brought by separate homeowners. Id. at 1215. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, relying on General Sec. Indem. Co. of Arizona v. Mountain States Mut. Cas. Co., 205 P.3d 529 (Colo. App. 2009), granted summary judgment in favor of the second insurer on the basis that the homeowners’ complaints did not allege accidents that would trigger covered occurrences under the second insurer’s policies. Id. at 1220. Notably, the Greystone, General Security, and other similar decisions prompted the Colorado General Assembly to enact C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which was designed to provide guidance for courts interpreting perceived coverage conflicts between insurance policy provisions and exclusions. The statute requires courts to construe insurance policies to favor coverage if reasonably and objectively possible. C.R.S. § 13-20-808(5).
The Tenth Circuit began its analysis by determining whether C.R.S. § 13-20-808, which defines the term “accident” for purposes of Colorado insurance law, would have a retroactive effect, and thereby settle the question before the court. The Tenth Circuit gave consideration to several Colorado district court orders issued since the enactment of C.R.S. § 13-20-808 which have suggested that the statute does not apply retroactively, including Martinez v. Mike Wells Constr., No. 09cv227 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Mar. 1, 2011), and Colo. Pool. Sys., Inv. V. Scottsdale Ins. Co., No. 09cv836 (Colo. Dist. Ct., Oct. 4, 2010). The Tenth Circuit also attempted to ascertain the General Assembly’s intent behind the term “all insurance policies currently in existence...” Greystone, No. 09-1412, at 12. The Tenth Circuit determined that the General Assembly would have more clearly stated its intentions for the term if it was supposed to apply retroactively to expired policies, rather than those still running. Id. at 12-13. Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit decided that C.R.S. § 13-20-808 did not apply retroactively, but noted that “the retrospective application of the statute is not necessarily unconstitutional.” Id. at 9, 11-14. As such, the Tenth Circuit advised that it was required to decide the question presented in the appeal under the principles of Colorado insurance law. Id. at 15.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Lindenschmidt can be contacted at lindenschmidt@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“To Indemnify, or Not to Indemnify, that is the Question: California Court of Appeal Addresses Active Negligence in Indemnity Provisions”
April 05, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn California, it is well-established that the extent of a party’s obligation under an indemnity agreement is an issue of contractual interpretation, and it is therefore the intent of the parties that should control. What is the parties’ intent, then, when a subcontractor (indemnitor) agrees to indemnify the general contractor (indemnitee) “except to the extent the claims arise out of the general contractor’s active negligence or willful misconduct”? Does this mean the general contractor is barred entirely from recovering any indemnity if its active negligence contributed to the injury? Not according to the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal, which recently held that an actively negligent general contractor may still recover indemnity for the portion of liability attributable to the fault of others. Oltmans Construction Co. v. Bayside Interiors, Inc., No. A147313, 2017 WL 1179391, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2017).
In Oltmans Construction, an employee of O’Donnell Plastering, Inc. (“O’Donnell”), a sub-subcontractor of Bayside Interiors, Inc. (“Bayside”), which was a subcontractor to Oltmans Construction Company (“Oltmans”), sustained injuries when he fell through a skylight opening in the roof of a building under construction. The employee filed suit against Bayside, Oltmans, and the building’s owner, arguing Oltmans negligently cut and left unsecured the skylight opening. Oltmans subsequently filed a Cross-Complaint against Bayside and O’Donnell, contending it was entitled to indemnification under the governing agreements.
Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So
January 11, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsWelcome to 2021! As often happens here at Construction Law Musings, the year starts with a few posts on notable construction law cases that dropped in the past year or so. Not only does this review hopefully help you keep up, but helps me keep up with the latest developments (one of the reasons why I keep blogging).
The first of these cases is Appalachian Power Co. v. Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. out of the Western District of Virginia federal court. In this case, Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. (“Wagman”) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) contracted for the design and construction of a highway interchange project (the “Project”). Wagman and the Appalachian Power Company (“APCO”) entered into a written contract (the “Written Contract”) for APCO to remove and relocate its utility structures (the “Work”) in order to facilitate construction for the Project.
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
Quick Note: Aim to Avoid a Stay to your Miller Act Payment Bond Claim
February 23, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesStrategy is important. This is especially true if you are trying to avoid arbitration. In a recent federal district court case, a subcontractor sued the prime contractor and the Miller Act payment bond surety. The subcontractor, however, had an arbitration provision in its subcontract with the prime contractor. The prime contractor moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the subcontract and moved to stay the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim. The last thing, and I mean the last thing, the subcontractor wanted to do was to stay its claim against the Miller Act payment bond. However, the district court compelled the subcontractor’s claim against the prime contractor to arbitration and stayed the subcontractor’s Miller Act payment bond claim pending the outcome of the arbitration. See U.S. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., 2017 WL 495614 (S.D.Al. 2017). This is not what the subcontractor wanted.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
