Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania
February 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFDouglas E. Cameron, Jay M. Levin, and Traci S. Rea look at the implications of a pair of Pennsylvania court decisions from 2012. The judge in both cases, Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held that comprehensive general liability policies do not cover any claims that arise from faulty workmanship.
The three conclude that "these holdings may preclude coverage for any tort claims asserted against your company if the allegations involve construction defects, even if you are sued for property damage or personal injury by a third party to your construction contract." They note that both decisions have been appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Expansion of Potential Liability of Construction Managers and Consultants
November 18, 2019 —
Scott D. Cessar - Construction ExecutiveOver the last decade or so, there has been far more judicial willingness to adopt legal theories that result in an increased risk of exposure to construction managers and consultants working on construction projects. This has resulted in a greater likelihood of lawsuits being filed that name construction managers and consultants as defendants and a greater likelihood of those lawsuits surviving efforts to have the lawsuits dismissed prior to trial. The consequence of more claims has led to increased costs for legal expenses, settlements and uncompensated personnel time devoted to the defense of the claims.
This expansion of potential liability may be broken into two sets:
- claims for pure economic loss not arising from property damage or personal injury by parties not in a contractual relationship with a construction manager or consultant; and
- claims for property damage or personal injury by a party not in a contractual relationship with a construction manager or consultant.
The first set concerns claims by a contractor against a construction manager or consultant that its breach of duties owed to the owner on a project and/or its provision of incomplete or inaccurate information on a project, which it knew, or should have reasonably anticipated, would be relied on by the contractor, resulted in damages to the contractor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott D. Cessar, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Cessar may be contacted at
scessar@eckertseamans.com
Digital Twins for a Safer Built Environment
November 24, 2019 —
Cristina Savian - AEC BusinessAs a native of Turin Italy, I was horrified at the Ponte Morandi bridge collapse last year. As a child and as an adult I have travelled over that bridge more times than I can imagine and have often pondered the what-if scenarios. What if it had happened when I or my loved ones were travelling on that bridge? As a chartered construction professional, I ask myself, what could have been done, what should have been done and what can we do to prevent this from happening in the future?
Having access to a digital twin with an integrated understanding of the way the bridge was designed, built and performed over the last 50 years and being able to run “what if” scenarios would have allowed us to have a much greater understanding of the structure and its limitations in its context. This is where I believe a digital twin of any built asset is a step in the right direction.
The digital twin has been proclaimed by many as a milestone innovation in the construction industry, with huge benefits to constructors and owners of assets through efficiencies in manufacturing and operation but also to attracting users of the spaces they replicate. However, digital replicas can take a broad range of forms depending on its purpose, use and application sparking debates among professionals on what they actually are and what represents a ‘true’ twin.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cristina Savian, AEC Business
Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams. Unlicensed Contractor Takes the Cake
August 31, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogBefore the Kardashians, before Empire, before Crazy Rich Asians there was Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous with Robin Leach. The next case, Moore v. Teed, Case No. A153523 (April 24, 2020), 1st District Court of Appeals, is about the unfulfilled wishes and dashed dreams of the $13 million dollar “fixer upper.”
Moore v. Teed
The $13 Million Dollar “Fixer Upper”
Justin Moore just wanted to buy a house in San Francisco. But he couldn’t afford one in the neighborhoods he preferred. But in 2011, luck struck, when Moore met Richard Teed, a real estate agent with “over 25 years of experience as a building contractor,” “an extensive background in historic restorations” and a “deep understanding of quality construction.” Teed told Moore that he could locate a “lower-priced fixer-upper in a choice neighborhood and then renovate it.” Moore was sold.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Chambers USA 2021 Ranks White and Williams as a Leading Law Firm
June 07, 2021 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams is once again recognized by Chambers USA as a leading law firm in Pennsylvania for achievements and client service in the areas of insurance law, real estate finance and banking and finance law. The firm has also been recognized for achievements and client service in banking and finance law in Philadelphia and the surrounding area. In addition, five lawyers received individual honors – two for their work in insurance, one for his work in real estate finance, another for her work in bankruptcy and restructuring and one for his work in commercial litigation.
White and Williams is acknowledged for our renowned practice offering exceptional representation to insurers and reinsurers across an impressive range of areas including coverage, bad faith litigation and excess liability. The firm is recognized for notable strength in transactional and regulatory matters, complemented by the team's adroit handling of complex alternative dispute resolution proceedings. Chambers USA also acknowledged the firm's broad trial capabilities, including handling data privacy, professional liability, toxic tort coverage claims, and experience in substantial claims arising from bodily injury and wrongful death suits. White and Williams' cross-disciplinary team is also highlighted, as one source commented that "all advice was reasoned and respectful. They worked well together and provided exceptional representation."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay
October 19, 2017 —
Clayton T. Tanaka – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOn September 13, 2017, the California State Legislators passed a bill that would make developers and general contractors responsible for subcontractors who fail to pay their employees even though they already paid the subcontractors for the work. Assembly Bill 1701 (AB 1701), sponsored by unions who represent carpenters and other building trades, would require general contractors to “assume, and [be] liable for . . . unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, including interest owed,” which subcontractors owe their employees. Despite vehement opposition from the California Building Industry Association and the Associated General Contractors of California, this bill has been submitted to the Governor and is expected to be signed into law.
NEW REQUIREMENTS
Once signed, this bill would impose the following requirements under Labor Code section 218.7:
- Applies to All Private Works Contracts That Are Entered Starting January 1, 2018.
For private works contracts entered on or after January 1, 2018, a “direct contractor” (i.e., prime contractor or contractor who has direct contractual relationship with an owner) must assume and be liable for any debt which its subcontractor or a lower tier subcontractor incurs “for [a] wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the contract between the direct contractor and the owner.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (a)(1) and (e).)
- The Labor Commissioner and Joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees May Bring Action to Recover Unpaid Wages on Behalf of Wage Claimants.
The California Labor Commissioner and joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees established under the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. § 175a) (typically comprised of labor unions and management) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for unpaid wages owed to a wage claimant. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(1) and (3).) The Labor Commissioner may also bring its claims through administrative hearings (Labor Code section 98) or by citations (Labor Code section 1197.1). (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(1).)
- Third Parties That Are Owed Fringe or Other Benefit Payments or Contribution on Behalf of Wage Claimants (Labor Unions) May Bring Action.
Third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on a wage claimant’s behalf (e.g., labor unions) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for such unpaid benefit payments or contributions. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(2).)
- It Does Not Confer Wage Claimants With Any Right to Sue Direct Contractors.
AB 1701 gives the Labor Commissioner, Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and the unions standing to bring an action against the direct contractor, but it does not confer any private right of action by the wage claimants against the direct contractor.
- Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and Labor Unions Shall Recover as Prevailing Plaintiffs Their Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Including Expert Fees.
For actions brought by Labor-Management Cooperation Committees or labor unions, “[t]he court shall award a prevailing plaintiff in such an action its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(2)-(3).)
- Direct Contractor’s Property May Be Attached to Pay for Judgment.
AB 1701 authorizes the attachment of direct contractor’s property to pay for any judgment that is entered pursuant to this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (c).)
- One-Year Statute of Limitation to Bring Action under This Section.
Actions brought pursuant to this section must be filed within one year of the earliest of: (1) recordation of a notice of completion of the direct contract; (2) recordation of a notice of cessation of the work covered by direct contract; or (3) actual completion of work covered by direct contract. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (d).)
- Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply.
Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
- Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply.
Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
- Further Legislative Efforts on Subdivision (h) Are Expected in 2018.
Subdivision (h), which states that “[t]he obligations and remedies provided in this section shall be in addition to any obligations and remedies otherwise provided by law . . .” (emphasis added) is potentially misleading since the author and sponsor of the bill have indicated that the bill is not intended to punish direct contractors with liquidated damages or penalties. As such, further legislative efforts on subdivision (h) are expected in 2018.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
While workers should be paid for the work they perform, AB 1701 would place undue burden on general contractors to monitor their subcontractors’ payroll, confirm that all wages and benefits are paid timely and withhold disputed payments from non-compliant subcontractors. General contractors would also need to caution against the chain reaction that could result from such withholding, including work stoppage, increased change order requests, and an overall increase in construction costs. Finally, general contractors would need to brace themselves for at least a year after project completion against any union or a Labor-Management Cooperation Committee actions armed with a prevailing party’s right to recover attorneys’ fees and expert fees, for previously unidentified subcontractor or sub-subcontractor workers.
STRATEGIES DEVELOPERS AND GENERAL CONTRACTORS SHOULD LOOK FOR
In anticipation of AB 1701 being signed into law and its potentially harsh effects, developers and general contractors are advised to consult their attorneys for a review and revision of their existing contracts, to develop plans for accessing and monitoring subcontractor payroll records, and to consider strategies for mitigating claims that may be brought against them, as follows:
- Execute all pending agreements
before January 1, 2018 to avoid the effects of AB 1701;
- Include an audit provision
requiring subcontractors and sub-subcontractors to provide payroll records (at minimum, information set forth in Labor Code section 226) and project award information, regularly and/or upon request, with specific deadlines for such production, as subdivision (f) does not specify what is untimely;
- Include defense and indemnity provisions
that would require subcontractors to defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims that are brought pursuant to this section arising from labor performed by employees for subcontractors and sub-subcontractors, and require subcontractors to include a similar provision in their own contracts with sub-subcontractors that would require lower tier subcontractors to also defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims arising from their respective employees’ work;
- Require subcontractors to provide a payment bond and/or a letter of credit
to satisfy claims that are made against the general contractor under this section;
- Require personal guarantees
from owners, partners or key subcontractor personnel;
- Include withholding and back-charge provisions
that would allow general contractors to withhold or charge back the subcontractors for disputed amounts, for claims brought against them, and for failure to comply with the audit, bond, and guarantee requirements.
- Consider implementing a system to confirm evidence of payments,
such as signed acknowledgment of payment by each subcontractor and sub-subcontractor employees and by third parties entitled to recover fringe and other benefit payments or contribution, possibly working with electronic billing software providers to implement such system.
Clay Tanaka is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, focusing on construction, real estate, business and insurance disputes in both California and Nevada. As a licensed civil engineer, Clay has significant experience in design and construction of all types of construction projects, which he has effectively utilized in his litigation, trial and arbitration practice to obtain great results for his clients. For questions related to AB1701, please contact Clay Tanaka (clay.tanaka@ndlf.com) or Newport Beach Partner Mark Himmelstein (mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clayton T. Tanaka, Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMr. Tanaka may be contacted at
clay.tanaka@ndlf.com
Federal Government May Go to Different Green Building Standard
February 12, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe federal government has expressed a commitment to environmentally sound, or “green” building practices, but now the question becomes who decides what constitutes a green building. The U.S. General Services Administration has started a public comment period on what certification program the GSA should recommend. Currently, the GSA uses the LEED standard from the U.S. Green Building Council.
Although there are three green building standards, LEED, Green Globes, and the Living Building Challenge, only the first two are being seriously considered, according to a report on TriplePundit.com. The Green Globes program from the Green Building Initiative has its detractors, as some feel that the program fails to be sufficiently environmentally sound. Green Globes was created by a former lumber industry executive, Ward Hubbell, and is more permissive about woods and plastics used in construction. Hubbell defends the program, saying that the certification program is both rigorous and transparent.
The U.S. Green Building Council also has its critics, and allegation have been made that LEED costs about twice as much as Green Globes in order to enrich the executives at the U.S. Green Building Council. Further, some claim that LEED certification involves lengthy delays. One architect criticized LEED, indicating that if he has questions he would “have to wait a month for a response.”
The U.S. Department of Energy seems to be favoring Green Globes, as their review found it a better choice for meeting government requirements for new buildings. Conversely, the agency preferred LEED for modifying existing buildings.
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
