Risk Management and Contracting after Hurricane Irma: Suggestions to Avoid a Second Disaster
September 14, 2017 —
Stephen H. Reisman, Gary M. Stein & Adam P. Handfinger – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Peckar & Abramson attorneys have assisted contractors in the immediate aftermath of several Hurricanes, including Andrew in 1992, Wilma in 2005, Ike in 2008, and Sandy in 2012. Based on this experience, we offer some post-storm strategies for contracting and risk management in three situations:
- Ongoing projects in the area directly impacted by the storm;
- Projects remote from the storm-impacted areas, but which may be affected by material or labor shortages; and
- Requests for assistance in recovery/clean-up/rebuild eff orts, which would be new projects.
Projects Directly Impacted By Hurricane Irma:
1. Immediately review each Owner contract to determine what notices are required for delays and/or extra costs arising from the storm. Contract notice requirements and time limits vary, whether for force majeure or other similar time and compensation rights. There is no effective one-size-fits-all solution. While the initial notice letters will likely look very similar, you should make sure that each is sent as required by the contract. Check each contract’s requirements for particulars regarding content, the form of delivery, and parties and individuals designated to receive the letters as well as carbon copy recipients like the architect. Follow-up notices and time periods differ from contract to contract and should be tracked so that if, for example, a follow-up notice is required in a week per the contract terms, it is tracked to ensure compliance.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Stephen H. Reisman,
Gary M. Stein and
Adam P. Handfinger
Mr. Reisman may be contacted at sreisman@pecklaw.com
Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com
Mr. Handfinger may be contacted at ahandfinger@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NIST Florida Condo Collapse Probe Develops Dozens of Hypotheses
June 13, 2022 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordFederal investigators looking into the causes of the partial collapse of the 40-year-old Champlain Towers South residential condominium in Surfside, Fla., last year have developed about two-dozen hypotheses, and are working to prove or disprove each, using a growing collection of evidence. They aim to issue recommendations for changes to building codes and standards, in an effort to avoid a similar tragedy, by the end of 2024.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance
August 04, 2015 —
Tanya Salgado – White and Williams LLPThe question of whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee is fraught with confusion and misunderstanding for many businesses. Compounding the problem is the fact that there are a number of different tests used to determine employee status, which vary by jurisdiction and by the particular law in question. For example, the Internal Revenue Service uses the common law rules which focus on the degree of control and independence exercised by the worker. In contrast, the United States Department of Labor uses the “economic realities” test which focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer.
In an effort to help combat the confusion over proper worker classification, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a new Administrator’s Interpretation that provides a detailed explanation of the test used by the DOL to determine if a worker has been misclassified as an independent contractor. The DOL enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which mandates that employees (but not independent contractors) be paid minimum wage and overtime. When a business misclassifies non-exempt workers as independent contractors, and those workers are not paid the minimum hourly wage for their labor, or are not paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, this violates the FLSA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tanya Salgado, White and Williams LLPMs. Salgado may be contacted at
salgadot@whiteandwilliams.com
Court Finds No Coverage for Workplace “Prank” With Nail Gun
April 04, 2022 —
Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogIn the recent case of Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Burby, 2022 NY Slip Op 22070, ¶ 1 (Sup. Ct.) Justice Richard M. Platkin of the Supreme Court of Albany County, New York examined a homeowners insurance policy and determined that a duty to defend was triggered in a case seeking recovery for injuries sustained when the insured, Burby allegedly discharged a nail gun in the bathroom of a work facility at which both Burby and the underlying plaintiff worked. Burby pled guilty to assault in the third degree for recklessly causing physical injury. MetLife, Burby’s carrier, disclaimed coverage based on lack of an occurrence, the business activities exclusion and the intentional loss exclusion, which bars coverage for injuries expected or intended by the insured or injuries that are the result of the insured’s intentional and criminal acts or omissions. Justice Platkin initially reviewed the intentional loss exclusion and lack of an occurrence and found that, from a duty to defend perspective, neither provided a dispositive coverage defense. However, the court found that the broadly worded business activities exclusion, which was not the subject of MetLife’s motion and instead was the subject of a cross motion by Burby, applied to bar coverage. In doing so, the court searched the record and granted summary judgment on the issue, despite MetLife not moving for relief under the exclusion.
With respect to the expected or intended prong of the intentional loss exclusion, the court found that, even if Burby did intend to pull the trigger of the nail gun, it was not pled in the underlying complaint that the harm that resulted to the plaintiff was expected or intended. As such, the court concluded that MetLife did not prove that there was no possible factual or legal basis upon which it could be found that Burby did not reasonably expect or intend to cause injury to the plaintiff.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Rokuson, Traub LiebermanMr. Rokuson may be contacted at
crokuson@tlsslaw.com
New York’s Highest Court Gives Insurers “an Incentive to Defend”
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe New York Court of Appeals, that state’s highest court, has ruled that when an insurer disclaims duty to defend, “if the disclaimer is found bad, the insurance company must indemnify its insured for the resulting judgment, even if policy exclusions would have otherwise negated the duty to indemnify.” The insurer who makes a failed claim that there was no duty to defend cannot thereafter claim exclusions.
This recent New York decision is discussed by Allen R. Wolff and Eric R. Reed of Anderson Kill in their Policyholder Advisor. They note that the decision “confirms that the estoppel rule applies in New York , as it does in at least four other states.”
But this may not be the last word. American Guarantee made a motion for reargument, which the court granted. The case will return to the court in January 2014. They note that “if paying defense costs is the only consequence an insurance company faces for breaching its duty to defend the insured, an insurance company has a financial incentive to ‘kick the can down the road.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Blackouts Require a New Look at Backup Power
April 06, 2020 —
John McBride - Construction ExecutiveRecent blackouts on both East and West coasts are causing commercial property owners to reassess their need for backup power. The likelihood of more-frequent blackouts means backup power must evolve from ensuring the safe exit of office workers to enabling core business functions to continue uninterrupted. That’s a major shift in preparedness that construction executives should consider in future planning.
In New York City on July 13, 2019, a Con Edison blackout left 72,000 customers in Manhattan and Queens without power primarily because of a flawed connection at an electrical substation. Eight days later, a second Con Edison blackout left more than 50,000 customers, mostly in Brooklyn, without power due to high usage during a heat wave. These events occurred even though, as Con Edison stated, the New York City grid is one of the most complex and technologically advanced in the world and contains multiple layers of redundancy.
In northern and central California in late October, 2019, intentional blackouts were implemented by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) on a massive scale in response to out-of-control wildfires. “Never before in California history have more than 2 million people gone five days without electrical power because of the intentional safety policy of a utility,” reported the Los Angeles Times. It was the second massive blackout in California in two weeks, after PG&E had earlier shut off power to almost 2 million people in rolling blackouts.
The blackouts on both coasts are remarkable not only for their breadth but for the range of causes—from limiting wildfires sparked in part by faulty, above-ground, power lines to a flawed connection at a substation to overuse during a heat wave. The conditions creating those causes are not likely to subside, and Con Edison warned this summer of more service outages to come. In California, The Washington Post writes, “blackouts are redefining the prosperous state.”
Reprinted courtesy of
John McBride, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Another Case Highlighting the Difference Between CGL Policies and Performance Bonds
January 07, 2015 —
David M. McClain – Colorado Construction Litigation During the summer of 2011, Ellis Construction hired Cool Sunshine Heating & Air Conditioning to install the HVAC systems in a single-family home it was building for Gary Doberman and Ellen Robertson in Boulder, Colorado. The homeowners took issue with much of the work performed on their home and tried to negotiate directly with Ellis Construction. When those negotiations broke down, the homeowners sent a notice of claim pursuant to the Construction Defect Action Reform Act, C.R.S. § 13-20-801, et seq. One of the defects alleged in the notice of claim was that the SEERS 13 compressor installed by Cool Sunshine was inappropriate for the system and that because it was installed to run on only one stage, it did not meet the City of Boulder’s code requirements for noise levels. The homeowners therefore requested that the compressor be replaced with a SEERS 20 compressor, which would comply with the Boulder City Code.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Faulty Workmanship Causing Damage to Other Property Covered as Construction Defect
September 30, 2011 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiIn yet another recent construction defect case, the Illinois Court of Appeal found for coverage. See Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co. v. J.P. Larsen, Inc., 2011 Ill. App. Ct. LEXIS 872 (Ill. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2011).
Weather-Tite, Inc. hired Larson as a subcontractor to apply sealant to windows installed by Weather-Tite in a condominium building. The windows subsequently leaked and caused water damage. The homeowner’s association sued Weather-Tite for breach of express and implied warranties. Weather-Tite filed a third-party complaint against Larsen alleging that, if it was liable to the association for breach of warranty, Larsen was liable for contribution as a joint tortfeasor. Weather-Tite and Larsen both tendered defenses to Milwaukee Insurance. The tenders were denied and Milwaukee Insurance filed suit to determine rights under the policy.
Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed by all parties. The trial court granted Milwaukee Insurance’s summary judgment motion as to Weather-Tite, but granted Larsen’s cross-motion against Milwaukee Insurance.
On appeal, the appellate court considered whether the underlying pleadings alleged facts demonstrating "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence" within the terms of the policy.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
