COVID-19 and Mutual Responsibility Clauses
June 01, 2020 —
Joseph M. Leone - ConsensusDocsAs everyone knows, there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the construction industry due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Schedules, productivity, safety processes, and seemingly everything else are being affected. In these difficult times, most contractors are making every effort to work together to solve the problems caused by COVID-19. But what happens when differences arise between project owners, contractors, and subcontractors as to the effect of COVID-19 on a project? One party may want to continue pushing the schedule, others may want to slow down, or, more likely, not be able to keep up with the original schedule because of some reason related to COVID-19. As between a prime contractor and a subcontractor, a mutual responsibility clause can provide some clarity or, unfortunately, depending on how the subcontract is written, confusion.
Almost all subcontracts have a clause which flows down the prime contractor’s obligations on a project to the subcontractor as applicable to the subcontractor’s work. Known as “flow-down” clauses, this clause works in one direction; obligations of the prime contractor “flow-down” to the Subcontractor. A mutual responsibility clause, in essence, works in both directions. The subcontractor is required to perform its obligations consistent with the prime contractor’s obligations to the owner and the subcontractor is granted the same rights against the prime contractor which the prime contractor has against the owner. Obligations flow down and rights flow up. The rights and obligations flowing through the prime contractor include, the obligation to perform the work in accordance with the plans and specifications, the obligation to meet the schedule constraints in the prime agreement, and the right to extensions of time and change orders to the extent the prime contractor obtains the same.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph M. Leone, Drewry Simmons Vornehm, LLP Mr. Leone may be contacted at
jleone@dsvlaw.com
Double-Wide World Cup Seats Available to 6-Foot, 221-Pound Fans
June 18, 2014 —
Tariq Panja – BloombergSome of the double-wide seats that Brazilian law guarantees for obese World Cup fans are being occupied by people who don’t need that much extra space, and FIFA said it can’t do anything to prevent that from happening.
Soccer’s governing body said it is using World Health Organization and official Brazil Ministry of Health guidelines on who can be classified as obese. Those with a body mass index, or BMI, of 30 or higher can purchase a special-needs ticket at half price and get one of the special seats. Someone who is 6 feet tall and weighs 221 pounds (1.8 meters, 100 kilograms) would qualify.
“There are cases where a person doesn’t look obese but meets the guidelines,” Federico Addiechi, head of corporate hospitality, said after a briefing yesterday at Rio de Janeiro’s Maracana stadium, where the World Cup’s July 13 final will be held. “We cannot decide you are not obese if the law says you are obese.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tariq Panja, BloombergMr. Panja may be contacted at
tpanja@bloomberg.net
WSHB Ranked 4th Most Diverse Law Firm in U.S.
July 14, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAmerican Lawyer, in its annual Diversity Scoreboard Survey, ranked Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP (WSHB) one of the four top law firms in the nation. Scores are based upon the firms’ combined percentage of minority lawyers as well as minority partners in U.S. offices.
“Historically, law has not been among the most diverse of professions,” Partner Domingo Tan, Chair of WSHB’s Recruiting Committee, stated according to the firm’s media release. “This trend has recently begun to change and I am proud that our firm is one of the national leaders in recognizing and celebrating diversity as a core value.”
WSHB Partner Jade Tran explained how the firm’s diversity benefits its clients: “At WSHB, we are a litigation powerhouse built upon the experiences drawn from our diverse attorney backgrounds. It’s this diversity that also makes our attorneys relatable to our clients who themselves stem from diverse backgrounds.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Challenging Enforceability of Liquidated Damages (In Federal Construction Context)
March 11, 2024 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent summary judgment opinion from the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), Appeals Of – BCI Construction USA, Inc.,ASBCA No. 6257, 2024 WL 773324 (2024), contains a worthy discussion regarding a contractor’s challenge to the government’s assessment of liquidated damages, specifically the enforceability of the liquidated damages rate. Although this challenge is in the federal context, this discussion would be more expansive and apply outside of the federal context.
When dealing with the enforceability of a liquidated damages, the ASBCA “examines whether the liquidated damages amount ‘is extravagant, or disproportionate to the amount of property loss, as to show that compensation was not the object aimed at or as to imply fraud, mistake, circumvention or oppression.” Appeals of – BCI Construction USA, Inc. (citation omitted).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
OH Supreme Court Rules Against General Contractor in Construction Defect Coverage Dispute
October 30, 2018 —
Theresa A. Guertin - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On October 9, 2018, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a decision in Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., Slip Op. 2018-Ohio-4057, finding that a general contractor was not entitled to defense or indemnity from its CGL insurer in a construction defect suit brought by a project owner post-project completion. With this decision, Ohio has solidified its place amongst a diminishing number of states, including Pennsylvania and Kentucky, which hold that there is no coverage for defective construction claims because those losses do not present the level of fortuity required to trigger CGL coverage. This places Ohio amongst the worst in the country on this issue at a time when numerous states have abandoned old precedent and moved towards a policyholder friendly analysis.
Ohio Northern University (“ONU”) hired Charles Construction Services, Inc. (“CCS”) to construct the University Inn and Conference Center, a new hotel and conference center on their campus in Ada, Ohio. CCS purchased CGL insurance from Cincinnati Insurance Company (“CIC”) insuring the project. Following completion of the project, ONU sued CCS alleging defects in the construction of the completed project, including allegations that windows improperly installed by one subcontractor led to damage to walls built by another subcontractor. CIC agreed to defend CCS under a reservation of rights but intervened in the action between ONU and CCS to pursue a declaratory judgment that it had no obligation to defend or indemnify its insured for the alleged losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Guertin may be contacted at
tag@sdvlaw.com
Applying Mighty Midgets, NY Court Awards Legal Expenses to Insureds Which Defeated Insurer’s Coverage Claims
February 10, 2020 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia & Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIs an insured (or putative insured) entitled to recover its legal expenses if it is successful in coverage litigation? In some states, no. In many other states, yes – based on either a statute or the common law. In New York, an insured may recover such expenses if it was “cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations,” and, while forced into that posture, the insured defeats the insurer’s claim. Mighty Midgets, Inc. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 389 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (N.Y. 1979). As a corollary to that rule, the insured is not entitled to its expenses “in an affirmative action brought by [the insured] to settle its rights. . . .” Id. at 1085. Earlier this week, the New York federal court in United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Lux Maint. & Ren. Corp., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2019) became the latest to apply the Mighty Midgets rule, awarding several insureds their legal expenses after defeating the insurer’s declaratory judgment action.
In Lux, the CGL insurer of a façade-renovation contractor sued the contractor (its named insured) and several owners of a hospital (putative additional insureds) at which the façade-renovation work took place, claiming that the insurer did not owe a defense or indemnity to any of those companies in connection with an underlying bodily injury action brought by an employee of the contractor who was injured while performing the work. The insurer and the putative additional insureds filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the coverage issues, with the putative additional insureds also seeking to recover their legal expenses for defending against the insurer’s action. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that, based on the contractor’s agreement to provide coverage for the hospital owners, and a comparison between the underlying allegations and the policy, the insurer owed the hospital owners coverage as additional insureds to the contractor’s policy; the court also concluded that the insurer owed coverage for the contractor’s contractual defense and indemnity obligations to the hospital owners. After concluding that the insurer’s claim that it did not owe coverage lacked merit, the court turned to the additional insureds’ request for their legal expenses.
The court examined the “well settled” rule under New York law “that an insured cannot recover his legal expenditure in a dispute with an insurer over coverage, even if the insurer loses and is obligated to provide coverage,” but also New York’s “limited exception” to that rule, “under which an insured who is ‘cast in a defensive posture by the legal steps an insurer takes in an effort to free itself from its policy obligations, and who prevails on the merits, may recover attorneys’ fees incurred in defending against the insurer’s action.’ ” Lux, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201805, at *18 (quoting Mighty Midgets, 389 N.E.2d at 1085).
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denial of Claim for Concealment or Fraud Reversed by Sixth Circuit
October 01, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment to State Farm based upon the insured's alleged concealment of the truth when questioned about a fire that destroyed his home. Rose v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17312 (6th Cir. Sept. 8, 2014).
A fire destroyed the insured's home. He reported the loss to State Farm, who assigned Rob Raker to investigate the claim. Coverage was denied because State Farm contended that the "Intentional Acts" and "Concealment or Fraud" conditions of the homeowner's policy were violated.
The insured sued State Farm. The district granted summary judgment to State Farm after finding that some of the answers the insured gave to Raker were misleading and material. The court determined that the insured failed to identify multiple tax liens and judgments when questioned about his financial status.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Inside New York’s Newest Architectural Masterpiece for the Mega-Rich
May 20, 2015 —
Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergThe newest condominium tower in midtown Manhattan's billionaires district is ready to open its doors to buyers. It took almost a decade to get there.
The skyscraper at 53 W. 53rd St., designed by French architect Jean Nouvel and rising next to the Museum of Modern Art, will start marketing its 139 apartments next week, with prices starting at $3 million. Planned since 2006, the project endured the real estate bust and a global financial crisis that decimated demand for luxury homes. Now it's emerging when buyers can't seem to get enough of them.
"We're very eager to begin,'' said David Penick, the New York-based managing director for developer Hines, which is building the project with Goldman Sachs Group and Singapore-based Pontiac Land Group. "We're confident in what we have to sell in the market we're in, and we'll see how it goes.''
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, Bloomberg
