Superintendent’s On-Site Supervision Compensable as Labor Under Miller Act
March 13, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. Hirani Engineering & Land Surveying, PC, 58 F.4th 1250 (D.C. Circ. 2023), dealt with the issue of whether a subcontractor’s superintendent constitutes recoverable “labor” within the meaning of the Miller Act and compensable as a cost under the Miller Act that typically views labor as on-site physical labor.
The issue is that the Miller Act covers “[e]very person that has furnished labor or material in carrying out work provided for in a contract.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253 quoting 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(1). The Miller Act does not define labor. The subcontractor claimed labor includes actual superintending at the job site. The surety disagreed that a superintendent’s presence on a job site constitutes labor as the superintendent has to actually perform physical labor on the job site to constitute compensable labor under the Miller Act.
The subcontractor argued its subcontract and the government’s quality control standards required detailed daily reports that verified manpower, equipment, and work performed at the job site. It further claimed its superintendent had to continuously supervise and inspect construction activities on-site: “[the] superintendent had to be on-site to account for, among other things, hours worked by crew members, usage and standby hours for each piece of equipment, materials delivered, weather throughout the day, and all work performed. These on-site responsibilities reflected the government’s quality control standards, under which the superintendent as ‘the most senior site manager at the project, is responsible for the overall construction activities at the site…includ[ing] all quality, workmanship, and production of crews and equipment.” Civil Construction, supra, at 1253-54.
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
U.S. District Court of Colorado Interprets Insurance Policy’s Faulty Workmanship Exclusion and Exception for Ensuing Damage
August 15, 2022 —
Carin Ramirez - Colorado Construction LitigationRecently, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado interpreted a faulty workmanship exclusion in a property insurance policy in The Lodge at Mountain Village Owner Association v. Eighteen Certain Underwriters of Lloyd’s of London, 22 U.S Dist. Ct LEXIS 48883*, decided on March 18, 2022. The Court held that the faulty workmanship exclusion at issue extended to preclude coverage for later ensuing damage that arose from the faulty workmanship, even though the damage was weather related, because faulty workmanship was the primary cause of the ensuing damage.
The claims in The Lodge at Mountain Village arose from maintenance work performed on log siding at three multi-unit condominium buildings in Telluride. The maintenance work to the log siding included staining, finishing, and chinking repairs to joints between the logs. About a year after completion of the work, The Lodge at Mountain Village Owners Association (“The Lodge”) notified the maintenance contractor that logs were extremely weathered and that its work was defective. The Lodge retained an expert who prepared a report stating that the log finish and underlying wood was deteriorating because of the contractor’s work and that some areas were not properly protected from exposure to snow, rain, and brine from ice-melting salt. The Lodge pursued and settled its claims against the contractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Carin Ramirez, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMs. Ramirez may be contacted at
ramirez@hhmrlaw.com
U.K. High Court COVID-19 Victory for Policyholders May Set a Trend in the U.S.
November 09, 2020 —
Andres Avila & Anastasiya Collins - Saxe Doernberger & VitaOn September 15, 2020, in a matter entitled The Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch & Others1, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, the equivalent of a trial court in the U.S., issued a ruling on a COVID-19 business interruption insurance case (the “Judgment”). Significantly, the Court sided with policyholders on most key coverage issues under specific non-damage business interruption insurance coverage forms. U.S. policyholders should review whether any of their policies issued by U.K.-based carriers, which may be subject to English law and have the forms discussed below, are impacted by this favorable decision.
The Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), the U.K. financial regulatory body, brought the case to establish liability under 21 lead representative sample policy wordings from eight insurer defendants. The case was filed on an expedited basis on June 9, 2020 under the Financial Market Test Case Scheme, which is used for claims of general importance that require authoritative court guidance. Although the Judgment is legally binding only on the carriers who were parties to the action, the FCA estimates the case could affect 700 types of policies across 60 different insurers, and 370,000 small to medium-sized enterprises policyholders (“SME”) in the U.K. While the Judgment may be appealed, it is expected to incentivize insurers to settle their claims before the outcome of an appeal is known.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andres Avila, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Anastasiya Collins, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Avila may be contacted at AAvila@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Collins may be contacted at ACollins@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Former Sponsor of the Lenox Facing Suit in Supreme Court
January 13, 2014 —
Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFFLewis Futterman, former sponsor of the Lenox condominium in Harlem, New York, is being sued by the condo board for alleged “building code violations, construction defects, and fraud” according to New York Curbed. The residents claim that Futterman filed for bankruptcy in 2010 to avoid paying for repairs. The Lenox condo board filed suit in the New York Supreme Court last December 31st.
The Lenox’s condo board claims that the building has “fundamental structural flaws, a defective roof and pervasive leakage,” reports Rowley Amato of New York Curbed. The board also claims the original offering plans were not the same as the units purchased by residents in 2006. Residents paid an estimated two hundred and sixty thousand to repair defects within the condominium, and they are pursuing a minimum of four million in damages.
Katherine Clarke of The Real Deal stated that Futterman would only “say that the issue was between the residents and the construction company which built the project.”
Read the full story at New York Curbed...
Read the full story at The Real Deal...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Hawaii Building Codes to Stay in State Control
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Hawaii State Senate voted down Senate Bill 2692. Had it been passed, the State Building Code Council would have been abolished and building codes would have become the responsibility of county governments. The bill was opposed by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. Their director of code development, Wanda Edwards said that the bill “would have undermined key components that are essential to an effective state building code regime.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eighth Circuit Affirms Finding of Bad Faith, Award of Costs and Prejudgment Interest
October 25, 2021 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of bad faith and award to the insured of taxable costs and prejudgment interest. Selective Ins. Co. v. Sela, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 26062 (8th Cir. Aug. 30, 2021).
The insured suffered two hail storms that damaged his home. In 2010, the first storm caused over half a million dollars in loss. Before submitting a claim to his original insurer or beginning any repairs, the insured secured a new policy with Selective. The policy did not exclude pre-existing damage, it did preclude coverage if the insured "willfully and with intent to defraud, concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to the insurance."
Before issuing the policy, Selective appraised the property and assigned a $1.6 million value to the home. The insured then filed a claim with his original insurer and received $510,787.23 for actual cash value of his loss. Neither the terms of this settlement nor this new policy with Selective required the insured to repair all of the 2010 damage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
'You're Talking About Lives': The New Nissan Stadium
August 26, 2024 —
Grace Austin - Construction ExecutiveThe new Tennessee Titans sports complex rising up on the banks of the Cumberland River in Nashville is a big project no matter how you look at it. Nissan Stadium will have 60,000 seats, cover 1.85 million square feet and cost an estimated $2.1 billion. Four contractors are involved, operating under a joint venture called the Tennessee Builders Alliance: Turner Construction Co., AECOM Hunt, Polk & Associates Construction and I.C.F. Builders & Consultants. And nearly 20,000 workers will play a role over the project’s three-year timeline.
The sheer size and scope of the job led Tyler White, TBA’s environmental health and safety director, to think that the project needed to approach safety on a similar scale. The result is a first-of-its-kind public-private partnership between the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration and TBA.
“I thought it would be a good idea,” White says. “I know they’re stretched thin, but [we’re] very appreciate of advocating and allocating their resources.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Grace Austin, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Is There a Conflict of Interest When a CD Defense Attorney Becomes Coverage Counsel Post-Litigation?
September 01, 2011 —
Chad Johnson of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCIn Weitz Co., LLC v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado was asked to rule on a motion to disqualify counsel in an insurance coverage action. 11-CV-00694-REB-BNB, 2011 WL 2535040 (D. Colo. June 27, 2011). Motions to disqualify counsel are viewed with suspicion, as courts “must guard against the possibility that disqualification is sought to ‘secure a tactical advantage in the proceedings.’” Id. at *2 (citing Religious Technology Center v. F.A.C.T. Net, Inc., 945 F. Supp. 1470, 1473 (D. Colo. 1996).
Weitz Company, LLC (“Weitz”) is a general contractor and defendant in an underlying construction defect suit which had concluded before the action bringing rise to this order. In the underlying action, Weitz made third-party claims against subcontractors, including NPW Contracting (“NPW”). Weitz was listed as an additional insured under NPW’s policies with both Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Mountain States Mutual Casualty Company (collectively “the Carriers”). The Carriers accepted Weitz’s tender of defense under a reservation of rights. However, neither insurance carrier actually contributed to Weitz’s defense costs in the underlying action. At the conclusion of the construction defect action, the parties unsuccessfully attempted to apportion the attorney’s fees and costs. Eventually, Weitz brought suit against the recalcitrant carriers. The Lottner firm, which had previously represented Weitz in the underlying construction defect action, continued to represent Weitz in this coverage action.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC. Mr. Johnson can be contacted at johnson@hhmrlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
