House of Digital Twins
March 08, 2021 —
Cristina Savian - AEC BusinessAs a vocal and passionate advocate for the adoption of Digital Twins for our built assets, I keep finding myself standing in, what feels like, the middle of a house of cards, observing its always rocky structure in constant danger of collapse. A wobbly system threatened by the tremors stressed by one of the most prominent digital revolutions that our construction industry has ever experienced.
DIGITAL TWINS FOR OUR BUILT ASSET.
This booming industry trend is gaining speed at a rate that the construction industry has never experienced before. Construction has always been slow at innovating and still holds its title as the least digitalised industry, but the Digital Twin revolution has now found our location and is ready to disrupt. I often witness how these forces attempt to pull down the cards, but, to my surprise, their resilience is what keeps holding the house together. Hold on, is this resilience or resistance?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cristina Savian, AEC Business
Named Insured’s Liability Found Irrelevant to Additional Insured’s Coverage Under a Landlords and Lessors Additional Insured Endorsement
November 16, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Truck Ins. Exchange v. AMCO Ins. Co. (No. B298798, filed 10/26/20), a California appeals court held that even though the named insured restaurant-lessee was found not liable for premises liability to injured restaurant patrons, the respective liability of the named and additional insured was irrelevant to the landlord-lessor’s coverage for injuries “arising out of” the lessee’s “use” of the premises under a landlords, managers or lessors of premises additional insured endorsement on the lessee’s general liability policy.
In Truck v. AMCO, restaurant patrons were injured when a vehicle crashed into the restaurant while they were dining. The landlord was aware of a similar accident that happened several years before, but the current lessee operating the restaurant was not. The patrons sued the lessee, alleging negligence and premises liability for failing to take precautionary measures and safeguard the patrons. On learning of the prior incident, the patrons added the landlord, alleging that it should have protected the property from a recurrence by reinforcing the door and installing bollards by the street.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.K. Construction Growth Unexpectedly Accelerated in January
February 05, 2015 —
Tom Beardsworth – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- U.K. construction growth unexpectedly accelerated last month as housing strengthened and civil engineering bounced back from a contraction.
Markit Economics said its Purchasing Managers’ Index rose to 59.1 from 57.6 in December. A reading above 50 indicates expansion. Economists forecast the gauge would fall to 57, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Beardsworth, BloombergMr. Beardsworth may be contacted at
tbeardsworth@bloomberg.net
Before Celebrating the Market Rebound, Builders Need to Read the Fine Print: New Changes in Construction Law Coming Out of the Recession
November 26, 2014 —
Alan H. Packer - Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPAs the homebuilding market continues to improve, many builders find themselves maneuvering familiar roads. That said, important new realities have taken hold since the market collapse. Navigating these changes requires extra thought for practical and legal reasons.
Using Old Designs “Off the Shelf”?
The adoption of the California Building Standards Code in 2010, with an updated schedule to go into effect January 1, may complicate the use of older designs. In addition, some builders are contemplating building on pads constructed five or more years ago, temporarily shelved until market conditions improved. Because of changes in both the applicable Code and due to possible changes in the underlying soils and drainage, these projects require additional scrutiny before starting construction.
Mechanic’s Lien Law Changes
Not too long ago, the California Legislature recently overhauled the entire mechanic’s lien law system in California. New forms, new statutory references, new rules and deadlines are all applicable to projects under construction now. Make sure your documents are up to date, as the use of older forms (particularly for liens, progress payments, and final payments) could create legal problems in the future.
Indemnity Law Changes
Since 2006, California lawmakers have passed four rounds of legislation aimed at limiting indemnity provisions in construction contracts. The laws are aimed at two aspects of indemnity law: “Type 1” indemnity provisions, and liability for the costs of defending a claim.
Type 1 Indemnity. California law previously permitted a builder to obtain “Type 1” indemnity from its subcontractors for all claims. Under a Type 1 provision, if a claim arose out of the trade’s work, the trade was fully responsible to defend and indemnify the builder – even if other trades or the Builder were partially at fault. Some cases even allowed, typically in a commercial context, the builder to obtain Type 1 indemnity even if the trade was not negligent, as long as the claim involved its work.
Defense Obligation. In 2008, California’s highest court issued an opinion in Crawford v. Weather Shield, evaluating an indemnity provision requiring trade (a window supplier/manufacturer) to defend the builder in claims involving allegations of damages arising out of the trade’s work. Because the trade had contractually agreed to defend the builder, the Court held it responsible for the builder’s defense costs -- even though, ultimately, the trade was found
not liable for the actual damages claimed.
Recent legislation after Crawford has dramatically shifted how indemnity provisions will be enforced. Builders may no longer obtain Type 1 indemnity for residential construction defect claims covered by SB800; instead, indemnity is limited to the extent a claim arises out of the trade’s work. Even more recent legislation applied these changes to claims arising out of commercial construction projects. The recent legislation allows the trades “options” on how to defend the builder, with an eye toward requiring that they pay only a “reasonably allocated” portion for the builder’s defense costs.
Smart builders are refining their contract documents to take into account these new limitations on indemnity provisions.
Insurance Market Changes
Due to uncertainties in subcontractor insurance and other factors, many builders have also converted their liability insurance from a “bring your own” model to “wrap-up” insurance, where the builder’s policy also covers their trades. Builders should carefully examine their subcontracts in light of this change as well.
Trade Partner Changes
On a practical level, many trade partners, particularly in the residential sector, have gone out of business or moved on to greener pastures. Builders need to find and negotiate contracts with new trade partners on the fly, and educate them on the builders’ procedures for payment and construction.
SB800 documentation
A decade ago, most builders updated their purchase documents and subcontracts for California’s “Right to Repair Law” (also known as SB800), which set forth functionality standards for construction defects in residential housing, and procedures for resolving claims prior to litigation. Builders ramping up to meet market demand should examine how they implemented SB800 changes in contract documents. Issues to consider:
- Whether to opt out of -- or back into -- statutory procedures.
- Whether to include arbitration or judicial reference provisions to control where claims are litigated after the SB800 process.
- Re-training personnel to preserve SB800 rights, including sign-offs on purchase documentation and recordation of key documents.
- Recent Court of Appeal decisions have complicated the SB800 landscape, potentially opening the door to “common law” tort claims in at least subrogation contexts. Strategic planning at the document stage may be a good way to mitigate this risk as the cases wind their way through the judicial process.
The continuing surge in building activity is a welcome sign for builders who have weathered the storm. Before taking too many steps, builders should consult with counsel, their designers, and their insurance advisors to take into account the new realities of this recovering housing market.
About the Author
Alan H. Packer is a partner in the expanding Walnut Creek, CA, office of the law firm of
Newmeyer & Dillion LLP whose specialties include real estate, insurance, and construction litigation. To reach Alan, call 925.988.3200 or email him at alan.packer@ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beverly Hills Voters Reject Plan for Enclave's Tallest Building
November 10, 2016 —
James Nash – BloombergA costly battle over development in Beverly Hills, California, ended with voters rejecting a hotel owner’s proposal to combine two planned condominium towers into a single building that would have loomed over the wealthy Southern California enclave.
With 44 percent in support and 56 percent against, Beverly Hills voters turned down plans by Beny Alagem, who owns the Beverly Hilton and is building an adjacent 170-room Waldorf Astoria, to develop a single 26-story tower next to the hotels, instead of eight- and 18-story buildings that were approved by the city council and a voter referendum in 2008. Alagem’s plan sets aside the remaining 1.7 acres (0.7 hectares) for a public park and gardens.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Nash, Bloomberg
Don’t Be Lazy with Your Tenders
October 24, 2022 —
Rick Erickson - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOur clients probably spend significant time, money and effort refining and updating their contract provisions covering indemnification and the duty to defend claims arising on their projects. But they should also consider spending an appropriate and adequate amount of time, money and effort when sending notices, or “tenders,” to enforce those critical provisions. Tenders demanding defense and indemnity are strictly interpreted based on what the contract documents require. Getting tenders wrong can result in losing one of the most significant risk-shifting tools in the contract. It can also be a monumental mistake if insurance coverage for indemnification damages and defense costs are lost because of an inadequate tender.
The legal definition of “tender” is simple; it is “[a]n unconditional offer of money or performance to satisfy a debt or obligation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1479-80 (7th ed. 1999). Whereas “tender of defense” for insurance is “the act in which one party places its defense and all costs associated with said defense with another due to a contract or other agreement … [which] transfers the obligation of the defense and possible indemnification to the party to which the tender was made.” Int’l Risk Mgmt. Inst., Glossary. Thus, when claims arise on your projects, notice by tenders of defense and indemnity will often determine dispute resolution and available insurance proceeds.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rick Erickson, Snell & WilmerMr. Erickson may be contacted at
rerickson@swlaw.com
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Boyfriend Pleads Guilty in Las Vegas Construction Defect Scam Suicide
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFOne of the odder twists of the Las Vegas construction defect scandal was the charge that Nancy Quon’s boyfriend helped her in an initial suicide attempt. Quon, implicated by not charged in the case of taking control of homeowner boards in order to profit from construction defect settlements. William Webb was alleged to have bought the drug GBH in order to allow Quon, his girlfriend, to commit suicide. Ms. Quon later overdosed on a combination of alcohol and prescription drugs.
In addition to pleading guilty to the drug charges, Webb also made a plea bargain with prosecutors in which he did not admit guilt in an insurance fraud charge, but acknowledged that prosecutors would likely be successful at obtaining a conviction. Webb will be sentenced February 7 and is expected to receive a sentence of six years imprisonment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
