Seattle Washington Building Expert Directory

New York Construction Practice Team Obtains Summary Judgment and Dismissal of Labor Law Claims

October 01, 2024 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York, N.Y. (August 23, 2024) – In Trujillo-Cruz v. City of New York, et al., New York Partner Inderjit Dhami, a member of New York Partner Meghan A. Cavalieri’s Construction Practice Team, recently obtained summary judgment and dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law §240(1), §241(6) and §200 claims dismissing the entire case against national developer and construction company clients. The plaintiff alleged to have sustained injuries as the result of a construction site accident occurring on July 11, 2018, while in the scope of his employment as a laborer in connection with the construction/renovation of a residential apartment building in Brooklyn, New York. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that he was injured when he was coming down from a ladder and fell on a 2”x 4”, causing him disabling injuries. The plaintiffs’ counsel articulated a $3 million settlement demand. Labor Law §240(1) imposes absolute liability on a defendant where an injured worker engaged in the performance of covered construction work establishes that a safety device proved inadequate to shield him from elevation-related harm, and that the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate safety device proximately caused the injuries alleged. The plaintiff first testified that he stepped on the 2” x 4” after he came down off of the ladder, but his counsel then prompted him to recalibrate his testimony by asking whether the accident arose when he was coming down the ladder or after he had come down off of the ladder. The plaintiff changed his testimony, alleging that the accident arose as he was coming down the ladder and that he remained partially on the ladder when he stepped on the piece of formwork and fell. Inderjit argued that the plaintiff’s reframing of his deposition testimony was immaterial for purposes of the Labor Law § 240 (1) analysis. Irrespective of whether the plaintiff was on solid ground or had one foot on the ladder at the time of the occurrence, his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was unavailing in that the accident did not arise as a result of the type of extraordinary elevation-related peril protected by Labor Law § 240 (1). Justice Maslow agreed and dismissed the plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claims. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions: A.B. 1701’s Requirement that General Contractors Pay Subcontractor Employee Wages Will Do More Harm Than Good

November 02, 2017 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Omar Parra - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Tales of subcontractors who close up shop before paying their employees are not all that uncommon, but they are certainly not common enough to require General Contractors to pay for that same labor twice. Last month, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1701, which requires the General Contractor of a private construction project to pay all unpaid wages and fringe benefits owed to an employee of a subcontractor, irrespective of the tier, and even if the General Contractor made the payment. With the Governor’s recent signature, Assembly Bill No. 1701 is now the law of the land. Here is what you need to know:

It applies to all private (but not public) construction contracts entered into on or after January 1, 2018;
It gives a subcontractor’s employee a direct cause of action against the General Contractor for any unpaid wages and fringe benefits, even if the General Contractor has fully paid the subcontractor;
It gives a third party owed fringe or other benefits a cause of action against the General Contractor;
All actions by the employee or third party must be filed within one year of the earliest of the recordation of the notice of completion, the recordation of the notice of cessation of work, or the actual completion of the work;
The General Contractor cannot contract to avoid the liability imposed by Assembly Bill No. 1701, but it can seek indemnity from the subcontractor; and
At the General Contractor’s request, the subcontractor shall provide the General Contractor with its payroll records.

Reprinted courtesy of Steven Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Omar Parra, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com Mr. Parra may be contacted at oparra@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Water Bond Would Authorize $7.5 Billion for California Water Supply Infrastructure Projects

October 29, 2014 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
When California voters cast their votes on November 4, 2014 they will decide the fate of a $7.5 billion water bond proposal – Proposition 1 – which would authorize $7.12 billion in new general obligation bonds and reallocate $425 million in previously authorized but unissued bonds for water supply infrastructure projects. Proposition 1 – The Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 If you live in California you know that the state is in the midst of its third straight year of drought. And it’s no ordinary drought. According to some, it’s the severest drought on record, as nearly the entire state experiences “severe” to “exceptional” drought conditions across its counties. The California Water Resources Board has implemented emergency water conservation regulations including hefty fines for those who don’t comply and even Governor Brown has allowed the grounds of the State Capitol to go brown to underscore the severity of the situation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@kmtg.com

Maryland Finally set to Diagnose an Allocation Method for Progressive Injuries

February 18, 2020 — William S. Bennett - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Maryland’s highest court recently heard arguments regarding the proper method of allocation of the covered damages from a slowly progressing asbestos injury amongst insurance policies in place over a period of years. Rossello v. Zurich American Insurance Company, Case No. 2436 (Md. 2019). The court may also be forced to determine what the proper trigger of coverage is for latent bodily injury claims, although the plaintiff has not framed the issue in that manner. In Rossello, the plaintiff, Patrick Rossello, worked for a period of years for the now-defunct Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. (“Mitchell”), a construction company operating until 1976. In 1974 he was exposed to and inhaled asbestos fibers. He was ultimately diagnosed in 2013 with malignant mesothelioma as a result of that exposure. Rossello obtained a judgment for approximately $2,700,000 against Mitchell and secured the right to pursue its insurance. As relevant to this dispute, Mitchell carried liability insurance policies, which provide coverage for asbestos related claims, from 1974 to 1977. Rossello seeks to hold Zurich, as successor to Maryland Casualty Company, accountable for the full value of his award, based on the 1974 policy. Although this contention actually implicates two separate issues, plaintiff’s counsel passed over the initial trigger of coverage issue and focused instead on the issue of allocation of coverage. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Bennett may be contacted at wsb@sdvlaw.com

South African Building Industry in Line for More State Support

November 08, 2021 — Prinesha Naidoo - Bloomberg
South Africa’s government is planning more measures to bolster its ailing building industry after banning the use of imported cement on state construction projects. “Government is undertaking research across a range of construction-related products where there appears to be significant potential for localization,” Stephen Hanival, chief economist at the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition, said in an emailed response to questions. “Further announcements will be made in due course.” The country’s preferential procurement policy framework enables the department to designate sectors for localization in line with national development and industrial policy goals. While the government has pursued localization since 2014, it has become more strategic since the advent of the pandemic with business, government and labor groups agreeing on an initial list of 42 products and sub-sectors that should be prioritized, Hanival said. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Prinesha Naidoo, Bloomberg

Ten Firm Members Recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars

September 16, 2019 — Jonathan Schirmer - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
While we avoid using this blog as a platform for self-promotion, long-time readers will know we make an exception to recognize the Super Lawyers of the firm, each of whom is humbled to receive this peer-rated award. Super Lawyers recognizes attorneys who have distinguished themselves in their legal practice as recognized by their peers. Attorneys are selected through a patented selection process combining peer nominations and independent research. Results are based on legal excellence, industry involvement, and civic leadership. Only five percent of lawyers in Washington State are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers, and no more than 2.5 percent are selected for the honor of Super Lawyers Rising Stars. John P. Ahlers, one of the firm’s founding partners, was again recognized as one of the Top 10 Lawyers out of all Washington lawyers. Founding partner Paul R. Cressman Jr. was again recognized as one of the 100-Best Lawyers considering Lawyers State of Washington wide. In addition, four other firm members are also recognized as Super Lawyers: Founding Partner Scott R. Sleight, Brett M. Hill, Bruce A. Cohen, and Lawrence S. Glosser. Partners Ryan W. Sternoff and Lindsay (Taft) Watkins, and associates Ceslie A. Blass and Scott D. MacDonald are all recognized as Super Lawyer Rising Stars, which recognizes attorneys either 40 years old or younger, or in practice 10 years or less. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC

City Covered From Lawsuits Filed After Hurricane-Damaged Dwellings Demolished

January 15, 2014 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that a duty to defend was owed St. Bernard Parish after it was sued for condemning and demolishing housing destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Lexington Ins. Co. v. St. Bernard Parish Gov't, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24292 (5th Cir. Dec. 6, 2013). St. Bernard's policies with Lexington provided coverage for "property damage" and "personal and advertising injury." The policies included a $10,000,000 per occurrence and aggregate limit, subject to a $250,000 retained limit. Lexington denied coverage and filed for a declaratory judgment that the policies' $250,000 retained limit applied separately to each alleged demolition or property damage asserted in the underlying actions. Under this theory, no defense would be owed because no property had a value exceeding $250,000. The District Court found that only one retained limit applied. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

Court Sharpens The “Sword” And Strengthens The “Shield” Of Contractors’ License Law

July 24, 2023 — Kyle S. Case - ConsensusDocs
Performing construction work without the necessary license can have significant repercussions on a contractor’s business. California in particular has become known for its imposition of “strict and harsh” penalties for a contractor’s failure to maintain proper licensure. In the realm of public works projects, any contract with an unlicensed contractor is deemed void. See Business & Professions Code Section 7028.15(e). On private projects, California’s Contractors’ License Law prohibits contractors from maintaining any action to recover payment for their work, and more severe, may require a contractor to disgorge all funds paid to it for performing unlicensed work. See Business & Professions Code Section 7031). These methods of deterrence are referred to as the “shield” and “sword” of the Contractors’ State License Law. Loranger v. Jones, 184 Cal. App. 4th 847, 854 (2010). In any discussion surrounding licensure, it is important to review the language of the Business and Professions Code (“Bus. & Prof.”). Section 7031(a) states:

Except as provided in subdivision (e), no person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor, may bring or maintain any action, or recover in law or equity in any action, in any court of this state for compensation for the performance of any act or contract where a license is required by this chapter without alleging that they were a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance of that act or contract regardless of the merits of the cause of action brought by the person…

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kyle S. Case, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald LLP
Mr. Case may be contacted at kcase@watttieder.com

SEATTLE WASHINGTON BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES