ACEC Statement on Negotiated Bipartisan Debt Limit Compromise
June 05, 2023 —
The American Council of Engineering CompaniesWashington, D.C. – The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) released the following statement applauding the negotiated bipartisan compromise to raise the debt limit ahead of the scheduled House vote tonight:
"The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) applauds President Biden and Speaker McCarthy for negotiating a bipartisan compromise to raise the debt limit and avoid a catastrophic default. We are particularly pleased that the bipartisan deal protects the critical funds provided under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and does not include any changes to the Inflation Reduction Act's (IRA) climate and clean energy provisions, which the engineering industry is working hard to deliver successfully. ACEC also strongly supports the provisions in the deal to reform the federal permitting process. These commonsense measures to modernize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), particularly through the use of digital technologies, will improve interagency collaboration and allow engineering firms to help their clients deliver project benefits more efficiently while ensuring strong environmental protections and opportunities for community and stakeholder engagement."
The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) is the business association of the nation's engineering industry. Founded in 1909, ACEC is a national federation of 51 state and regional organizations representing more than 5,500 engineering firms and 600,000+ engineers, surveyors, architects, and other specialists nationwide. ACEC member firms drive the design of America's infrastructure and the built environment.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Creative Avenue for Judgment Creditor to Collect a Judgment
October 27, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesI have a judgment against another entity. Now what? I want to briefly talk about this “now what?” in the context of the recent decision in MYD Marine Distributor, Inc. v. International Paint, Ltd., 41 Fla. L. Weekly D2364a (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). Although this case is not a construction case, it poses an interesting issue for any entity that has a judgment entered against it (known as the judgment debtor) while it is contemporaneously the plaintiff and pursuing monetary damages in an unrelated case or cases. This case also presents an avenue for any judgment creditor to pursue in the event other post-judgment collection efforts are unsuccessful.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
Contractor Succeeds At the Supreme Court Against Public Owner – Obtaining Fee Award and Determination The City Acted In Bad Faith
September 20, 2021 —
Lindsay T. Watkins - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCA contractor won a rare but much-deserved victory at the Supreme Court on July 8, 2021 in Conway Construction Co. v. City of Puyallup, 197 Wn.2d 825, 490 P.2d 221 (2021). The case, which involved an aggressive stance by a public owner:
- confirmed that the public owner bears the burden of demonstrating a termination for default is justified,
- reaffirmed the requirement to provide an opportunity to cure, and
- rejected the public owner’s attempts to escape its own contract language that the contractor relied upon.
John Ahlers and Lindsay Watkins of Ahlers Cressman and Sleight and Jamie Becker of Osborne Construction submitted the Amicus Brief for the Associated General Contractors (AGC) of Washington in support of Conway to the Supreme Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lindsay T. Watkins, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Watkins may be contacted at
Lindsay.Watkins@acslawyers.com
Labor Shortage Confirmed Through AGC Poll
November 26, 2014 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorOver 1,000 contractors participated in Associated General Contractors’ (“AGC”) survey asking whether they were facing a labor shortage. AGC crunched the numbers and provided an Analysis of its survey.
The survey revealed that 83% of construction firms were having trouble finding qualified workers. This survey certainly confirmed comments from construction firms in and around Omaha.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Force Majeure Recommendations
August 15, 2022 —
Denise Motta - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogThis Bulletin provides guidance to contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others to ensure compliance with contractual change order requirements in the event work on a construction project is impacted by a force majeure event.
Contract Protection Tips:
A force majeure event is defined as an unforeseeable circumstance that prevents someone from fulfilling a contract. Because many events arising on a construction project could be arguably unforeseen, it is imperative that the contract contain a Force Majeure provision. Examine all contracts for the applicable Force Majeure provision. Look for a clause like this:
§ 8.3.3 Any failure or omission by Owner or Contractor in performance of its obligation shall not be deemed a breach or create any liability for damages or other relief (other than additional time) if it arises from any cause beyond the reasonable control of such party, including, without limitation, acts of God, floods, fire, explosions, storms, earthquakes, acts of public enemy, war, terrorism, rebellion, insurrection, riot, sabotage, invasion, epidemic, quarantine, strikes, lockouts, labor disputes or other industrial disturbances, or any order or action by any governmental agency, or causes of similar nature.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Denise Motta, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLPMs. Motta may be contacted at
dmotta@grsm.com
Equities Favor Subrogating Insurer Over Subcontractor That Performed Defective Work
August 04, 2015 —
Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Valley Crest Landscape v. Mission Pools (No. G049060, filed 6/26/15, ord. pub. 7/2/15), a California appeals court held that equities favor an insurer seeking equitable subrogation over a subcontractor that agreed to defend and indemnify claims arising out of its performance of work under the subcontract.
Valley Crest contracted to build a pool at the St. Regis Hotel in Dana Point. Valley Crest subcontracted with Mission Pools to perform the work. The master contract contained an indemnity clause in favor of St. Regis, and the subcontract contained an indemnity clause in favor of Valley Crest. An intoxicated guest who was rendered quadriplegic after diving in the shallow end of the pool sued the hotel, Valley Crest, Mission and others involved in the design, construction and operation of the pool. The suit included allegations that the pool depth was improperly marked; there was inadequate warning signage; and the pool finish caused the pool to appear deeper than it was. Valley Crest tendered its defense to Mission Pools under the subcontract’s indemnity agreement. When Mission did not respond, Valley crest filed a cross-complaint for indemnity. All parties ultimately reached a settlement with the injured plaintiff, leaving Valley Crest’s cross-complaint against Mission Pools.
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
California Supreme Court Adopts “Vertical Exhaustion” in the Long-Storied Montrose Environmental Coverage Litigation
June 08, 2020 —
Gregory S. Capps & Michael E. DiFebbo - White and Williams LLPOn April 6, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued a decision that held a policyholder is entitled to access available excess coverage under any excess policy once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period in Montrose Chemical Corporation v. the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Supreme Court of California, case number S244737. In its unanimous decision adopting this “vertical exhaustion” requirement, the court rejected the “horizontal exhaustion” rule urged by the policyholder’s excess insurers, under which the policyholder would have been able to access an excess policy only after it had exhausted other policies with lower attachment points from every policy period in which the environmental damage resulting in liability occurred.
In 1990, Montrose sought coverage under primary policies and multiple layers of excess policies issued for periods from 1961 through 1985 for environmental damage liabilities arising from its production of insecticide in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. The ongoing dispute currently arises out of Montrose’s Fifth Amended Complaint which was filed in 2015 seeking declarations concerning exhaustion and the manner in which Montrose may allocate its liabilities across the policies. Each of the excess policies at issue contained a requirement of exhaustion of underlying coverage. The various policies described the applicable underlying coverage in four main ways: (1) some policies contained a schedule of underlying insurance listing all of the underlying policies in the same policy period by insurer name, policy number, and dollar amount; (2) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and a schedule of underlying insurance on file with the insurer; (3) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance in the same policy period and identified one or more of the underlying insurers; and (4) some policies referenced a specific dollar amount of underlying insurance that corresponds with the combined limits of the underlying policies in that policy period. The excess policies also provided, in various ways, that “other insurance” must be exhausted before the excess policy can be accessed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory S. Capps, White and Williams LLP and
Michael E. DiFebbo, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Capps may be contacted at cappsg@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. DiFebbo may be contacted at difebbom@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Property Owner’s Defense Goes Up in Smoke in Careless Smoking Case
September 23, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistProperty owners owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid causing harm to neighboring properties. When a property owner knows or should know about a condition that poses a risk of danger to neighboring properties, the property owner must exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland recently held that, where hundreds of discarded cigarette butts had accumulated in a bed of mulch over an extended period of time prior to the fire at issue, the owner of the property with the mulch beds owed a duty of care to its neighbors to prevent a foreseeable fire.
In Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 2019 Md. App. LEXIS 430 (May 30, 2019), a fire originated in a strip of mulch at property owned by the Steamfitters Local Union No. 602 (Union) and caused damage to neighboring properties. The fire occurred when an unknown person discarded a cigarette butt into the mulch. Following the fire, investigators found “hundreds, if not thousands of cigarettes” in the mulch where the fire originated. A representative for the Union acknowledged that there were more butts in the mulch “than there should have been” and that, “[i]n the right situation,” a carelessly discarded cigarette could cause a fire. The Union, however, had no rules or signs to prohibit or regulate smoking at the property, where apprentices would often gather prior to class.
The insurance companies for the damaged neighbors filed subrogation actions alleging that the Union, as the property owner, failed to use reasonable care to prevent a foreseeable fire. A jury found in favor of the subrogating insurers and against the Union.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
