The Sounds of Silence: Pennsylvania’s Sutton Rule
January 29, 2024 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistIn Westminster Am. Ins. Co. a/s/o Androulla M. Toffalli v. Bond, No. 538 EDA 2023, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 626, 2023 PA Super 272, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania (Appellate Court) recently discussed the impact of silence on the Sutton Rule with respect to the landlord, Androulla M. Toffalli (Landlord), securing insurance. After holding that the tenant, Amy S. Bond (Bond) t/a Blondie’s Salon – who leased both commercial and residential space in the building pursuant to written leases – was not an implied “co-insured” on Landlord’s insurance policy, the Appellate Court reversed the decision of the trial court.
In this case, Bond rented the ground floor of a property located in Monroe County pursuant to a written commercial lease (Commercial Lease) and operated Blondie’s salon out of the leased location. In addition, Bond rented and lived in a second-floor apartment pursuant to a residential lease (Residential Lease). Both leases required the tenants (Tenants) to obtain insurance for personal items. The leases, however, did not require Landlord to obtain fire insurance for the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges
August 26, 2015 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Lee v. Hanley (S220775 – Filed 8/20/2015), the California Supreme Court clarified the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 by holding that its limitations period applies to claims against attorneys “whose merits necessarily depend on proof that an attorney violated a professional obligation in the course of providing professional services.” Although it resolved a district split by finding that the statute governs for non-legal malpractice claims against attorneys including those of non-clients, by having the statute’s applicability “turn on the conduct alleged and ultimately proven, not on the way the complaint was styled,” this 5-2 decision also increased the specter of creative pleading and lengthy litigation.
In Lee, the client had advanced $120,000 to cover attorney’s fees, costs and expert witness fees for the underlying litigation. After the case settled, the attorney advised the client that she had a credit balance of approximately $46,000. In response to her demand for a refund, the attorney then advised the client that she did not have a credit balance. More than one year later, the client filed suit to recover the $46,000, plus interest. The trial court sustained the attorney’s demurrer based on the one-year statute of limitations in section 340.6. The appellate court, however, reversed, reasoning that the client’s claim could be construed as one for conversion, in which case section 340.6 would not apply.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Waiving Workers’ Compensation Immunity for Indemnity: Demystifying a Common and Scary-Looking Contract Term
October 07, 2016 —
James R. Lynch – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCParties to a construction contract are often skeptical of terms in bold fonts, capital letters, or underlining, and especially terms requiring separate signatures or initials. A natural assumption is that such terms must be harmful if they require such emphasis. This concern is further heightened when the term involves complex areas of law, or waivers of rights that the party may not fully understand. In such cases, a little knowledge can go a long way.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James R. Lynch, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Lynch may be contacted at
jlynch@ac-lawyers.com
Staffing Company Not Entitled to Make a Claim Against a Payment Bond and Attorneys’ Fees on State Public Works Payment Bonds
August 12, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s not quite Baskin Robbin’s “31 Flavors” but the panoply of statutory construction payment remedies available to contractors, subcontractor and material suppliers in California, from mechanics liens to stop payment notices to payment bond claims, can be tempting to reach for when you are not paid. However, some flavors are more readily available than others, as a staffing agency discovered in
K & S Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. The Western Surety Company, Case Nos. C096705 and C097987 (January 2, 2024).
The K & S Staffing Case
The California Department of Transportation awarded VSS International, Inc. two public works construction contracts for road maintenance. Each involved an expenditure of over $25,000 and VSSI obtained a payment bond from Western Surety Company.
Titan DVBE Inc. was a subcontractor on both projects. For most years, Titan employed its own workers. However, when it learned that its insurance carrier would no longer be offering workers’ compensation insurance in California it switched to K & S Staffing Solutions, Inc. to fulfill its staffing needs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
New York Court Grants Insured's Motion to Dismiss Construction Defect Case and Awards Fees to Insured
February 05, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe New York Supreme Court granted the insured's motion to dismiss the insurer's complaint seeking relief on its duty to indemnity and awarded fees to the insured. Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Crystal Curtain Wall Sys. Corp., 2023 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 22368 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 27, 2023).
The case arose from a construction-related property damage action. Crystal entered a subcontract with the general contractor to design and install window and curtain systems in mixed residential and commercial buildings. When unit owners took possession, water infiltration during a rainstorm caused property damage and moldy conditions.
The unit owners sued asserting claims against Crystal for the cost of repair or replacement of the allegedly defective curtain wall, damage to unit owners' personal property, diminution in value of the units, and delay damages consisting of increasing interest and carrying costs.
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
The Construction Industry Lost Jobs (No Surprise) but it Gained Some Too (Surprise)
October 12, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe announcement this week by major airlines and then by Disney that they will be laying off tens of thousands of workers is just the latest in what we already know: The coronavirus pandemic has adversely impacted workers around the world. And the construction industry is no exception, although its impacts have been uneven, and in some cases surprisingly good.
According to a report by the Associated General Contractors of America, 39 states lost construction jobs between August 2019 and August 2020 while 31 states and the District of Columbia added construction jobs between July and August 2020.
California saw the largest decline in construction jobs between August 2019 and August 2020, down 52,000 jobs or 5.8%, followed by by New York (-46,000 jobs/-11.3%), Texas (-39,300 jobs/-5.0%), Massachusetts (-20,200 jobs/-12.4%) and Illinois (-17,200/-7.5%).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Maryland Contractor Documents its Illegal Deal and Pays $2.15 Million to Settle Fraud Claims
January 07, 2015 —
Craig Martin- Construction Contractor Advisor BlogWhy would a contractor create a contract for illegal work? I really don’t know.
Late last year, the FBI announced that a Maryland contractor, Forrester Construction Company, agreed to pay $2.15 million dollars to resolve a criminal investigation into alleged fraud in connection with the use of disadvantaged business enterprises involving more than $145 million of District of Columbia government contracts.
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
