Occurrence Found, Business Risk Exclusions Do Not Bar Coverage for Construction Defects
May 13, 2014 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe court determined that the supplier of cement for the construction of pools had coverage for alleged construction defects in the finished pools. Harleysville Worcester Ins. Co. v. Paramount Concrete, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43889 (D. Conn. March 31, 2014).
R.I. Pools sued Paramount, a manufacturer and supplier of shotcrete, after cracking appeared in nineteen pools built by R.I. Pools using Paramount's shotcrete. The jury awarded R.I. Pools compensatory damages of $2,760,000.
Paramount's insurer, Harleysville, defended under a reservation of rights. After the verdict, Harleysville filed for a declaratory judgment that there was no coverage under the CGL policy. Paramount filed for partial summary judgment.
Harleysville first argued there was no occurrence. The policy's definition of occurrence included the phrase, "continuous exposure." This broadened the term "occurrence" beyond the word accident to include a situation where damage occurred over a period of time, rather than suddenly or instantaneously.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
How AB5 has Changed the Employment Landscape
March 16, 2020 —
Jason Morris – Newmeyer DillionAs a result of California's Assembly Bill 5, effective January 1, 2020, the California Supreme Court's ABC test is now the standard for evaluating independent contractor classifications for purposes of the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, California Labor Code, and the California Unemployment Insurance Code. That dramatically ups the ante for companies that rely on independent contractors, particularly those that have not re-evaluated such classifications under the ABC test.
Misclassification cases can be devastating, especially for misclassified non-exempt employees, and can result in minimum wage violations, missed meal and rest periods, unpaid overtime, unreimbursed business expenses, record-keeping violations, steep penalties, attorneys' fees, and even criminal liability, among other consequences. Misclassifying workers creates enormous risks for companies and is fertile ground for class actions and representative actions under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
The Costs Of Misclassification Are Expensive, And Hope Is Not A Strategy
Many business owners I speak to understand AB5 has caused the ground to shift beneath their feet and recognize the resulting risks of misclassifying workers. Despite these risks, companies often balk at taking the necessary steps to evaluate their classifications and mitigate the risk of an adverse classification finding.
The most common reason I hear from resistant companies is the worker does not want to be reclassified as an employee and the company trusts the worker ("I've worked with her for years; she won't sue me because she wants to be a contractor"). I get it. Making the change from contractor to employee results in less flexibility and greater administrative burden for everyone involved. While I'm sympathetic, the government is not. Reluctance to change while acknowledging the associated risks amounts to a strategy based on hope. As we say in the Marine Corps, however, "hope is not a strategy."
Aside from the sometimes foolhardy belief that a misclassified worker can be trusted to not file suit after a business breakup (when the deposits stop and mortgage bill comes due, guess who's a prime target), companies often fail to recognize the numerous ways in which their classification decisions can be challenged even when they are in agreement with their (misclassified) contractors. Here are just three examples of how your classifications can be scrutinized despite the lack of a challenge by the worker:
- Auto Accidents: Whether delivering products, making sales calls, or traveling between job sites, independent contractors often perform work that requires driving. Of course, sometimes drivers are involved in automobile accidents. When accidents happen, insurance companies step in and look for sources of money to fund claims, attorneys' fees, costs, and settlements. One potential source is your insurance. "But the driver isn't my employee!," you say. You better buckle up because the other motorist's insurance carrier is about to challenge your classification in an attempt to access your insurance policies.
- EDD Audits: During the course of the last several years, the California Employment Development Department (EDD) has increased the number of verification (random) audits it performs in search of additional tax revenue. One reason government agencies prefer hiring entities classifying workers as employees rather than independent contractors is it's a more efficient tax collection method; employers collect employees' taxes on the government's behalf, which increases collection rates and reduces government collection costs. The consequences of misclassification include pricey fines, penalties, and interest.
- Unemployment Insurance, Workers' Compensation, and Disability Claims: In addition to verification audits, the EDD performs request (targeted) audits. Targeted audits may result when a contractor files an unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, or disability claim because independent contractors are ineligible for such benefits. Request audits, like verification audits, can result in costly fines, penalties, and interest if the EDD concludes you have misclassified your workers. Even so, that may not be the worst of it: the EDD often shares its findings with the Internal Revenue Service.
Your Action Plan
AB5 has changed the measuring stick, misclassification costs are high, and you do not have complete control of when the government or others can challenge your classifications. So what can you do? Here are several steps all prudent companies should take if they are using independent contractors:
- Conduct an audit of current classification practices;
- Review written independent contractor agreements;
- Implement written independent contractor agreements;
- Update workplace policies;
- Update organizational charts;
- Reclassify independent contractors as employees if necessary.
Jason Morris is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer Dillion. Jason's practice concentrates on the areas of labor and employment and business litigation. He advises employers and business owners in employment litigation, as well as advice and counsel related to employment policies and investigations. You can reach him at jason.morris@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's success and bottom line. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California and Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Safety Officials Investigating Death From Fall
September 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFCalifornia safety officials are looking into the circumstances surrounding the death of a construction worker who fell from a roof in Tiburon, California. Another worker found Gabriel Vasquez unconscious at the site. Vasquez was later pronounced dead. The State Division of Occupational Safety and Health are trying to determine how Vasquez fell.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Staying the Course, Texas Supreme Court Rejects Insurer’s Argument for Exception to Eight-Corners Rule in Determining Duty to Defend
April 27, 2020 —
John C. Eichman, Sergio F. Oehninger, Grayson L. Linyard & Leah B. Nommensen - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn responding to a certified question from the Fifth Circuit in Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, the Texas Supreme Court held that the “policy-language exception” to the eight-corners rule articulated by the federal district court is not a permissible exception under Texas law. See Richards v. State Farm Lloyds, 19-0802, 2020 WL 1313782, at *1 (Tex. Mar. 20, 2020). The eight-corners rule generally provides that Texas courts may only consider the four corners of the petition and the four corners of the applicable insurance policy when determining whether a duty to defend exists. State Farm argued that a “policy-language exception” prevents application of the eight-corners rule unless the insurance policy explicitly requires the insurer to defend “all actions against its insured no matter if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent,” relying on B. Hall Contracting Inc. v. Evanston Ins. Co., 447 F. Supp. 2d 634, 645 (N.D. Tex. 2006). The Texas Supreme Court rejected the insurer’s argument, citing Texas’ long history of applying the eight-corners rule without regard for the presence or absence of a “groundless-claims” clause.
The underlying dispute in Richards concerned whether State Farm must defend its insureds, Janet and Melvin Richards, against claims of negligent failure to supervise and instruct after their 10-year old grandson died in an ATV accident. The Richardses asked State Farm to provide a defense to the lawsuit by their grandson’s mother and, if necessary, to indemnify them against any damages. To support its argument that no coverage under the policy existed, and in turn, it had no duty to defend, State Farm relied on: (1) a police report to prove the location of the accident occurred off the insured property; and (2) a court order detailing the custody arrangement of the deceased child to prove the child was an insured under the policy. The federal district court held that the eight-corners rule did not apply, and thus extrinsic evidence could be considered regarding the duty to defend, because the policy did not contain a statement that the insurer would defend “groundless, false, or fraudulent” claims. In light of the extrinsic police report and extrinsic custody order, the district court granted summary judgment to State Farm.
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth attorneys
John C. Eichman,
Sergio F. Oehninger,
Grayson L. Linyard and
Leah B. Nommensen
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Linyard may be contacted at glinyard@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Nommensen may be contacted at leahnommensen@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
CDJ’s #8 Topic of the Year: California’s Board of Equalization Tower
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFImagine a workplace where bats fly, floors flood, and glass panels randomly pop out of the building to shatter on the sidewalk. Add to that repairs that could total more than twice the purchase price, and you have a story. Especially when it involves a California government facility. Jon Ortiz of the Sacramento Bee shared the story on Insurance News.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Venue for Miller Act Payment Bond When Project is Outside of Us
December 02, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe proper venue for a Miller Act payment bond claim is “in the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed, regardless of the amount in controversy.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(3)(B).
Well, there are a number of federal construction projects that take place outside of the United States. For these projects, where is the correct venue to sue a Miller Act payment bond if there is no US District Court where the project is located? A recent opinion out of the Southern District of Florida answers this question.
In U.S. ex. rel. Salt Energy, LLC v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2019 WL 3842290 (S.D.Fla. 2019), a prime contractor was hired by the government to design and construct a solar power system for the US Embassy’s parking garage in Burkina Faso. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform a portion of its scope of work.
The subcontractor remained unpaid in excess of $500,000 and instituted a Miller Act payment bond claim against the payment bond surety in the Southern District of Florida, Miami division. The surety moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia arguing that the Southern District of Florida was an improper venue. The court agreed and transferred venue. Why?
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
US Appeals Court Halts OSHA Vaccine Mandate, Unclear How Long
November 15, 2021 —
Debra K. Rubin & Jeff Yoders - Engineering News-RecordThe U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans on Nov. 6 stayed the Biden administration's requirement that workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly, citing potential "grave statutory and constitutional" issues raised by opponents of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration's emergency temporary standard announced on Nov. 4.
Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record and
Jeff Yoders, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Mr. Yoders may be contacted at yodersj@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Other Side of the North Dakota Oil Boom: Evictions
May 13, 2024 —
Sarah Holder - BloombergWilliams County, North Dakota, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the state’s fracking boom. In the past decade, millions of barrels of oil have been pumped from its land, and the population of its largest city, Williston, has doubled.
But as the oil flowed and workers poured in to staff the rigs, housing options quickly ran dry. The region’s uneven expansion has led to an eviction crisis for the county’s 39,000 residents, according to a recent paper from a group of sociologists affiliated with Princeton University’s Eviction Lab.
Williams County saw its eviction rate go from “nearly non-existent” in 2010 to over 7% a decade later, the study found. By 2019, at the height of its oil boom — when the state accounted for 11% of the country’s oil production — its eviction filing rate was comparable to that of large, renter-heavy cities like New York City or Philadelphia, according to Eviction Lab. Though oil production peaked in 2019, the problem hasn’t abated: From January through November 2023, more than 550 evictions were recorded by the Williams County Sheriff’s office, up around 30% from the previous full year.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah Holder, Bloomberg
