Strangers in a Strange Land: Revisiting Arbitration Provisions to Account for Increasing International Influences
July 16, 2023 —
William Underwood - ConsensusDocsArbitration is nothing new. Neither is globalization. But the two are coming together in ways that have incrementally influenced the manner in which many arbitrations are now conducted. And this merits a re-examination of old arbitration clauses to account for some of these new influences. With that in mind, this article will examine some basic considerations when examining arbitration agreements within a construction industry that continues to see the increasing participation of foreign companies in domestic projects. Although this is not a comprehensive review of best drafting practices, nor is it a full survey of the differences between domestic and international arbitration, this article will nonetheless highlight a few basic concepts to keep in mind when reviewing arbitration clauses.
As a basic starting point, the continuing globalization of the construction industry has led to distinct impacts on the ways in which parties conduct arbitrations in the United States. The increased participation of international companies in domestic construction projects has naturally led to the application of international legal concepts to domestic alternative dispute resolution. And the increasing prevalence of these international concepts has led to a number of important trends that can impact the way arbitrations are handled.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Underwood, Jones & Walker (ConsensusDocs)Mr. Underwood may be contacted at
wunderwood@joneswalker.com
New Defendant Added to Morrison Bridge Decking Lawsuit
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe Morrison Bridge in Multnomah County, Oregon, has added a new company to their lawsuit regarding problems with the slip-resistant FRP decking, according to The Oregonian. The county has already named the installer, the supplier, and the manufacturer. Now, they have added Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, the company “that contracted with the decking manufacturer to provide engineering and design for the project.”
The Oregonian reported that “the county has identified a construction design professional who can testify that Hardesty & Hanover made errors that contributed to the Morrison Bridge's damage,” according to the amended complaint.
First, Conway construction (the deck installer) filed suit against the decking manufacturer and supplier. Then, the “county inserted itself into the suit last fall,” stated The Oregonian, and “is seeking more than $2 million to repair or replace the decking, plus damages.” A trial is scheduled for February 2015.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Life After McMillin: Do Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action for Construction Defects Still Exist?
January 24, 2018 —
Thomas Balestreri and Amanda Crawley - Balestreri, Potocki, & HolmesThe ruling is in but the battle will likely continue over the practical application of SB 800. On January 18, 2018 the California Supreme Court issued its decision in
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __, holding that the statutory prelitigation scheme in The Right to Repair Act (“the Act”) that provides for notice and an opportunity for the Builder to repair defects applies to all claims for construction defects in residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003, regardless whether the claim is founded on a violation of the Act’s performance standards or a common law claim for negligence or strict liability. (
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (Van Tassel) (January 18, 2018, S229762) __ Cal.4th __.) With this holding, has the Court ruled that common law causes of action for construction defect still survive? If so, what will they look like and what standards will be applied?
The short answer is that it appears that common law causes of action still survive, at least for now, but it is not clear from this decision what they will look like and what standards will apply.
Portions of the decision seem to suggest that the Act is the sole and exclusive remedy for construction defect claims: “…even in some areas where the common law had supplied a remedy for construction defects resulting in property damage but not personal injury, the text and legislative history [of the statute] reflect a
clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 6].) (Italics added for emphasis) However, at the end of the decision, the Court seems to be saying that there may still be a place for common law claims for negligence and strict liability alongside the Act but that these causes of action may be subject to the performance standards in the Act.
The
McMillin case went up to the Supreme Court on a procedural issue: whether a common law action alleging construction defects resulting in both economic loss and property damage is subject to the Act’s prelitigation notice and cure procedures. The Van Tassels had dismissed their claims under the Act opting to proceed solely on their common law claims including negligence and strict liability. McMillin sought a stay to force the Van Tassels to comply with the Act’s prelitigation procedures. The Supreme Court held that the Van Tassels must comply with the statutory procedures and affirmed the stay issued by the trial court. But the question remained: now that the Van Tassels were left only with common law claims, how would they proceed under the Act?
To understand how the Court dealt with this question, one must first understand how the Court dealt with the narrow procedural question presented by the case. The Court provides a very detailed, clear explanation of the reasons why it felt the Legislature intended for all construction defect claims involving residential construction must comply with the prelitigation requirements of the Act. In summing up its conclusions the Court makes three definitive holdings.
First, for claims involving economic loss only—the kind of claims involved in
Aas—the Court holds that the Legislature intended to supersede
Aas and provide a statutory basis for recovery. (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 10].) In other words, the Court clearly agrees that the Act was meant to allow recovery of damages based solely on economic damages. No surprise there. Second, the Court held for personal injuries, the Legislature made no changes to existing law that provides common law remedies for the injured party. (Id.) Nobody has ever contested that. Finally, the Court held that for construction defect claims involving property damage and not just economic loss “the Legislature replaced the common law
methods of recovery with the new statutory scheme.” (
Id.,) (Italics added for emphasis.)
In other words, the Court is not saying that negligence and strict liability are not permitted causes of action. The Court is merely stating that these causes of action must comply with the Act’s statutory scheme just as the same as a claim for economic loss. Here the Court is focusing on the procedure that must be followed. “The Act, in effect, provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying claims gave rise to any property damage.” (
Id.)
Having laid out its fundamental premise, the Court then deals with Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the intent of the Legislature and makes light work of them all. In the process, the Court disapproves
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 98, and
Burch v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal. App. 4th 1411, to the extent they are inconsistent with the views expressed in the
McMillin opinion.
This is where the decision gets interesting. The Court reminds us that the Van Tassels had dismissed their statutory causes of action for violation of the performance standards under Section 896. One would think at that point that Plaintiffs had to be wondering if they had any claims left given that the Court had ruled that the Act was the sole means of recovery for construction defects. Not so fast. The Court points out that the complaint still rests on allegations of defective construction and that the suit remains an “ ‘action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction’ of the plaintiffs’ homes (§896)
and McMillin’s liability under the Van Tassels’ negligence and strict liability claims depends on the extent to which it [McMillin] violated the standards of sections 896 and 897.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Emphasis added.) WHAT DID THE COURT JUST SAY? Did the Court just say that a plaintiff could bring a common law cause of action for negligence or strict liability based on a violation of the performance standards under Section 896? What exactly would that claim look like? What would be the elements of such a cause of action?
To answer these questions, the Court states in the very next paragraph, which also happens to be the last paragraph in the decision: “In holding that claims seeking recovery for construction defect damages are subject to the Act’s prelitigation procedures regardless of how they are pleaded,
we have no occasion to address the extent to which a party might rely upon common law principles in pursuing liability under the Act.” (
McMillin (January 18, 2018, S229762) __Cal.4th.__ [p. 19].) (Italics added for emphasis) Is the Court answering “No” to the questions posed above? Probably not. It is simply following the age old rule that an appellate court will
not rule on an issue that is not specifically presented by an appeal, leaving that question for another day.
All we know for sure from
McMillin is that every claim for construction defects falling within the scope of the Act must follow the prelitigation procedure. There are no hall passes for negligence and strict liability. The larger question posed by the last two paragraphs in the decision, is whether the law recognizes a cause of action for negligence and strict liability for construction defects based on the standards in Section 896. The answer will have to be worked out by judges and trial attorneys in courtrooms across the State! The parameters of this hybrid cause of action that the Court seems to have posited will need more careful consideration than can be offered on first reading of
McMillin v. Superior Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Balestreri, Potocki, & Holmes
Certificates as Evidence of Additional Insured Coverage Are All the Rage, But You Deserve Better
August 30, 2021 —
Joseph L. Cohen, W. Mason & Sean Milani-nia - ConsensusDocsConsider the following scenario: the construction project is ready to proceed. The deal is done. The agreements have all been carefully crafted, with detailed provisions on insurance dedicated to reducing risk. Those provisions require the downstream trade contractors to furnish certificates of insurance listing the owner and prime contractor as additional insureds on the downstream contractor’s policies of insurance. A provision in the prime contract further requires the prime contractor to provide the owner with a certificate of insurance showing the owner as an additional insured on the prime contractor’s policies. At the ceremonial ground-breaking and right before work commences, the downstream contractors deliver their insurance certificates to the prime contractor and the prime contractor delivers its certificate plus the downstream certificates to the owner. From there, each insurance certificate will begin its final destination to the project file (either electronic or physical) where, with any luck, it will serve the regular stint before being discarded after the project’s successful conclusion. Otherwise, it will be retrieved under much stress and heavy scrutiny. The acceptance of insurance certificates is often viewed as standard industry practice, but should it be?
The answer is a resounding “no.” There are many form development and construction agreements in circulation that deem insurance certificates to be acceptable evidence of insurance. But, a certificate of insurance should not be relied upon because it does not mean that insurance has been placed. You deserve real evidence that the requisite additional insured coverage is in place (in the form of a policy endorsement), and here is why.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joseph L. Cohen, Fox Rothschild,
W. Mason, Fox Rothschild and
Sean Milani-nia, Fox Rothschild
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at jlcohen@foxrothschild.com
Mr. Mason may be contacted at wmason@foxrothschild.com
Mr. Milani-nia may be contacted at smilani@foxrothschild.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Waiver of Subrogation Enforced, Denying Insurers Recovery Against Additional Insured in $500 Million Off-Shore Oil Rig Loss
September 30, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Daniel Hentschel - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThe United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently rejected a claim by a group of insurance companies (“Underwriters”) against American Global Maritime Inc. for more than $500 million that the Underwriters paid the named insured under an Off-Shore Construction Risk insurance policy for losses resulting from the an alleged off-shore oil rig failure.
The action arose out of alleged construction defects related to Chevron’s “Big Foot” oil-drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. Chevron hired American Global to be the marine warranty surveyor responsible for reviewing and certifying the project’s specifications and materials. American Global issued the certificate of approval required for the project to proceed; however, during the attempted installation of the platform in 2015, it was alleged that parts from the structure fell to the sea floor. The Underwriters paid more than $500 million in connection with the incident under an Off-Shore Construction insurance policy they had issued to Chevron.
After paying the claim, the Underwriters filed a negligence action against American Global and other contractors involved in the project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews & Kurth and
Daniel Hentschel , Hunton Andrews & Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Hentschel may be contacted at dhentschel@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Feds Outline Workforce Rules for $39B in Chip Plant Funding
April 10, 2023 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordSemiconductor chip producers must pay their construction workforce prevailing wages and will be “strongly encouraged” to use project labor agreements if they want a piece of the $39 billion available in federal funding to support fabrication plant construction, expansion or modernization projects, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo says.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Will Protecting Copyrights Get Easier for Architects?
November 28, 2022 —
Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation BlogLike any creative business, architects rely on their intellectual property. Their designs are at the center of their work. For example, as we discussed in a previous post, many architects nowadays focus on creating new ways for their building designs to be environmentally friendly and sustainable.
However, nearly every form of intellectual property faces the risk of theft or infringement in the business world.
Architects face unique challenges with their copyrights – as well as risks.
Copyright Issues in the Architecture World
One of the biggest issues, of course, is that there are many aspects of building designs that architects
cannot protect by copyright. This is simply because various details are fundamental in the construction of every building. One person cannot own the rights to such a common design.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott L. Baker, Baker & AssociatesMr. Baker may be contacted at
slb@bakerslaw.com
Consequential Damage Claims for Insurer's Bad Faith Dismissed
April 22, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiPartial dismissal of the insured's complaint seeking consequential damages for the insurer's bad faith was granted by the court. Bryant v. General Cas. Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15369 (N.D. N.Y. Jan. 30, 2019).
Bryant purchased from General Casualty Company of Wisconsin (GCCW) a commercial property and casualty policy to cover the insured premises. While the building was rented to a tenant who operated a restaurant, it sustained a collapse. GCCW refused to cover the loss. Bryant sued. In addition to the cost of repairing and replacing the damage to the property, Bryant alleged he was out the value of rental revenue from his tenant, which was forced to close the restaurant and relocated as a result of the unrepaired damage.
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
