New Jersey Court Washes Away Insurer’s Waiver of Subrogation Arguments
May 27, 2019 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistSubrogating insurers often address waiver of subrogation clauses in the form contracts drafted by the American Institute of Architects. In ACE Am. Ins. Co. v. Am. Med. Plumbing, No. A-5395-16T4, 2019 N.J. Super. LEXIS 45 (App. Div.), ACE American Insurance Company (ACE) argued that the waiver clause in the AIA General Conditions form A201-2007 did not extend to the post-construction loss at issue. Adopting what the court termed the “majority” position, the Appellate Division held that, by reading §§ 11.3.5 and 11.3.7 together, the waiver applied to bar the insurer’s subrogation claim. The Appellate Court’s ruling makes pursuing subrogation against New Jersey contractors using AIA contract forms more difficult.
In this matter, Equinox Development Corporation (Equinox Development), ACE’s insured, contracted with Grace Construction Management Company, LLC (Grace Construction) to build the “core and shell” of a new health club (the Work). Grace Construction subcontracted the plumbing work to American Medical Plumbing, Inc. (AM Plumbing).
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
Quick Note: Submitting Civil Remedy Notice
May 10, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are steps an insured or claimant need to take in order to assert a statutory bad faith claim. The first step is the obligatory Civil Remedy Notice. This obligation is set forth in Florida Statute s. 624.155. The Civil Remedy Notice is, in essence, written notice of the specific violation(s) that are being claimed against the insurer that give rise to potential bad faith and an opportunity for the insurer to cure the violation(s). Florida Statute s. 624.155 would not be confused as a model of clarity, so it is important that a insured or claimant work with an attorney regarding any bad faith claim including filling out the Civil Remedy Notice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
Industry Groups Decry Jan. 6 Riot; DOT Chief Chao Steps Down in Protest
January 11, 2021 —
Aileen Cho & Pam Radtke Russell - Engineering News-RecordIndustry and business groups and labor unions universally denounced the actions of rioters who broke into the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, with statements going as far as calling for President Donald Trump to step down but others taking a more measured response.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record and
Pam Radtke Russell, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Ms. Russell may be contacted at Russellp@bnpmedia.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Don’t Ignore the Dispute Resolution Provisions in Your Construction Contract
June 05, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesDon’t ignore dispute resolution provisions in a construction contract. Sometimes, you may want to. But dispute resolution provisions should be one of the first provisions you look to when a dispute arises recognizing these provisions will be raised if you fail to comply. Not only will they be raised, but the presumption is they will be enforced. This is the situation that was raised in Seminole County, Florida v. APM Construction Corp., 2023 WL 3555356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).
Here, a contractor was terminated for cause by Seminole County. The contractor then filed suit against the County. The County moved to dismiss the lawsuit because the contractor failed to comply with contractual presuit administrative procedures in the contract prior to filing a lawsuit. While the trial court denied the County’s motion to dismiss, the appellate court granted the County’s petition for writ of certiorari quashing the trial court’s order denying the motion to dismiss. For purposes of granting the writ of certiorari, the appellate court held irreparable harm existed because “certiorari jurisdiction is properly exercised when a trial court permits a party to litigate when there is a contractual or legal obligation to first administrative proceed.” Seminole County, supra, at *2.
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
Environmental Roundup – April 2019
May 06, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelBesides showers, this April brought a number of notable new environmental decisions issued by the federal courts. Before your mind turns to May and its flowers, here’s a summary:
1.
DC Circuit. On April 23, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the case of State of New York, et al. v. EPA. In the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, the Congress established the Northeast Ozone Transport Region, composed of the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the District of Columbia and a portion of Virginia. Recently, several of these states requested EPA to expand this region to include the “upwind states” of Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and the remaining portions of Virginia. Doing so would assist the “downwind” states in complying with EPA’s 2008 Ozone standard. EPA rejected this request, which was then appealed to the DC Circuit by the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. Because of its unique properties, ozone created by emissions in the upwind states can be transported to the downwind states, thus allegedly hampering their ability to cope with EPA ozone standards. The court agreed that EPA has the authority to expand the Northeast Transport Ozone Transport Region, but it also has the ability to exercise its reasonable discretion not to do so. In addition, the agency’s decision to rely instead on the remedies available to it in in the Clean Air Act’s “Good Neighbor” provision was reasonable and adequately justified, and the court accordingly upheld the agency’s decision. The court also noted that other remedies may be available to the downwind states, just not this one.
2.
DC Circuit. The Court also decided on April 23, 2019 the case of Air Transport Association of America v. Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA held that the payments made by the City of Portland’s airport’s utility city charges for offsite stormwater drainage and Superfund remediation was not an “impermissible diversion” of airport revenues or in violation of the “Anti-Head Tax Act,” which is codified at 49 USC Section 40116(b) and which prohibits collecting a tax on persons travelling in air commerce. Here, the charges are assessed against the airport for the use by the airport of the city’s water and sewage services. The Superfund assessment is based on the fact that the Willamette River which runs through downtown Portland could make the city a Superfund potentially responsible party, and the cty is assessing all rate payers—including the airport—a Superfund assessment. The airport is federally funded and is owned and operated by the Port of Portland, and the Port pays a combined sewer, stormwater /water bill with multiple line items including these contested items. The court notes that federal law, in particular 49 USC Section 47107(k)(2), authorizes airport revenues to be used for the operating costs of the airport receiving federal funding, and the FAA could reasonably determine that these general expenses are authorized airport “operating costs” even though the city services are provided outside the boundaries of the airport.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Balfour in Talks With Carillion About $5 Billion Merger
July 30, 2014 —
Simon Thiel and Alex Webb – BloombergBalfour Beatty Plc (BBY), the U.K. construction company whose chief quit in May after predicting a profit drop, is in merger talks with rival Carillion Plc (CLLN) to form the country’s biggest builder with a market valuation of about 3 billion pounds ($5 billion).
A deal would create a market-leading service and construction business able to serve more clients and cut costs, the builders said in a statement yesterday, adding that they’re trying to develop a strategy and business plan. Balfour and Carillion surged as much as 13 percent and 14 percent respectively in London trading today.
Balfour, based in London, has struggled since the global recession, with a lack of building work in the U.K. and the cancellation of projects across Australia, where the company cut hundreds of jobs last year. A merged company would benefit from Carillion’s booming services business as the Wolverhampton, England-based builder expands its maintenance offerings for the rail, oil and telecommunication industries.
Mr. Thiel may be contacted at sthiel1@bloomberg.net; Mr. Webb may be contacted at awebb25@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Simon Thiel and Alex Webb, Bloomberg
Is The Enforceability Of A No-Damage-For-Delay Provision Inappropriate For Summary Judgment
February 24, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIs the enforceability of a no-damage-for-delay provision inappropriate for resolution on a summary judgment? The recent decision in U.S. f/u/b/o Kingston Environmental Services, Inc. v. David Boland, Inc., 2019 WL 6178676 (D. Hawaii 2019), dealing with Florida law, suggests that it is inappropriate for a summary judgment resolution, particularly when there is a right to a jury trial.
In this case, a prime contractor was hired on a federal construction project in Hawaii. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor and the subcontractor sued the prime contractor and its surety under the Miller Act. Of interest, the subcontractor was seeking to recover for the costs it incurred due to construction delays. The prime contractor moved for summary judgment as to the no-damage-for-delay provision in the subcontract. The no-damages-for-delay provision read as follows (and it is a well-written no-damage-for-delay provision):
The Subcontractor expressly agrees that the Contractor shall not be liable to the Subcontractor for any damages or additional costs, whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, resulting in whole or in part from a delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration of the commencement or execution of the Work, caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions, whether negligent or not, of the Contractor including other subcontractors or material suppliers to the Project, its agents, employees, or third parties acting on behalf of the Contractor. The Subcontractor’s sole remedy for any such delay, hindrance, suspension, or acceleration shall be a noncompensable time extension.
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
Additional Dismissals of COVID Business Interruption, Civil Authority Claims
December 29, 2020 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAmong the recent decisions dismissing complaints for business interruption and civil authority coverage due to closures caused by COVID-19 are Pappy's Barber Shops, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166808 (S.D. Calif. Sept. 11, 2020) and Sandy Point Dental v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171979 (E.D. Ill. Sept. 21, 2020). The difficulty in proving "direct physical loss" was the downfall of both cases.
In Pappy's, claims were made for business income losses insured as a result of local and state closure orders. The policy required "direct physical loss of or damage to property at the described premises." Plaintiffs argued that "direct physical loss of" did not require a tangible damage or alteration to property and that the loss of the ability to continue operating their businesses as a result of the government orders met this requirement.
The court relied upon a prior decision, 10E, LLC v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Connecticut, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165252 (C.D. Calif. Sept. 2, 2020) [post here], where the court noted that under California law, losses from inability to use property did not amount to "direct physical loss" within the meaning of the policy.
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
