Working Safely With Silica: Health Hazards and OSHA Compliance
January 17, 2022 —
Rick Pedley - Construction ExecutiveAbout 2.3 million American workers are exposed to silica, including those in construction, oil and gas, agriculture and manufacturing. Silica is commonly found in a range of construction materials and when this material breaks apart, small particles are released into the air, creating what’s known as respirable crystalline silica. These particles can get into a person’s respiratory tract, which can lead to a range of serious and potentially fatal illnesses including silicosis, lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney diseases.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set clear regulations for working with this substance, so construction workers and managers can know the risks of inhaling this substance and protect themselves on the job site.
What is Silica?
Crystalline silica is a mineral that forms naturally in the earth. Raw construction materials such as sand, stone, concrete and mortar often contain deposits of crystalline silica, which can put employees at risk. Silica becomes a danger to workers when it is released into the air and breathed in.
Reprinted courtesy of
Rick Pedley, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lost Productivity or Inefficiency Claim Can Be Challenging to Prove
May 02, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesOne of the most challenging claims to prove is a lost productivity or inefficiency claim. There is an alluring appeal to these claims because there are oftentimes intriguing facts and high damages. But the allure of the presentation of the claim does not compensate for the actual burden of proof in proving the lost productivity or inefficiency claim, which will require an expert. And they really are challenging to prove.
Don’t take it from me. A recent Federal Claims Court opinion, Nova Group/Tutor-Saliba v. U.S., 2022 WL 815826, (Fed.Cl. 2022), that I also discussed in the preceding
article, exemplifies this point.
To determine lost productivity or inefficiency, the claimant’s expert tried three different methodologies.
First, the expert looked at industry standard lost productivity factors such as those promulgated by the Mechanical Contractor’s Association. However, the claimant was not a mechanical contractor and there is a bunch of subjectivity involved when using these factors. The expert decided not to use such industry standard factors correctly noting they provide value when you are looking at a potential impact prospectively, but once you incur actual damages and have real data, it is not an accurate measure.
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
Professional Services Exclusion in CGL Policies
December 05, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA professional services exclusion in a commercial general liability policy means something. It’s an exclusion an insurer will rely on to avoid insurance coverage based on “professional services” performed or rendered by the insured. Don’t take it from me. Take it from the recent opinion in Colony Insurance Company v. Coastal Construction Management, LLC, 2022 WL 16636697 (M.D.Fla. 2022) where the trial court granted a commercial general liability insurer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the professional services exclusion.
Here, an owner sued, among other parties, an entity performing only construction management services based on construction defects at its project. The construction manager did not perform any design or physical construction. It was hired to make site inspections of the construction, review construction quality and finish standards, ensure workmanship quality, coordinate the punchlist process, and supervise management and administration of the project.
The construction manager’s commercial general liability insurer sued for declaratory relief claiming it owed no duty to defend or indemnify based on the professional services exclusion.
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
Does the Miller Act Trump Subcontract Dispute Provisions?
May 16, 2018 —
Christopher M. Horton - Smith CurrieAll general contractors performing public building or public works contracts with the federal government must be familiar with the Miller Act. It is a requirement for doing business with the federal government. Pursuant to the Miller Act, a general contractor entering into a public building or public works contract with the federal government must furnish a payment bond in an amount equal to the contract price, unless the contracting officer determines that it is impractical to obtain a bond in that amount and specifies an alternative bond amount.
Miller Act payment bonds guarantee payment to certain subcontractors and suppliers supplying labor and materials to contractors or subcontractors engaged in the construction. As a result, subcontractors have an avenue of relief should they not get paid for work done on the project. Specifically, subcontractors have a right to bring an action against the surety within 90-days after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material for which the claim is made. Any such action must be brought no later than one year after the date on which the person did or performed the last labor or furnished or supplied the last of material. 40 United States Code § 3133.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher M. Horton, Smith CurrieMr. Horton may be contacted at
cmhorton@smithcurrie.com
Do Not File a Miller Act Payment Bond Lawsuit After the One-Year Statute of Limitations
November 01, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesUnder the Miller Act, a claim against a Miller Act payment bond must be commenced “no later than one year after the date on which the last of the labor was performed or material was supplied by the person bringing the action.” 40 U.S.C. s. 3133(b)(4). Stated another way, a claimant must file its lawsuit against the Miller Act payment bond within one year from its final furnishing on the project.
Filing a lawsuit too late, i.e., outside of the one-year statute of limitations, will be fatal to a Miller Act payment bond claim. This was the outcome in Diamond Services Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America, 2022 WL 4990416 (5th Cir. 2022) where a claimant filed a Miller Act payment bond lawsuit four days late. That four days proved to be fatal to its Miller Act payment bond claim and lawsuit. Do not let this happen to you!
In Diamond Services Corp., the claimant submitted a claim to the Miller Act payment bond surety. The surety issued a claim form to the claimant that requested additional information. The claimant returned the surety’s claim form. The surety denied the claim a year and a couple of days after the claimant’s final furnishing. The claimant immediately filed its payment bond lawsuit four days after the year expired. The claimant argued that the surety should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in light of the surety’s letter requesting additional information. (The claimant was basically arguing that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled.) The trial court dismissed the Miller Act payment bond claim finding it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that equitable estoppel did not apply.
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
Three Key Takeaways from Recent Hotel Website ADA Litigation
April 26, 2021 —
Shane Singh & Grace Mehta - Lewis BrisboisDespite the COVID-19 pandemic and its chill on the hospitality industry, ADA-related digital lawsuits increased by approximately 23% in 2020. Many of these lawsuits are filed against hotels. The complaints allege that a hotel’s online reservation system failed to provide enough detail for individuals with disabilities to decide if the hotel meets their accessibility needs.
These plaintiffs will often claim that it is insufficient to describe an aspect of a hotel or room as “accessible” because the term is an opinion or conclusion. Plaintiffs argue that a hotel’s reservation system must report specific information, such as the dimensions of space under accessible desks and sinks, the slopes of surfaces, doorway clearance, and numerous other technical requirements under the ADA.
Many hotels are fighting back, arguing that the detail provided is sufficient and in compliance with the ADA. So far this year, in February 2021, two judges in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Percy Anderson and Judge Cormac Carney, agreed with the defendants, dismissing three cases with prejudice.
Reprinted courtesy of
Shane Singh, Lewis Brisbois and
Grace Mehta, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Singh may be contacted at Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Mehta may be contacted at Grace.Mehta@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Joins the Majority of States in Modifying Its Survival Action Statute To Now Permit Recovery for Pain, Suffering And Disfigurement
January 03, 2022 —
Krsto Mijanovic & Elizabeth D. Rhodes - Haight Brown & BonesteelOn January 1, 2022, California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”)Section 377.30 et seq., as amended by Senate Bill 447, otherwise known as the “survival action” statute1, goes into effect. On that date, all plaintiffs filing new civil cases filed on or after January 1, 2022, and before January 1, 2026, and plaintiffs in any action or proceeding granted trial preference pursuant to CCP Section 36 before January 1, 2022, will be expressly allowed to recover damages for a decedent’s pain, suffering, or disfigurement in a survival action.2 This is a significant change in California law. In that regard, California is now the 46th state to permit this form of recovery.
As reported in the Legislative Counsel’s Digest3, Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Federation of California, which co-sponsored Senate Bill 447, opined to the Legislature that the prior law provided a “death discount” to defendants which incentivized bad faith delays in resolution, and caused unnecessary congestion of the already overburdened court system. These argued issues will be vetted by the Legislature using the four-year reporting requirement that is also part of the amendment to the statute, requiring plaintiffs who recover this newly permitted category of damages to report the valuation and details of the case to the Judicial Council within 60 days of the judgment or other operative court document being entered in the court’s docket.4 The amendment will be evaluated by the Legislature for amendment or extension on or before January 1, 2026.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Elizabeth D. Rhodes, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Rhodes may be contacted at erhodes@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Restaurant Wants SCOTUS to Dust Off Eleventh Circuit’s “Physical Loss” Ruling
February 01, 2021 —
Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogA South Florida restaurant has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a federal district court’s ruling that the restaurant is not entitled to coverage under an “all risk” commercial property insurance policy for lost income and extra expenses resulting from nearby road construction. In the underlying coverage action, the policyholder, Mama Jo’s (operating as Berries in the Grove), sought coverage under its all-risk policy for business income losses and expenses caused by construction dust and debris that migrated into the restaurant. Should the Supreme Court grant certiorari, the case will be closely watched by insurers and policyholders alike as an indicator of the scope of coverage available under all-risk policies and whether the principles pertinent to construction dust and debris (at issue in Mama Jo’s claim) have any application to the thousands of pending claims for COVID-19-related business interruption losses pending in the state and federal court systems.
As previously discussed on this blog, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision deviates from Florida precedent on the issue of “direct physical loss” and even its own understanding of that term as described in the August 18, 2020 decision now at issue before the Supreme Court. Mama Jo’s points to this in its petition along with several other errors arguing, for example, that the appellate court’s ruling renders entire areas of coverage nonexistent by requiring “tangible destruction” of property under all-risk policies that expressly afford coverage for types of clean-up costs required to remove debris from covered property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
