The Secret to Success Is Doing Things a Little Bit Differently
November 16, 2020 —
Charlie Kimmel - Construction ExecutiveThroughout the 1960s and 1970s, Rick Barry made his mark on the world of college and professional basketball. He was a skilled small forward who averaged 37.4 points per game during his senior year at the University of Miami, and he was the second overall pick in the 1965 NBA draft. But he’s best remembered as a prolific free-throw shooter: he led the NBA in free-throw percentage for several consecutive years. When he retired in 1980, his free-throw percentage (.900) was the highest in NBA history.
So what was the secret to his success? He did things a little bit differently. While the vast majority of basketball players shoot overhand free throws, Barry was famous for his unorthodox underhanded shots. This technique was not only incredibly effective, but it also set him apart as a player and contributed to his popularity.
Construction companies can learn a lot from Barry’s strategy of doing things a little bit differently to achieve success. Most companies don’t need to worry about their employees’ free-throw techniques. But all of them need to set themselves apart from their competition and establish strong reputations in today’s highly competitive market.
Reprinted courtesy of
Charlie Kimmel, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series: The Duty to Defend
February 28, 2022 —
Lorelie S. Masters, Patrick M. McDermott & Rachel E. Hudgins - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogThis post in our
Landmark Montana Supreme Court Decision Series discusses the Montana Supreme Court’s consideration of an insurer’s duty to defend in
National Indemnity Co. v. State, 499 P.3d 516 (Mont. 2021).
For 67 years, W.R. Grace & Company’s mining operations spread asbestos through the town of Libby, Montana,
causing elevated rates of asbestosis and asbestos-related cancer in Libby residents – even among those who never worked in the mine. The Environmental Protection Agency deemed the Libby Mine the
“most significant single source of asbestos exposure” in US history.
In 2000, Libby residents began filing lawsuits against the State of Montana, alleging that the State had failed to warn them about the mine’s danger, and this failure contributed to their bodily injuries. Id. at 521-22. The Libby plaintiffs’ asbestos exposures and related injuries had occurred decades earlier, and so the State searched its storage units for records of any potentially applicable insurance policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lorelie S. Masters, Hunton Andrews Kurth,
Patrick M. McDermott, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Rachel E. Hudgins, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Ms. Masters may be contacted at lmasters@HuntonAK.com
Mr. McDermott may be contacted at pmcdermott@HuntonAK.com
Ms. Hudgins may be contacted at rhudgins@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Washington Court Denies Subcontractor’s Claim Based on Contractual Change and Notice Provisions
January 29, 2024 —
Wendy Rosenstein - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe recent unpublished case, Cascade Civil Construction, LLC v. Jackson Dean Construction, Inc., et al.,[1] provides a legal justification for contractors to require a directive or change order in advance of performing changed work—thereby preventing the party who requested the changed work from later arguing that notice provisions were not complied with.
In the case, Jackson Dean, the prime contractor, hired Cascade to perform excavation work on a project to build a new Costco Corporate headquarters. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and other issues, Jackson Dean directed resequencing, which required Cascade to perform excavation concurrent to dewatering. Jackson Dean also required deeper-than-planned excavation under one of the buildings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wendy Rosenstein, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Rosenstein may be contacted at
wendy.rosenstein@acslawyers.com
COVID-19 Response: California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board Implements Sweeping New Regulations to Prevent COVID-19 in the Workplace
December 14, 2020 —
Peter Shapiro, Drake Mirsch & Jade McKenzie - Lewis BrisboisOn November 19, 2020, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHSB) proposed sweeping and significant new emergency standards to reduce employee exposure to COVID-19. These standards have been accepted by the Office of Administrative Law and are effective as of November 30, 2020. Accordingly, it is critical that employers familiarize themselves with these new requirements and begin to implement these standards as quickly as possible.
The standards include COVID-19 prevention in the workplace, multiple COVID-19 infections and outbreaks in the workplace, “major” COVID-19 outbreaks in the workplace, prevention in employer provided housing, and prevention in employer-provided transportation to and from work. They apply to all California employers and places of employment, except places with one employee who does not have contact with others, employees working from home, or employees in specified health care facilities, services or operations when covered by section 5199.
COVID-19 Prevention Program
Employers are required to establish, implement, and maintain an “effective” written COVID-19 Prevention Program. Under the Program, an employer is responsible for developing a system for communicating about COVID-19, identifying and evaluating COVID-19 hazards, investigating and responding to COVID-19 cases, correcting COVID-19 hazards, providing training and instructions to employees regarding COVID-19, ensuring all employees are physically distanced, providing face coverings, implementing policies regarding personal protective equipment and recordkeeping, ensuring COVID-19 cases are excluded from the workplace, and prohibiting symptomatic employees from returning to work unless certain requirements are met.
Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Shapiro, Lewis Brisbois,
Drake Mirsch, Lewis Brisbois and
Jade McKenzie, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Shapiro may be contacted at Peter.Shapiro@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Mirsch may be contacted at Drake.Mirsch@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. McKenzie may be contacted at Jade.Mckenzie@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Law Alert: California Supreme Court Limits Advertising Injury Coverage for Disparagement
June 18, 2014 —
Valerie A. Moore and Chris Kendrick - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Hartford Casualty Ins. v. Swift Distribution (No. S207172, filed 6/12/14), the California Supreme Court affirmed a 2012 appeals court holding that there is no advertising injury coverage on a theory of trade disparagement if the competitor's advertisements do not expressly refer to the plaintiff's product and do not disparage the plaintiff's product or business. In doing so, the Supreme Court expressly disapproved Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Charlotte Russe Holding, Inc. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 969 ("Charlotte Russe"), which held that coverage could be triggered for "implied disparagement" by allegations that a retailer's heavy discounts on a manufacturer's premium apparel suggest to consumers that the manufacturer's products are of inferior quality.
In Hartford v. Swift the plaintiff, Dahl, held a patent for the "Multi-Cart," a collapsible cart that could be manipulated into different configurations. When Dahl's competitor Ultimate began marketing the "Ulti-Cart," Dahl sued alleging that Ultimate impermissibly manufactured, marketed, and sold the Ulti-Cart, which infringed patents and trademarks for Multi-Cart and diluted Dahl's trademark. Dahl alleged patent and trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and misleading advertising arising from Ultimate's sale of Ulti-Carts. However, the advertisements for Ulti-Cart did not name the Multi-Cart, Dahl, or any other products beside the Ulti-Cart.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com; Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Denies Review of Pro-Policy Decision
October 22, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to McCarter & English, LLP, “product manufacturers relied on commercial general liability policies to defend and indemnify them for product liability claims,” however, in result of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 908 A.2d 888 (Pa. 2006), “[i]nsurers began denying coverage to Pennsylvania companies – and companies around the country – arguing that a design or manufacturing defect was not an ‘accident.’” McCarter & English, LLP reported that “the tide has begun to turn, and product manufacturers may once again be reliably protected by from product liability claims.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pending Home Sales in U.S. Increase Less Than Forecast
October 29, 2014 —
Michelle Jamrisko – BloombergThe number of contracts to buy existing homes rose less than forecast in September, signaling demand will probably plateau heading into the end of 2014.
The pending home sales index increased 0.3 percent after dropping 1 percent in August, the National Association of Realtors said today in Washington. The median projection in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for a 1 percent gain.
Home resales have yet to regain last year’s peak as still-tight credit and low inventories remain hurdles for the industry, which means residential real estate will make a limited contribution to the expansion. The recent drop in mortgage rates and pickup in hiring will probably help underpin demand, even as first-time buyers struggle to enter the market.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michelle Jamrisko, BloombergMs. Jamrisko may be contacted at
mjamrisko@bloomberg.net
Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease
May 06, 2019 —
Lauren Podgorski - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIf you are leasing space in a building, there may come a time when you receive a request from your landlord to fill out and sign an estoppel certificate. Estoppel certificates are usually sent to tenants in connection with the sale or refinance of a building, and a third party may rely on the accuracy of the statements and information contained in the estoppel certificate in connection with that transaction. Estoppel certificates can range from a very simple, one-page document, to several pages.
I’ve received an estoppel certificate in the mail. What do I do now?
Consider the following:
Check your lease. Your lease may require you to deliver the signed estoppel certificate and may even give you a timeframe within which you are required to return it. A form of estoppel certificate may also be included in your lease as an exhibit. If you’ve previously agreed to a form of estoppel certificate in your lease, check to ensure the one you have received matches the form you previously agreed to and if it doesn’t make sure to review it carefully to make sure it is acceptable.
Review the estoppel certificate and confirm that all of the information is accurate. Be on the lookout for any terms or provisions that you did not agree to in your lease. If it seems like the landlord is trying to modify your lease, you likely do not need to consent to the change in this document. Cross off (or modify or delete, if you have an electronic copy) any information that is inaccurate. Fill in all blanks (if the blank is not applicable, write “N/A”), and if any exhibits are referenced in the body of the document, make sure they are actually attached.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren Podgorski, Snell & WilmerMs. Podgorski may be contacted at
lpodgorski@swlaw.com
