Pennsylvania Sues Firms to Recoup Harrisburg Incinerator Losses
June 06, 2018 —
Jonathan Barnes - Engineering News-RecordThe state of Pennsylvania continues to try to recover funds from professional firms involved in the city of Harrisburg’s disastrous incinerator project in the early 2000’s and has named, Buchart Horn, Inc., an engineering, architecture and planning firm based in York, Pa. as a defendant.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Barnes, ENRENR staff may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
While You Were Getting Worked Up Over Oil Prices, This Just Happened to Solar
October 29, 2014 —
Tom Randall – BloombergEvery time fossil fuels get cheaper, people lose interest in solar deployment. That may be about to change.
After years of struggling against cheap natural gas prices and variable subsidies, solar electricity is on track to be as cheap or cheaper than average electricity-bill prices in 47 U.S. states -- in 2016, according to a Deutsche Bank report published this week. That’s assuming the U.S. maintains its 30 percent tax credit on system costs, which is set to expire that same year.
Even if the tax credit drops to 10 percent, solar will soon reach price parity with conventional electricity in well over half the nation: 36 states. Gone are the days when solar panels were an exotic plaything of Earth-loving rich people. Solar is becoming mainstream, and prices will continue to drop as the technology improves and financing becomes more affordable, according to the report.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Randall, BloombergMr. Randall may be contacted at
trandall6@bloomberg.net
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Defects Uncertain Role in Coverage in Pennsylvania
February 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFDouglas E. Cameron, Jay M. Levin, and Traci S. Rea look at the implications of a pair of Pennsylvania court decisions from 2012. The judge in both cases, Judge Wettick of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas held that comprehensive general liability policies do not cover any claims that arise from faulty workmanship.
The three conclude that "these holdings may preclude coverage for any tort claims asserted against your company if the allegations involve construction defects, even if you are sued for property damage or personal injury by a third party to your construction contract." They note that both decisions have been appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Housing Affordability Down
November 20, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn what Rick Judson, the chairman of the National Association of Home Builders, describes as a “‘perfect storm’ scenario,” home prices and interest rates are up “at the same time that the cost of building homes is rising due to tightened supplies of building materials, developable lots and labor.” Residential housing is becoming less affordable.
David Crowe, the Chief Economist for the NAHB, attributes this to “higher mortgage rates and the more than year-long steady increase in home prices,” but he notes that “a family earning a median income can afford 65% of homes recently sold.”
For the last four quarters, the San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City area in California holds the dubious distinction of being the nation’s least affordable area. There, a family earning the area’s median income of $101,200 (nearly double the national median) could only afford 16% of the homes sold in the area.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Disappointment on an Olympian Scale After Rio 2016 Summer Games
February 23, 2017 —
Augusto Diniz, O Empreiteiro - Engineering News-RecordThe single word to describe the sports infrastructure created for the Rio 2016 Olympic Games is abandonment. Uncertainty over the future of the dilapidated sports stadiums and arenas threatens the legacy of the Olympics, which ended five months ago.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Augusto Diniz, O Empreiteiro, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Is Your Construction Business Feeling the Effects of the Final DBA Rule?
June 04, 2024 —
Nathaniel Peniston - Construction ExecutiveThe Biden administration’s final rule “Updating the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Regulations” took effect on Oct. 23, 2023. In “the first comprehensive regulatory review in nearly 40 years,” the Department of Labor has returned to the definition of “prevailing wage” it used from 1935 to 1983—before Microsoft released the first Windows operating system.
Construction industry leaders must be aware that this is the most comprehensive review and overhaul of the act in 40 years; with it, the DOL has attempted to modernize its approach to wage creation and fringe benefit allocation. There are more than 50 procedural changes to the act, which means it is very important for contractors to be aware of wage classifications when bidding, performing work on Davis-Bacon Act projects and using applicable fringe dollars for bona fide benefits.
UNDERSTANDING THE CHANGES
Some of the critical adjustments included in the final rule that contractors should be aware of include:
Wage determination changes during a project: Historically, contractors could rely on the wage determinations used to win a project for the life of the project. However, the final rule now requires the contractor to use current wage determinations when a contract is changed or extended. The DOL “proposed this change because—like a new contract—the exercise of an option requires the incorporation of the most current wage determination.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Nathaniel Peniston, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Peniston may be contacted at
npeniston@fbg.com
New York’s Highest Court Reverses Lower Court Ruling That Imposed Erroneous Timeliness Requirement For Disclaimers of Coverage
June 18, 2014 —
Robert F. Walsh and Paul A. Briganti – White and Williams LLPOn June 10, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court) issued a unanimous decision in KeySpan Gas East Corp. v. Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. (No. 110, June 10, 2014), reversing a lower court decision which had erroneously imposed on insurers a duty to disclaim coverage for property damage claims as soon as possible or risk waiving their coverage defenses. White and Williams represented one of the insurance company defendants in the action.
The case involved an action against three excess insurers for insurance coverage for underlying environmental claims arising from Manufactured Gas Plant sites. Upon receiving notice of the underlying claims, the three insurers reserved their rights to deny coverage on various grounds, including late notice of an occurrence, pending an investigation. The insurers ultimately denied coverage on the basis of late notice several years later based on information developed in discovery in the litigation. The policyholder/plaintiff KeySpan argued that the insurers had unreasonably delayed in issuing their disclaimers and that there was a triable issue of fact on whether such a delay amounted to a waiver of the late notice defense.
Reprinted courtesy of
Robert F. Walsh, White and Williams LLP and
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Walsh may be contacted at walshr@whiteandwilliams.com; Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
