Connecticut Supreme Court Finds Faulty Work By Subcontractor Constitutes "Occurrence"
July 31, 2013 —
Tred Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiThe U.S. District Court in Alabama certified a question to the Connecticut Supreme Court: Is damage to a project caused by faulty workmanship "property damage" resulting from an "occurrence"? With some qualification, the Connecticut Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. Capstone Building Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., SC 18886 (Conn. June 11, 2013).
Captsone Development agreed to coordinate and supervise construction on a building at the University of Conneticut. Capstone Building was the general contractor. UConn secured an OCIP policy from American Motorist Insurance Company ("AMICO"). More than three years after completion, UConn notified the insureds of alleged defects in the project, including elevated levels of carbon monoxide. The source of the leak was the individual hot water heaters in residential units and insufficient draft of exhaust from the heater.Other defects were found during an investigation.
The insureds tendered to AMICO. Coverage was denied because the liability arose out of the insureds' own work.The insureds settled with UConn, paying $1 million each. The insureds then sued AMICO in Alabama and the question was certified to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyTred Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
"Ongoing Storm" Rules for the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York & Rhode Island)
February 22, 2021 —
Angeline Ioannou, Kenneth Walton, Colin Hackett, Gregory Katz & Lauren Motola-Davis - Lewis BrisboisThe winter storm that recently brought several feet of snow to the Northeast signaled that we are, indeed, in the middle of winter. Moreover, our nation’s favorite groundhog, Punxsutawney Phil, saw his shadow on Groundhog Day this year, indicating that winter will be with us for six more weeks. As we move through the remainder of this snowy season, it is important for businesses to understand their legal obligations concerning snow removal and the defenses that are available to them in the event that an injury occurs on their premises. This alert summarizes the ongoing storm rules in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island, and analyzes property owners’ snow removal responsibilities as well as related premises liability issues under these states’ laws.
Connecticut
It is well settled in Connecticut that, in the absence of unusual circumstances, in fulfilling their duty to invitees on their property, property owners may wait a reasonable time after the conclusion of a storm to perform ice and snow removal from outside walkways and steps. Kraus v. Newton, 211 Conn. 191, 197-198 (1989). A property owner’s duty to perform reasonable snow and ice removal of outside walkways does not arise until after a reasonable period of time has passed after a storm ends. Umsteadt v. G.R. Realty, 123 Conn. App. 73, 83 (2010). The ongoing storm doctrine does not apply, however, if the defective condition arises from preexisting ice or snow, and not from the ongoing storm. Whether the alleged defective condition was caused by preexisting ice or snow and whether a storm has concluded are both questions of fact that may be decided by a jury. Kraus at 197-198.
Reprinted courtesy of
Angeline Ioannou, Lewis Brisbois,
Kenneth Walton, Lewis Brisbois,
Colin Hackett, Lewis Brisbois,
Gregory Katz, Lewis Brisbois and
Lauren Motola-Davis, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Ioannou may be contacted at Angeline.Ioannou@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Walton may be contacted at Ken.Walton@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Hackett may be contacted at Colin.Hackett@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Katz may be contacted at Greg.Katz@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Motola-Davis may be contacted at Lauren.MotolaDavis@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Court of Appeals Signals an End to Project Labor Agreement Requirements Linked to Development Tax Credits
October 20, 2016 —
Gregory R. Begg & Aaron C. Schlesinger – Peckar & Abramson, P.C.What Action Should Owners, Developers and Contractors Take in Anticipation of Successful Challenges to PLA Requirements?
Recently, a federal court in New Jersey issued a decision which very well may invalidate all Project Labor Agreements (“PLA’s”) entered into as a condition to receipt of tax incentives for private development. Tax incentives utilized to promote private development are different, according to the court, than typical public works projects where PLA requirements have generally been held valid. Owners, developers, contractors and governmental entities must assess the consequences of this decision upon contracts already and to be awarded in the future where tax benefits may be linked to a PLA requirement.
In 1993, in what has become known as the Boston Harbor Case, the United States Supreme Court held that state and local governmental entities may condition the award of public works contracts on the contractor’s agreement to enter into PLA’s.
That decision has been followed nationwide since then to uphold the validity of various state and local law bidding conditions requiring successful bidders to negotiate and enter into project labor agreements as a condition to the award of public works contracts. The rationale is that when the government, like any other private party, is participating in an economic market, it may exercise its discretion in setting terms and conditions it believes best suit its interests in the efficient procurement of goods and services in that market. Therefore, a PLA requirement by a governmental entity engaged in market activity is no more or less valid than a PLA requirement on a purely private project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Begg may be contacted at gbegg@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
NLRB Finalizes Rule for Construction Industry Unions to Obtain Majority Support Representational Status
September 23, 2024 —
Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which takes effect September 30, 2024. The Final Rule eases the process for unions in the construction industry to convert their status as collective bargaining representative of bargaining unit employees from Section 8(f) to 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”) simply by placing certain recognitional acceptance language in their collective bargaining agreements. As a result, construction industry employers should review their collective bargaining agreements prior to signing to determine if such language exists.
Section 9(a) Non-Construction Industry Employers
In most industries, not including construction, union recognitional status as collective bargaining representative of the employer’s employees is governed by Section 9(a) of the Act. In order for a Union to obtain recognitional status under Section 9(a), the union must either: (1) file a petition with the NLRB showing support of 30% of the proposed bargaining unit via employee executed authorization cards and win an election of 51% of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit who actually vote; or (2) by reaching an agreement with the employer that the union possesses employee executed authorization cards from 51% of the proposed bargaining unit, which has been confirmed by a neutral arbitrator pursuant to a card count. Once such status is achieved, the union and employer are required to meet and bargain towards reaching a collective bargaining agreement covering the terms and conditions of employment of the union represented employees. A Section 9(a) union cannot have its recognitional status revoked absent the loss of majority support of the employees it represents.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at
aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Freddie Mac Eases Mortgage Rules to Limit Putbacks
May 13, 2014 —
Clea Benson and Jody Shenn - BloombergFreddie Mac, which along with Fannie Mae has forced home lenders to buy back tens of billions of dollars of flawed mortgages, said the companies are loosening rules that made banks more cautious about extending credit.
The government-backed companies will expand the pool of loans that become exempt from putback requests, Freddie Mac (FMCC) said in a memo to lenders today. Under the new rules, loans will typically be spared from such demands if borrowers make 34 of their first 36 scheduled monthly payments. Previously, borrowers needed to avoid delinquency for the first three years.
Ms. Benson may be contacted at cbenson20@bloomberg.net; Ms. Shenn may be contacted at jshenn@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clea Benson and Jody Shenn, Bloomberg
New Member Added to Seattle Law Firm Williams Kastner
May 21, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAttorney Todd W. Blischke has become a member of Seattle, Washington’s Williams Kastner law firm, according to Herald Online. Blishcke, who “has experience representing contractors, sureties, real estate developers, public agencies and private owners” will “chair the firm’s Construction Litigation and Surety Practices Team.”
“Todd is an excellent addition to the firm’s Seattle office, and we are thrilled to have him on board,” said Jessie Harris, Managing Director of Williams Kastner, as quoted by Herald Online. “His years of experience in construction and surety matters will be an asset to Williams Kastner’s established construction litigation practice.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Powers of the Nation’s Bankruptcy Courts
June 11, 2014 —
Earl Forte – White and Williams LLPOn June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-awaited decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., Case No. 12-1200, in which the court confirmed that the power of the nation’s bankruptcy courts to hear and decide cases involving state-created private rights in which the bankruptcy proof of claim process has not been directly invoked, is severely limited by Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
The decision in Executive Benefits, while providing some clarity to practitioners and the public following the Court’s June 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), nevertheless will make a substantial portion of bankruptcy litigation matters more cumbersome and potentially more expensive to guide through the bankruptcy system. Clients and practitioners are best advised to hire knowledgeable counsel to help navigate the more complex procedural waters created by this decision.
Although the Court in Executive Benefits did resolve a pending procedural question that had dogged practitioners since Stern was decided in 2011, the Court’s decision in Executive Benefits now makes it abundantly clear that many disputes that were previously heard and decided in the nation’s bankruptcy courts can no longer be decided there and must be submitted to the district courts for full de novo review and entry of a final judgment or order. It is difficult to see how this decision will not make bankruptcy litigation more cumbersome and expensive by adding an additional layer of judicial involvement to many matters, notably to fraudulent transfer and other avoidance “claw back” actions that historically have been decided in the bankruptcy courts and used famously in Madoff and other cases as an efficient device for creating value for creditors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Earl Forte, White and Williams LLPMr. Forte may be contacted at
fortee@whiteandwilliams.com
California Court of Appeal Clarifies Intent of Faulty Workmanship Exclusions
October 26, 2017 —
Tiffany Casanova – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Last month, in Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pacific, Inc., 1 a California Court of Appeal clarified the meaning of the frequently asserted j.(5) and j.(6) exclusions of the standard commercial general liability policy; an issue the court deemed one of “first impression” for the state. The court took a close look at how courts nationwide handle the exclusions and relied on the policy language to come to a policyholder-friendly decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tiffany Casanova, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Casanova may be contacted at
tlc@sdvlaw.com
