Injured Subcontractor Employee Asserts Premise Liability Claim Against General Contractor
March 22, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an interesting opinion, an injured employee of an electrical subcontractor sued the general contractor of a parking garage project under a premise liability theory after being injured when stepping on an uncovered floor drain at the project site. There is no discussion in the opinion as to workers compensation immunity. Rather, the discussion centers on the injured employee’s premise liability claim as to whether the general contractor “breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition by leaving the drain uncovered and failing to warn of the danger of the uncovered drain.” Pratus v. Marzucco’s Construction & Coatings, Inc., 46 Fla.L.Weekly D186a (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the general contractor finding that the drain was open and obvious on the site. The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgment with a discussion as to premise liability claims, particularly as it pertains to a business invitee, which is what the injured employee of the electrical subcontractor was.
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
Badly Constructed Masonry Walls Not an Occurrence in Arkansas Law
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe US District Court for Maryland has granted a summary judgment in the case Konover Construction Corp. v. ATC Associates to Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company and denied a request for dismissal from ACT. Konover (KBE) was contracted by Wal-Mart to build a Wal-Mart store and a Sam’s Club in Port Covington, Maryland. Superus, Inc. was hired by KBE to build the masonry walls. Superus purchased a policy from Massachusetts Bay Insurance which named KBE as an additional insured. Wal-Mart hired ATC Associates to independently test and inspect the concrete structural steel, and masonry.
After the building was in use, a large crack appeared which was attributed a latent construction defect. Other cracks were discovered. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there were “voids or foam in the concrete block surrounding the reinforcing steel that should have been filled with grout,” and in some cases, “reinforcing steel was missing or not installed in accordance with the specifications.” KBE paid for the repair and remediation and Wal-Mart assigned all rights and interests against ATC to KBE.
KBE filed suit against ATC. ATC called for dismissal on the grounds that Wal-Mart had no claims as the problems had been remediated. Wal-Mart then provided KBE with additional agreements to give them enforceable rights against ATC and Superus. KBE filed a fourteen claims against ATC, Superus, and Massachusetts Bay. In the current case, Massachusetts Bay sought summary judgment and ATC sought dismissal of all claims against it.
Massachusetts Bay claims that they need not indemnify Superus, as “there is no evidence adequate to establish that Superus’ defective work caused any collateral and/or resulting damage that was not subject to an Impaired Property exclusion, and that, in any event, no damage occurred during the policy period.”
As Wal-Mart is headquarted in Arkansas, certain contracts were under Arkansas law. Under the Arkansas courts, “defective workmanship, standing alone and resulting in damages only to the work product itself, is not an ‘occurrence.’” The court determined that collateral or resultant damage would be covered. The court found that “it is clear under Arkansas law, and the parties appear to agree, that Massachusetts Bay is not obligated to indemnify KBE for any repairs to the masonry walls themselves, including any cracks or gaps in the walls.” The court also found that “there is no evidence adequate to prove that any allegedly resultant property damage was caused by Superus’ faulty construction of the walls.” The court also noted that “if the building code violation and structural integrity problem were ‘property damage,’ insurance coverage would be barred by the Impaired Property Exclusion.” Based on these findings, the court concluded that Massachusetts Bay is entitled to summary judgment.
While the court dismissed the case against Massachusetts Bay, the court declined ATC’s motion to dismiss. The court noted that ACT’s alleged negligence in conducting inspections “created only a risk of economic loss for KBE.” Although hired by Wal-Mart, ATC “transmitted its daily testing and inspection reports of the Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club projects directly to KBE.” The court found that “KBE has made a plausible claim.”
ATC also claimed that KBE contributed to the negligence due to the negligence of its subcontractor. The court concluded that it was plausible that “ATC will not be able to carry its burden of proving KBE was contributorily negligent.” The court was less sanguine about KBE’s fraud claim, but though it “may not now appear likely to have merit, it is above the ‘plausibility’ line.”
In conclusion, KBE may not continue its case against Massachusetts Bay. However, the judge allowed the other proceedings to continue.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Sharpens The “Sword” And Strengthens The “Shield” Of Contractors’ License Law
July 24, 2023 —
Kyle S. Case - ConsensusDocsPerforming construction work without the necessary license can have significant repercussions on a contractor’s business. California in particular has become known for its imposition of “strict and harsh” penalties for a contractor’s failure to maintain proper licensure. In the realm of public works projects, any contract with an unlicensed contractor is deemed void. See Business & Professions Code Section 7028.15(e). On private projects, California’s Contractors’ License Law prohibits contractors from maintaining any action to recover payment for their work, and more severe, may require a contractor to disgorge all funds paid to it for performing unlicensed work. See Business & Professions Code Section 7031). These methods of deterrence are referred to as the “shield” and “sword” of the Contractors’ State License Law. Loranger v. Jones, 184 Cal. App. 4th 847, 854 (2010).
In any discussion surrounding licensure, it is important to review the language of the Business and Professions Code (“Bus. & Prof.”). Section 7031(a) states:
Except as provided in subdivision (e), no person engaged in the business or acting in the capacity of a contractor, may bring or maintain any action, or recover in law or equity in any action, in any court of this state for compensation for the performance of any act or contract where a license is required by this chapter without alleging that they were a duly licensed contractor at all times during the performance of that act or contract regardless of the merits of the cause of action brought by the person…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kyle S. Case, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald LLPMr. Case may be contacted at
kcase@watttieder.com
Revised Federal Rule Regarding Class-Wide Settlements
May 13, 2019 —
Edward M. Koch & Michael Jervis - White and Williams LLPThe United States Supreme Court recently approved and adopted amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concerning class action practice as proposed by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules. The amended rule went into effect on December 1, 2018. The amendments do not affect the core of the rule – the criteria for obtaining class certification. Instead, the changes are more subtle adjustments that update and modernize procedures and processes for notification to class members and obtaining approval of class settlements. Nonetheless, although the amendments are not breathtaking, there are important changes.
The first set of amendments apply to Rule 23(e), governing the process of settlement of a class action. First, the amendment makes explicit that the subsection applies not just to already certified classes, but also “a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement.” The changes also add some discretion of the court concerning when notice of a proposed settlement and settlement class should be provided. As part of the settlement approval process, the parties now are expressly required to give the court “information sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the proposal to the class.” The giving of notice is justified only if that information is sufficient to allow the court to determine it is likely to approve the proposed settlement and certify the class. Once notice is approved, the new rule recognizes modern developments by allowing that notice may be by “United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.” The rule thus recognizes that in many cases traditional mail notice may still be best; in others e-mail notification might be the best way to reach class members.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward M. Koch, White and Williams LLP and
Michael Jervis, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Koch may be contacted at koche@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Jervis may be contacted at jervism@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Liability Policy’s Arbitration Endorsement Applies to Third Party Beneficiaries, Including Additional Insureds
May 11, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (No. C082841; filed 12/31/19, ord. pub. 1/28/20), a California appeals court held that a binding arbitration clause in an insurance policy extends to a third party, such as an additional insured.
In Philadelphia v. SMG, Philadelphia issued a general liability policy to a youth organization, Future Farmers of America (FFA), that had contracted to use the Fresno Convention Center for its annual convention. The contract required FFA to obtain liability insurance and to name the property manager, SMG, and the City of Fresno, as additional insureds. Philadelphia issued FFA a commercial lines CGL policy with an endorsement affording coverage to “managers, landlords, or lessors of premises” for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. It also covered “any person or organization where required by a written contract executed prior to the occurrence” but only for liability arising from the named insured’s negligence.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What Counts as Adequate Opportunity to Cure?
June 13, 2022 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musingsqimono @ PixabayHere at Musings, we like to discuss (likely more than readers would like) the fact that in Virginia, the contract is king and its terms will be looked at carefully by the courts. One of those provisions that will be looked at carefully is the so-called “cure period.” The “cure period” is the time that a subcontractor has to fix any non-compliant construction after receiving notice of any deviation from the contract documents that must be fixed.
In United States ex rel Allan Myers VA, Inc. v. Ocean Construction Services, Inc. the federal court for the Eastern District of Virginia examined what it means to grant a proper opportunity to cure. The Ocean Construction Services case arises from a contractual dispute between Allan Myers VA Inc. and Ocean Construction Services Inc., or OCS, involving renovation work performed in sections of Arlington National Cemetery. Presently before the court is Myers’ motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts demonstrate that it was not provided with a three-day cure period, a contractual prerequisite to OCS terminating the subcontract for default.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
More Details Emerge in Fatal Charlotte, NC, Scaffold Collapse
January 17, 2023 —
Derek Lacey & Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordDetails have emerged in the Jan. 2 scaffold collapse at an under-construction apartment high-rise in Charlotte, N.C. that killed three workers and injured two. A work suspension continues during an investigation led by the North Carolina Dept. of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Division.
Reprinted courtesy of
Derek Lacey, Engineering News-Record and
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Lacey may be contacted at laceyd@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision
June 06, 2018 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee.
In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
