Nevada OSHA Provides Additional Requirements for Construction Employers to Address Feasibility of Social Distancing at Construction Sites
May 04, 2020 —
Aaron Lovaas - Newmeyer DillionWhen Nevada’s Governor identified construction as an essential business amid the initial directives of the COVID-19 state of emergency, the executive order required construction employers to “maintain strict social distancing practices to facilitate a minimum of six feet of separation between workers.” Now, nearly a month later, Nevada’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration has recognized that strict social distancing measures are not always practical or feasible among workers on an active construction site. On April 20, 2020, Nevada OSHA issued revised guidelines addressing ongoing construction activity when social distancing cannot practically be maintained.
The guidelines continue to emphasize that safety and training meetings, tailgate talks, and similar gatherings must be restricted to 10 people or less. Additionally, the employer remains responsible for monitoring employees on lunch breaks, slack periods and in employee parking areas to ensure compliance with social distancing protocols.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron Lovaas, Newmeyer DillionMr. Lovaas may be contacted at
aaron.lovaas@ndlf.com
Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: RACHEL CLANCY
November 16, 2023 —
Jessica Knox - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Lobar, Inc.
Email: rachel.clancy@lobar.com
Website: www.lobar.com
College: York College of Pennsylvania (Bachelor of Science in Marketing, 2001)
Graduate School: Florida Institute of Technology (MBA in Acquisition and Contract Management, 2004)
Law School: Penn State University, Dickinson School of Law (JD 2007)
States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Headquarters are in Dillsburg, PA; construction projects located in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and West Virginia
Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel.
A: Before law school, I spent three years as a Contract Specialist writing construction contracts for the Department of Defense, Naval Facilities Command in New Jersey. I had no idea I'd eventually find my way back to construction. After law school, I spent five years in the business department of a local law firm handling corporate formations, a variety of commercial contracts, and learning some real estate law. After another four years in-house with a data and marketing company in Harrisburg, I accepted my current position with Lobar, where I've been for the last seven years.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Knox, Stinson LLPMs. Knox may be contacted at
jessica.knox@stinson.com
COVID-19 Likely No Longer Covered Under Force Majeure
February 01, 2023 —
Rachel E. Pelovitz - Construction ExecutiveA recent decision by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has shaken up construction contracts. While companies could claim “force majeure” to exempt themselves from contractual obligations during much of the pandemic, this decision challenges ongoing validity of those claims.
The decision was based on the Army Corps of Engineers deeming a bid from Boulder, Colorado–based American Mine Services (AMS) as nonresponsive because it included a COVID-19 force majeure clause. In reviewing the Corps’ decision, GAO—referencing the Federal Acquisition Regulation—found that “epidemics” and “quarantine restrictions” were already included in the contract between the Corps and AMS. Although AMS claimed that “COVID-19 is considered a force majeure event along with any other similar disease, epidemic or pandemic event,” the GAO concluded that this interpretation limited the rights of the government too much.
Reprinted courtesy of
Rachel E. Pelovitz, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Pelovitz may be contacted at
pelovitz@abc.org
Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects
May 15, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneIn All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court.
Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Zero-Net Energy Homes Costly Everywhere but at the Electric Meter
August 27, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFOn one hand, your walls are about nine inches thick. On the other hand, your heating and cooling costs are nonexistent. Greenhill Contracting is building “zero-net energy” homes in New Paltz, New York. The homes are designed to create more power than they consume. In addition to the walls, which WDTN News describes as “castle thick,” the homes include solar panels, triple-glazed windows, and geothermal heating and cooling systems. The cost for a three-bedroom home in this development starts at about $400,000.
Meritage Homes is offering net-zero as an option on its homes. Based in Arizona, Meritage builds homes across the country. Another national builder, Shea Homes, calls its net-zero option “SheaXero,” and has built about a thousand in four western states and in Florida. One Arizona homeowner notes that she runs her air conditioner constantly, but “I still have never paid more than $18 and some change.” Sometimes she even gets a credit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Product Liability Alert: Evidence of Apportionment of Fault Admissible in Strict Products Liability Action
March 26, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Romine v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (No. B239761, filed March 17, 2014), the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a trial court must permit a defendant, in a products liability action, to present evidence of apportionment of fault among settling and non-settling entities. The case involved an automobile collision in which the plaintiff was struck from behind, causing the driver’s seat to recline and propel plaintiff into the back seat where she struck her head. Plaintiff was left quadriplegic as a result.
Plaintiff brought suit against the driver who caused the accident, the Nissan entities who manufactured the car plaintiff was driving, Johnson Controls, Inc. (“Johnson”), Ikeda Engineering Corporation (“Ikeda”), Vintec Co. (“Vintec”), and Autoliv ASP, Inc., who designed and manufactured the driver’s seat of the vehicle plaintiff was driving, and against Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. who manufactured the recliner mechanism of plaintiff’s vehicle’s front seat. Ikeda participated in the design of the driver’s seat and Vintec manufactured the driver’s seat. Johnson manufactured the seat belt for the driver’s seat of plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with Nissan’s design. Prior to trial, plaintiff settled with the defendant driver, the Nissan defendants, the Autoliv defendants, and Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. Plaintiff elected to proceed to trial solely on a cause of action for strict products liability against Ikeda and Vintec. Pursuant to a stipulation, Johnson agreed it would be legally responsible for damages awarded to plaintiff at trial based upon the actions of Vintec or Ikeda.
At trial, the court precluded Vintec and Ikeda from offering evidence that: (1) plaintiff would not have been injured if her vehicle’s seat belt was designed in a different manner by Nissan; (2) Nissan chose the manufacturer of the recliner mechanism and required defendants to use that manufacturer and that part in the seat; and (3) The other defendants had already reached settlements with plaintiff.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Negligent Inspection Claim Against Supervising Design Professional / Consultant
August 07, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesCan a negligence argument be created against consulting design professionals or entities that are involved in the inspection of a trade’s work? The recent opinion in Bautech USA, Inc. v. Resolve Equipment, Inc., 2023 WL 4186395 (S.D.Fla. 2023) contains an interesting fact pattern that touches upon this issue. While the case dealt with a motion to dismiss, it contains a number of issues that may be discussed in follow-up postings.
Here, a prime contractor was hired by Broward County, Florida to install offshore reef mitigation units. The contractor entered into a subcontract with a concrete fabricator to fabricate the reef mitigation units. The contractor also separately hired consultants to inspect the units. The contractor and its consultants rejected the units even after the fabricator implemented design revisions. The fabricator was then terminated and not paid for contract work plus revisions it implemented to finished units. The fabricator sued the contractor and the contractor’s consultants for non-payment under many (ten) different theories of liability claiming it was damaged to the tune of millions of dollars.
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
Constructive Change Directives / Directed Changes
June 06, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updatesrime contracts typically contain a constructive change directive clause. A constructive change directive also goes by the acronym CCD (and for purposes of this article, such changes will be referred to as a CCD), however it can also be known as a Work Change Directive, Interim Directed Change, or Directed Change, depending on the type of contract beign utilized. An owner can order a CCD, versus issuing the contractor a formalized change order, as a mechanism to direct the prime contractor to perform work if there is a dispute as to contract amount, time, or scope. Just because an owner issues a CCD does not mean the owner is conceding that it owes the contractor a change order. Rather, the owner is ordering the CCD as a mechanism to keep the project moving forward notwithstanding a disagreement with the contractor as to the price or time impact. Standard form construction agreements such as the AIA, EJCDC, or ConsensusDocs, will have a standard provision dealing with change directives where the owner can order the contractor to proceed with work in the absence of a change order. In the federal government context, most construction contracts will contain a changes clause that authorizes the government to formally direct changes; and, there is authority for contractors to equitably pursue a constructive change based on certain directives or instructions issued by the government. Naturally, from the contractor’s perspective, this CCD provision is an important consideration as it could likely require the contractor to finance a change to the owner’s project, particularly if there is a scope dispute where the owner does not believe the contractor is entitled to any change order.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
