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
Missouri Legislature Passes Bill to Drastically Change Missouri’s “Consent Judgment” Statute
August 10, 2021 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn June 29, 2021, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed SB-HB 345 into law, which will drastically change Section 537.065 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Section 537.065 provides an insured who has been denied insurance coverage a statutory mechanism to settle certain tort claims through an agreement akin to a consent judgment. Typically referred to as a “065 Agreement,” the statute allows a plaintiff and insured-tortfeasor to settle a claim for damages and specify which assets are available to satisfy the claim, typically the tortfeasor’s available insurance policy. In the past, such agreements were often accomplished without the insurer’s participation or even its knowledge. Under such agreements, the insured-tortfeasor assigns all rights to the insurance policy to the plaintiff and agrees not to contest the issues of liability or damages. In exchange the plaintiff agrees not to execute any judgment against the insured. The parties conduct what amounts to an uncontested and often “sham” trial resulting in a judgment far in excess of any actual damages or applicable policy limits had the case been contested. In a subsequent proceeding to collect on the judgment, the tortfeasor’s insurer is bound by the determinations of liability and damages made in the underlying action.
This statutory framework presented plenty of opportunities for abuse. In 2017, the statute was amended in order to address some of those issues, including a requirement that the insured provide notice of a settlement demand under Section 065 and providing insurers a limited right to intervene in the tort action before liability and damages have been determined. Ostensibly, the intent of the 2017 amendments was to reduce the number of large and uncontested judgments and allow the insurance carrier an opportunity to continue litigating the injured party’s claim where the insured has no incentive or is contractually prohibited from doing so. Yet, creative plaintiff’s attorneys found several “loopholes” around these changes, most prominently, by moving their disputes from state court to binding arbitration and dispensing with notice to the insurer altogether, or at least until after the arbitration has concluded.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Haight Brown & Bonesteel Attorneys Named Best Lawyers in America ® 2016
February 23, 2016 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPJanuary 21, 2016 - The Best Lawyers in America® 2016, is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys earning this honor for 2016 include the following:
William G. Baumgaertner - Personal Injury Litigation
Denis J. Moriarty - Insurance Law
Since its inception in 1983, Best Lawyers has become regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Because Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive peer-review survey in which more than 39,000 leading attorneys cast almost 3.1 million votes on the legal abilities of other lawyers in their practice areas, and because lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed, inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Trucks looking for Defects Create Social Media Frenzy
July 23, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to Willits News, slow-moving trucks with cameras attached rolled through Fort Briggs, attracting attention from homeowners in the community. People began mentioning the trucks on social media sites, with questions regarding what the cameras on the trucks were recording.
Osmose Utilities General Manager, Jason Milligan, told Willits News that the trucks were “surveying overhead power poles and lines for PG&E.”
"We're not looking for anything but what's overhead," Mulligan said, according to Willits News. "We find defects or issues with construction ... 20 or 30 feet off the ground, which are safety issues. We don't scan anything down towards people's homes."
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Just When You Thought General Contractors Were Necessary Parties. . .
December 31, 2014 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsDid you think that a subcontractor had to name a general contractor in a mechanic’s lien suit? I did. Did you think that nothing about this changed in the case where a Virginia mechanic’s lien was “bonded off” pursuant to Va. Code Section 43-71? I did.
Well, a recent Virginia Supreme Court case, Synchronized Construction Services Inc. v. Prav Lodging LLC, seems to at least create some doubt as to whether the a general contractor is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit by a subcontractor in the case where a bond is posted for release of a mechanic’s lien.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Dreyer v. Am. Natl. Prop. & Cas. Co. Or: Do Not Enter into Nunn-Agreements for Injuries that Occurred After Expiration of the Subject Insurance Policy
January 20, 2020 —
Jean Meyer - Colorado Construction LitigationWhile Nunn-Agreements[1] may be appealing for both plaintiffs and defendants where an insurer unreasonably fails to defend a lawsuit, a recent opinion from The Honorable Marcia Krieger in the United States District Court of Colorado[2] (“Opinion”) demonstrates the importance of first confirming that there exists a viable insurance claim before proceeding with such a Nunn- Agreement.
The facts giving rise to the Opinion were as follows. In March 2015, a Homeowner couple (the “Homeowners”) suffered damages to their home resulting from a brushfire. Fortunately, the Homeowners were insured, they submitted their claim to their homeowners’ insurance carrier which was in effect at the time of the brushfire (the “Insurance Carrier”), and the Insurance Carrier paid the claim. Ostensibly as part of the Homeowners’ remediation efforts to their home they removed a large bush which left a hole in the ground. After paying the claim, in August 2015 the Insurance Carrier cancelled or elected not to renew the Homeowners’ policy. In October 2015, a repairman working on the Home (the “Repairman”) was injured after his ladder fell over allegedly because of the hole in the ground caused by the bush that had been removed.
As a result of injuries caused by the fall from the ladder, the Repairman brought suit against the Homeowners. In response to the Repairman’s claim, the Homeowners again tendered to their Insurance Carrier. This time, however, the Insurance Carrier denied coverage on the basis that the Repairman’s injuries occurred after the expiration of the relevant policy. Without insurance coverage, the Homeowner’s entered into a Nunn-Agreement with the Repairman, conceding liability, and assigning any claims they might have had against the Insurance Carrier in lieu of execution of any judgment against the Homeowners.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jean Meyer, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Meyer may be contacted at
meyer@hhmrlaw.com
Additional Insured is Loss Payee after Hurricane Damage
October 01, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiConstruing the policy language, the federal district court found that the policy's additional insured was the loss payee for damage caused by Hurricanes Laura and Delta. TCP Ryan St. LLC v. Weschester Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125529 (W.D. La. July 16, 2024).
Hurricanes Laura and Delta caused damage to TCP Ryan Street, LLC's (TCP) property. Westchester had issued a policy to MRI Heritage Brand, Inc. (MRI). MRI, as lessee, was obligated pursuant to the lease terms to "purchase and maintain . . . a policy of fire, extended coverage, vandalism and malicious mischief (or 'all risk') insurance coverage on all real property situated at the Lease Premises." The lease also required MRI to obtain coverage under a policy naming only the landlord as the sole insured and provided that the proceeds would be payable to the landlord.
The policy provided that no entity was covered unless Westchester had received identifying information for the entity during the application process or the entity was added by endorsement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
March 05, 2015 —
William L. Porter – Porter Law Group, Inc.The “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Completion will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
What commonly occurs however is that early in the process the owner authorizes or even requires its tenant to perform beneficial tenant improvements on the property. This authorization is often set forth in a tenant lease or other written document. The dispositive factor for determining whether the Notice of Non-Responsibility will be enforceable though is that the owner knows that these improvements will be made to the property and intends that they be made, usually long before the work begins. Indeed, the owner has usually negotiated these very terms into the lease contract. The owner then mistakenly believes that once work on the property commences it has 10 days to post and record a Notice of Non-Responsibility and thereby protect itself from a mechanics lien.
The usual error is two-fold. First, the statute states that the Notice is available when the owner “did not contract for the work of improvement”. The fact though is that the owner did contract for the work of improvement. It did so through the lease contract. This is true even though the owner’s contract was not with the contractor or supplier directly. Secondly, the 10 day period to post and record the Notice begins when the owner first “has knowledge” of the work of improvement. This knowledge was of course gained when the lease was negotiated and signed, providing knowledge typically many days before the work has begun. Thus, the 10 day period can also seldom be met. The Notice of Non-Responsibility will therefore fail both rules because the owner has in fact contracted for the improvement and because he does not act within 10 days of gaining this knowledge.
The next event in the typical scenario occurs when the tenant does not pay its contractor. The contractor then has nothing to pay its subcontractors. Material suppliers also go unpaid. Mechanics liens are then recorded by the unpaid claimants, followed by foreclosure actions within ninety days thereafter. Owners will typically point to the Notice of Non-Responsibility they posted and recorded, claiming its protection. Claimants then in turn point to the lease or other evidence that the owner knew of the pending improvements and contracted in some way that the improvements be performed, often also more than 10 days before they posted the Notice. Judges generally agree with the unpaid mechanics lien claimants and the Notice of Non-Responsibility is deemed ineffective.
The fact that the Court does not enforce the Notice of Non-Responsibility under these circumstances is not an unfair result. Since the owner authorized the work to be performed and it received a substantial benefit in the form of those improvements, it is not unfair that the owner should pay for those benefits. It would be inequitable for the owner to obtain the benefit of the improvements which it authorized but for which it did not pay, while allowing those who provided the benefit to go unpaid. Moreover, without such a system in place the door would be open to owners setting up sham “tenants” who would enter into contracts to have work performed, only to disappear when the work is completed, leaving the contractor without a source of payment. The system in place as described above prevents such duplicity. Owners would do well to arm themselves with proper knowledge of when the Notice of Non-Responsibility will and will not protect them and then responsibly use the Notice of Non-Responsibility.
For the legal eagles among you, the following cases illustrate the view of the courts, consistent with the above: Baker v. Hubbard (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 226; Ott Hardware v. Yost (1945) 69 Cal. App.2d 593 (lease terms); Los Banos Gravel Co. v. Freeman (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 785 (common interest); Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003); 106 Cal.App.4th 314 (participating owner).
William L. Porter of
Porter Law Group, Inc. located in Sacramento, California may be contacted at (916) 381-7868 or bporter@porterlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
