Colorado Abandons the “Completed and Accepted Rule” in Favor of the “Foreseeability Rule” in Determining a Contractor’s Duty to a Third Party After Work Has Been Completed
January 17, 2013 —
Brady Iandiorio, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCIn a recent case, the Colorado Court of Appeals found that a contractor had a duty to a third party to warn it of a dangerous condition, even after the contractor had completed its work and the owner had accepted the contractor’s work. Collard v. Vista Paving Corp., -- P.3d --, 2012 WL 5871446 (Colo. App. 2012). While not an earth shattering or entirely new concept, the decision rendered in Collard directly accepted the foreseeability rule at the expense of the completed and accepted rule. Id.
In Collard, the City of Grand Junction (“the City”) hired Vista Paving Corp. (“Vista”) to construct two road medians according to the City’s plans and designs. On July 9, 2007, Vista began work on the medians. According to its contract with the City, Vista was responsible for traffic control during construction of the medians. On July 19, 2007, Vista completed its construction of both medians. On that date, the City’s project inspector conducted his final inspection of Vista’s work. The City’s inspector then told Vista that its work had been completed and that Vista was authorized to leave the site. Vista requested permission to remove the traffic control devices to which the City’s inspector agreed. Vista removed all of its traffic control devices.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Brady IandiorioMr. Iandiorio can be contacted at
iandiorio@hhmrlaw.com
Up in Smoke - 5th Circuit Finds No Coverage for Hydrochloric Acid Spill Based on Pollution Exclusion
October 19, 2020 —
Kerianne E. Kane & David G. Jordan - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThe Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an insurer was not obligated to pay damages associated with a hydrochloric acid spill based on a pollution exclusion in the policy.
In Burroughs Diesel, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of America,1 a trucking company sued its property insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company of America (“Travelers”) when it refused to pay a claim for a storage tank leak which resulted in over 5,000 gallons of hydrochloric acid entering the property and causing significant damage to buildings, vehicles, tools, and equipment. The acid was initially dispensed in liquid form, but quickly became a cloud that engulfed the property. Travelers denied coverage for the claim based on the pollution exclusion because “acids” fell within the policy’s definition of “pollutants.”
The trucking company sued Travelers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing for refusing to pay the claim. The trucking company argued that coverage was warranted because there is an exception to the pollution exclusion if “the discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape is itself caused by any of the ‘specified causes of loss,’” and the hydrochloric acid cloud was a form of “smoke,” which is a specified cause of loss covered by the policy. The District Court entered summary judgment in favor of Travelers, finding that the trucking company failed to demonstrate that an exception to the pollution exclusion applied. The trucking company appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kerianne E. Kane, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Ms. Kane may be contacted at kek@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at dgj@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Developer Transition – Washington DC Condominiums
June 29, 2017 —
Nicholas D. Cowie - Maryland Condo Construction Defect Law BlogDeveloper transition is the process by which governance over a condominium unit owners’ association (“condominium association”) is transferred from condominium developer to unit owner control. Below is an overview of the legal requirements in the District of Columbia that govern this transition process as well as a “transition checklist” for unit owner-elected boards of directors that have recently transitioned from developer control.
TRANSITION LAW OVERVIEW
PERIOD OF DEVELOPER CONTROL
A developer initially controls a condominium association because it owns all unsold units in the newly created condominium. As such, the condominium developer has the controlling votes associated with majority ownership and can appoint its own employees as the initial members of the board of directors and thereby control how the association conducts its affairs. This is referred to as the “period of developer control,” during which the condominium developer makes all decisions on behalf of the condominium association.
The developer also creates a condominium association’s governing documents allowing it to dictate, subject to applicable law, the procedures and time periods under which control over the association’s board of directors is ultimately transferred to the unit owners.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas D. Cowie, Cowie & Mott, P.A.Mr. Cowie may be contacted at
ndc@cowiemott.com
Federal Court Opinion Has Huge Impact on the Construction Industry
July 06, 2020 —
Wally Zimolong - Supplemental ConditionsThe United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia recently issued an opinion that should get the attention of any contractor or subcontractor performing work on a federal funded construction project. In U.S. ex rel IBEW Local 98 v. The Fairfield Company, the federal court held that a contractor on a SEPTA project could be held liable under the False Claims Act for failing to pay its workers under the Davis Bacon Act. The court found that liability was appropriate under the FCA even through the contractor did not knowingly violate the Davis Bacon Act. The court awarded the plaintiff over $1,000,000 in damages and an additional over $1,000,000 in attorneys fees.
An Extremely Brief Primer on the FCA
A full discussion of the FCA is beyond the realm of this blog post and you could write a book on FCA cases. But in a nutshell, the FCA prohibits a contractor from knowingly submitting a claim for payment to the federal government (or an entity receiving funding from the federal government, like SEPTA) that is false. Importantly, knowingly does not equal actual knowledge of the falsity of the claim. Rather, “reckless disregard of the truth or falsity” of the submission is sufficient. As explained below, this standard played an important role in the court’s decision and should give contractors performing work on federally funded projects pause.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Tenth Circuit Reverses District Court's Ruling that Contractor Entitled to a Defense
October 24, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiAfter the district court granted the insured contractor's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the duty to defend, the Tenth Circuit found there was no coverage and reversed. Owners Ins. Co. v. Greenhalgh Planning & Development, Inc., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 20137 (10th Cir. Aug. 4, 2023).
Greenhalgh remodeled a house and barn for Michelle and Steven Pickens. After completion of the project, the Pickens sold the property to Teague and Michelle Cowley. The Cowleys later sued the Pickenses asserting various fraud and breach of contract claims. The complaint alleged that the Pickenses misled them into reasonably believing that the barn was a habitable structure, even though it did not qualify as such under the applicable building code because it lacked a fire-sprinkler system.
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
Resolve to Say “No” This Year
January 26, 2016 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsWe hear all of the time how to “get to ‘yes'” and how doing so can lead to more business and of course more business leads to more profits. Purely logical, right? Without construction owners with work for general contractors to perform and general contractors hiring subcontractors to perform that work, construction grinds to a halt and clients and friends of mine in the construction industry don’t make money. For this to happen, “yes” has to happen more often than not. So, why the title of this post?
Chalk it up to spending much if not all of my time as a construction attorney either anticipating or dealing with the Murphy’s Law ruled nature of the construction world or to the “Monday morning quarterback” nature of my profession, but I see numerous instances where not taking the job or signing the bad contract would have led to a better outcome than performing the work. What do I mean by this? I mean that as a construction company (particularly one that is lower down the “payment chain” and therefore less in control of the flow of money), you need to carefully evaluate not only the contract presented, but whether you get a good feeling about the party with whom you are contracting.
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
Texas Supreme Court Finds Payment of Appraisal Award Does Not Absolve Insurer of Statutory Liability
April 19, 2021 —
Allison Griswold & Sarah Smith - Lewis BrisboisThe Texas Supreme Court recently published its long-awaited decision in the Hinojos v. State Farm Lloyds. In it, the court affirmed its holding in Barbara Technologies, finding that payment of an appraisal award does not absolve an insurer of statutory liability when the insurer accepts a claim but pays only part of the amount it owes within the statutory deadline, and a policy holder can proceed with an action under the Texas Prompt Payment of Claims Act.
In 2013, Louis Hinojos made a claim for storm damage to his home. State Farm’s initial inspection resulted in an estimate below the deductible, but Hinojos disagreed and requested a second inspection. At the second inspection, the adjuster identified additional damage resulting in a payment to Hinojos of $1,995.11. Hinojos then sued State Farm – and State Farm invoked appraisal approximately 15 months after suit was filed. The appraisal resulted in State Farm tendering an additional payment of $22,974.75. State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that timely payment of an appraisal award precluded prompt payment (or Chapter 542) damages. The trial court granted summary judgment and Hinojos appealed (notably Barbara Technologies had not yet been decided). The Court of Appeals affirmed State Farm’s victory on the basis that “State Farm made a reasonable payment on Hinojos’s claim within the sixty-day statutory limit….” Hinojos petitioned the Texas Supreme Court for review.
Reprinted courtesy of
Allison Griswold, Lewis Brisbois and
Sarah Smith, Lewis Brisbois
Ms. Griswold may be contacted at Allison.Griswold@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Smith may be contacted at Sarah.Smith@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Real-Estate Pros Fight NYC Tax on Wealthy Absentee Owners
October 15, 2014 —
Henry Goldman and Allyson Versprille – BloombergA political battle is brewing at the apex of New York’s property market.
The real-estate industry is mobilizing to kill a proposed levy on non-resident owners of apartments valued at more than $5 million, seeking to ensure the world’s biggest city doesn’t follow London, Hong Kong and Singapore in extracting extra cash from trophy properties.
The industry’s lobbying arm, the Real Estate Board of New York, says the measure will scare off investors who fuel a business supporting more than 500,000 jobs and generating 40 percent of the five boroughs’ revenue. Brokers warn of economic calamity if officials slap a luxury tax on apartments owned by someone who lives in the city less than half the year.
Mr. Goldman may be contacted at hgoldman@bloomberg.net; Ms. Versprille may be contacted at aversprille1@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Henry Goldman and Allyson Versprille, Bloomberg
