James R. Lynch Appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee
June 22, 2016 —
Ahlers & Cressman Crew - Ahlers & Cressman Construction Law BlogJames R. Lynch, one of the attorneys at the law firm of Ahlers & Cressman PLLC, has been appointed to the Washington State Capital Project Review Committee (PRC). Created by the legislature in 2007, the PRC is responsible for reviewing and approving all public projects in the State of Washington using the General Contractor/Construction Manager (GC/CM) and Design-Build (D-B) delivery methods of construction. The PRC also certifies certain qualified government bodies to use these methods more broadly. The PRC consists of key representatives of Washington public project owners, designers, general contractors, specialty/subcontractors, construction managers, construction trades labor, and minority/women businesses. James has been appointed to the PRC’s Private Sector seat for a three-year term.
You may learn more about Ahlers & Cressman PLLC at www.ac-lawyers.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gloria Gaynor Sues Contractor over Defective Deck Construction
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFGloria Gaynor, known for her 1978 disco hit, “I Will Survive” is suing the firm that renovated her second-floor deck, alleging that the work lead to water intrusion into her home. Ms. Gaynor also accuses the company of consumer fraud, alleging that Diaz Landscape Design & Tree Service LLC lacked registration as a home improvement contractor and failed to obtain a building permit for the structure.
Ms. Gaynor paid about $38,000 for the replacement of her deck and other renovations to her property in 2007. Subsequently, the singer noticed “ponding of water on the deck, water damage to wood sills and supports, and the formation of mold,” according to the lawsuit. Diaz Landscape attempted repairs, but “the problems persisted and continue to persist causing further damage.”
The lawsuit claims that the cost of replacing the defective deck construction would cost about $120,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Federal Lawsuit Accuses MOX Contractors of Fraud
March 04, 2019 —
Scott Judy - Engineering News-RecordA subcontractor employee working on the now-canceled MOX project in South Carolina used football tickets, automobile tires, barbecue grills and other gifts to persuade employees of CB&I AREVA MOX Services and other vendors to help approve thousands of fraudulent invoices cumulatively valued at more than $6.4 million, according to a Dept. of Justice lawsuit filed Feb. 14 that names both companies as defendants. The controversial project at the Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C., originally scheduled for completion in 2016, was canceled in January after cost and schedule estimates increased significantly.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Judy, ENRMr. Judy may be contacted at
judys@enr.com
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
If You Don’t Like the PPP Now, Wait a Few Minutes…Major Changes to PPP Loan Program as Congress Passes Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act
July 27, 2020 —
Ryan J. Udell & Adam J. Chelminiak - White and Williams LLPOn June 5, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Payroll Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 (the Flexibility Act). The Flexibility Act provides much-needed flexibility for the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and its millions of business participants.
The PPP offers loans to small businesses that have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by various governmental authorities to stem the spread of the virus so that they could keep their employees on the payroll during an eight-week period after receiving the funds. The PPP was particularly alluring to borrowers because the loans could be forgiven. But as the duration of lockdown orders and the accompanying economic aftershocks have extended longer than initially anticipated, particularly in those sectors that depend on in-person business such as restaurants, hospitality and other “main street” retail establishments, many recipients of PPP loans have found it challenging to use the PPP funds for payroll and other authorized purposes within the eight-week period after they had received the PPP funds, as is necessary to preserve eligibility for forgiveness. The Flexibility Act makes several key changes to the PPP program in order to allow borrowers who need a longer re-opening runway to do so without jeopardizing their ability to qualify for loan forgiveness.
This alert outlines the key changes to the PPP made by the Flexibility Act.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan J. Udell, White and Williams LLP and
Adam J. Chelminiak, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Udell may be contacted at udellr@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Chelminiak may be contacted at chelminiaka@whiteandwilliams.com;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat – Case Law Update (February 2022)
March 06, 2022 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelIt is already early in 2022, but several important environmental cases have already been decided by the federal district and federal appellate courts.
THE COURTS OF APPEAL
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
West Virginia State University Board of Governors v. The Dow Chemical Company, et al.
On January 10, 2022, the court decided this case, in which Dow and the other defendants attempted to remove a state groundwater contamination lawsuit to federal court, citing the federal officer removal statute and the presence of a significant federal question. Both the federal district court and the appellate court rejected these arguments and remanded the lawsuit to the state court. For many years, Dow and other parties had been engaged in a RCRA hazardous waste cleanup at an industrial site located in Institute, West Virginia. RCRA permits and corrective action authorizations were issued or supervised by EPA. The plaintiffs complained that the groundwater cleanup, insofar as it affected their property, was deficient, which compelled them to supplement the ongoing federal cleanup with a lawsuit based on West Virginia causes of action and unique to their property. After a careful review of the record, the Fourth Circuit held that the defendants were not acting under the “subjection, guidance or control” of the EPA, and therefore the federal officer removal statute did not apply. Moreover, there was no federal question to resolve as the separate state lawsuit did not challenge a CERCLA cleanup nor did it arise from the RCRA remedial measures that had been taken.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Look to West Africa for the Future of Green Architecture
May 16, 2022 —
Kriston Capps - BloombergIn 2014, a crowd of demonstrators stormed Burkina Faso’s National Assembly building, setting it ablaze and ending the nearly 30-year rule of President Blaise Compaoré.
A year later, Burkenabè architect Diébédo Francis Kéré was asked to imagine a new parliamentary building — one that would reflect a more democratic future for the West African nation. Kéré conceived a six-story stepped pyramid that slopes up gently from the ground, inviting citizens to gather, climb and take in views of the capital city, Ouagadougou. The ruins of the former parliament building next door would be transformed into a rainwater-collecting memorial park.
The project remains a ways off: Burkina Faso continues to struggle with political unrest, including a coup d’état in January 2022. But Kéré’s fast-growing prominence may improve the odds that his vision will eventually materialize. In March, he became the first African architect to win the Pritzker Architecture Prize, the design field’s top honor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kriston Capps, Bloomberg
Texas Supreme Court Holds Anadarko’s $100M Deepwater Horizon Defense Costs Are Not Subject To Joint Venture Liability Limits
February 27, 2019 —
Sergio F. Oehninger & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews KurthReversing a Texas Court of Appeals decision that allowed Anadarko’s Lloyd’s of London excess insurers to escape coverage for more than $100 million in defense costs incurred in connection with claims from the Deepwater Horizon well blowout, the Supreme Court of Texas held that the insurers’ obligations to pay defense costs under an “energy package” liability policy are not capped by a joint venture coverage limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. et al. v. Houston Casualty Co. et al., No. 16-1013 (Tex. Jan. 25, 2019).
While the Lloyd’s of London insurers had agreed to pay Anadarko $37.5 million for damages, they declined to cover $100 million-plus in defense fees, arguing that both Anadarko’s liability and defense expenses are subject to the $37.5 million joint venture limit for “liability” insured. Anadarko asserted that only amounts paid as damages to third parties are subject to that limit. Defense costs, however, are not amounts paid as damages to a third party and, thus, are not a “liability.” Those amounts, therefore, are not subject to the joint venture limit and are instead subject to the policy’s $150 million coverage limit.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sergio F. Oehninger, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Oehninger may be contacted at soehninger@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
