Avoid Five Common Fraudulent Schemes Used in Construction
December 02, 2019 —
Ken Van Bree - Construction ExecutiveHere’s an attention-getting statistic: A typical case of fraud in the construction industry has a median loss of $227,000, according to the 2018 Report to the Nations issued by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) on occupational or internal fraud. This report further showed that the construction industry’s median loss is approximately $119,000 higher than the average fraud losses across all industries.
Construction companies are most at risk for fraud related to corruption (such as bribes and kickbacks), billing related schemes, expense reimbursements, check tampering and equipment or material theft.
This brings up three important questions:
- What are the fraud schemes affecting your company?
- How can contractors keep their companies from experiencing these types of fraud?
- What is the profile of fraudster?
The threat of fraud can never be wholly removed; however, companies should take steps to identify likely fraud schemes they might face. Below are a number of schemes frequently used to defraud construction companies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ken Van Bree, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Peak of Hurricane Season Is Here: How to Manage Risks Before They Manage You
September 21, 2020 —
Vincent E. Morgan - Construction ExecutiveThe Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, but it peaks sharply during August, September and October. The latest forecasts predict this will be one of the most active seasons in history, in terms of frequency and severity, though it is always important to remember that even a single hurricane or tropical storm making landfall can still be a devastating event.
Hurricanes pose unique risks to the construction industry ranging from project and labor force disruptions to concerns about the availability and price of construction materials. This is even more true this year, which requires merging hurricane preparedness and response plans with the realities of COVID-19. Because hurricanes cannot be avoided, preparing for them is the only way to manage these risks. Ensuring the personal safety and wellbeing of affected individuals is the first priority. After that, here are some key issues, and suggestions for handling them, that may help guide construction companies through the storm.
SITE PROTECTION
Construction contracts often place responsibility for site protection on contractors. Where those duties exist, failing to properly carry them out can lead to enormous losses that then turn into liability claims. This could be anything from removing materials that can become projectiles, covering exposed ventilation shafts, and sealing electrical conduits to ensuring that key equipment such as generators and pumps can remain functional in a storm. One way to approach it is to imagine sustained 100-mph winds and relentless water, and then make sure preparedness efforts are likely to survive that kind of test. This is not the time for guessing. It is far better to go through a rigorous analytical process now than in a courtroom years later.
Reprinted courtesy of
Vincent E. Morgan, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer's Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Failure to Cover Collapse Fails
April 13, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe insurer was unsuccessful in moving to dismiss the property owner's complaint that was filed after coverage for collapse of basement walls was denied. Cyr v. CCAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39387 (D. Conn. March 20, 2017).
The Cyrs began observing cracking patterns in the basement wall of their home. A structural engineer inspected the wall and determined that the cracks were due to a chemical reaction in the concrete that would ultimately render the walls unstable. The Cyrs made a claim with CCAA under their homeowner's policy. The insureds contended that the progressive deterioration of the concrete in the basement walls was a collapse under the policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Court of Appeal Confirms Privette Doctrine as Applied to Passive Conduct of Property Owner
March 22, 2018 —
Bruce Cleeland and Frances Ma – Publications & InsightsIn
Delgadillo v. Television Center, Inc., 2018 No. B270985, the California Court of Appeal examined and refined the
Privette doctrine.
Mr. Delgadillo worked as a supervisor/window cleaner for a company named Chamberlin Building Services (CBS). Television Center, Inc. (TCI) purchased an existing building and thereafter contracted with CM Cleaning Solutions, Inc. (CMC) to provide cleaning and janitorial services. CMC, on behalf of TCI, solicited a proposal from CBS to wash the building’s windows. CBS and its employees made all decisions about how the window washing would be accomplished. The window washing equipment used on the job was owned, inspected and maintained by CBS. In violation of CBS’ policy, Mr. Delgadillo, attached a safety line to a single connector which was not an acceptable anchor point. The bracket failed and Mr. Delgadillo fell 50 feet to his death.
Survivors of Mr. Delgadillo filed suit against TCI for negligence and negligence per se, alleging that Mr. Delgadillo was fatally injured because TCI failed to install structural roof anchors, as required by several statutes.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bruce Cleeland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Frances Ma, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Cleeland may be contacted at bcleeland@hbblaw.com
Ms. Ma may be contacted at fma@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Damron Agreement Questioned in Colorado Casualty Insurance v Safety Control Company, et al.
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFSafety Control and EMC appealed the judgment in Colorado Casualty Insurance Company versus Safety Control Company, Inc., et al. (Ariz. App., 2012). The Superior Court in Maricopa County addressed “the validity and effect of a Damron agreement a contractor and its excess insurer entered into that assigned their rights to sue the primary insurer.” Judge Johnsen stated, “We hold the agreement is enforceable but remand for a determination of whether the stipulated judgment falls within the primary insurer’s policy.”
The Opinion provides some facts and procedural history regarding the claim. “The Arizona Department of Transportation (“ADOT”) hired DBA Construction Company (“DBA”) to perform a road-improvement project on the Loop 101 freeway. Safety Control Company, Inc. was one of DBA’s subcontractors. As required by the subcontract, Safety Control purchased from Employer’s Mutual Casualty Company (“EMC”) a certificate of insurance identifying DBA as an additional insured on a policy providing primary coverage for liability arising out of Safety Control’s work.”
A collision occurred on site, injuring Hugo Roman. Roman then sued ADT and DBA for damages. “Colorado Casualty tendered DBA’s defense to the subcontractors, including Safety Control. Safety Control and EMC rejected the tender. Roman eventually settled his claims against DBA and ADOT. DBA and ADOT stipulated with Roman for entry of judgment of $750,000; Roman received $75,000 from DBA (paid by Colorado Casualty) and $20,000 from ADOT, and agreed not to execute on the stipulated judgment. Finally, DBA, ADOT and Colorado Casualty assigned to Roman their rights against the subcontractors and other insurers.”
Colorado Casualty attempted to recover what “it had paid to defend DBA and ADOT and settle with Roman. However, Roman intervened, and argued that “Colorado Casualty had assigned its subrogation rights to him as part of the settlement agreement.” The suit was not dismissed, but the Superior Court allowed Roman to intervene. “Roman then filed a counterclaim against Colorado Casualty and a cross-claim against the subcontractors.”
All claims were settled against all of the defendants except Safety Control and EMC. “The superior court ruled on summary judgment that EMC breached a duty to defend DBA and that as a result, ‘DBA was entitled to settle with Roman without EMC’s consent as long as the settlement was not collusive or fraudulent.’ After more briefing, the court held the stipulated judgment was neither collusive nor procured by fraud and that EMC therefore was liable to Roman on the stipulated judgment and for his attorney’s fees. The court also held Safety Control breached its subcontract with DBA by failing to procure completed-operations insurance coverage and would be liable for damages to the extent that EMC did not satisfy what remained (after the other settlements) of the stipulated judgment and awards of attorney’s fees.” Safety Control and EMC appealed the judgment.
Four reasons were given for the decision of the ruling. First, “the disagreement between Roman and Colorado Casualty does not preclude them from pursuing their claims against EMC and Safety Control.” Second, “the settlement agreement is not otherwise invalid.” Third, “issues of fact remain about whether the judgment falls within the EMC policy.” Finally, “Safety Control breached the subcontract by failing to procure ‘Completed Operations’ coverage for DBA.”
In conclusion, the Superior Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded . “Although, as stated above, we have affirmed several rulings of the superior court, we reverse the judgment against EMC and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion to determine whether the stipulated judgment was a liability that arose out of Safety Control’s operations. In addition, we affirm the superior court’s declaratory judgment against Safety Control but remand so that the court may clarify the circumstances under which Safety Control may be liable for damages and may conduct whatever further proceedings it deems appropriate to ascertain the amount of those damages. We decline all parties’ requests for attorney’s fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-341.01 without prejudice to a request for fees incurred in this appeal to be filed by the prevailing party on remand before the superior court.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Word to the Wise: The AIA Revised Contract Documents Could Lead to New and Unanticipated Risks - Part II
October 16, 2018 —
George Talarico - Construction ExecutivePart I addressed general conditions, revised insurance terms, revisions that affect owner’s required insurance and revisions that affect contractor’s required insurance.
REVISIONS THAT AFFECT DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A seemingly minor but noteworthy change is to the definition of “Claim.” Under Section 15.1 a “Claim” is defined to:
- include a request for a modification of contract time; and
- exclude any requirement that an owner must file a claim to impose liquidated damages.
Notably, any request relating to contract time must be brought within the specified time period for Notice of Claim and in the prescribed manner. There are at least two traps for the unwary. First, even though email is regularly used for communications among the parties, the revised contract documents do not recognize email as an acceptable form of delivery of a Notice of Claim. Second, an unwary contractor may wrongly assume that an owner’s failure to assert a claim for LDs means that LDs will not be imposed. This may lull the contractor into failing to timely assert its own claim for a time extension and thereby waiving its ability to do so.
Reprinted courtesy of
George Talarico, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Talarico may be contacted at
gtalarico@sillscummis.com
Congratulations to Haight Attorneys Selected for the 2024 Edition of Best Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch
September 11, 2023 —
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPBest Lawyers and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch – 2024 Edition
Best Lawyers 2024 Edition
- Bruce Cleeland
- Peter Dubrawski
- Denis Moriarty
- Theodore Penny
Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch 2024 Edition
- Frances Brower
- Kyle DiNicola
- Kristian Moriarty
- Arezoo Jamshidi
- Josh Maltzer
- Philip McDermott
- Patrick McIntyre
- Annette Mijanovic
- Kathleen Moriarty
- Bethsaida Obra-White
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Cameron Pledges to Double Starter Homes to Boost Supply
March 05, 2015 —
Svenja O’Donnell – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister David Cameron pledged to double the number of homes built for first-time buyers by the end of the next parliamentary term in a bid to tackle Britain’s housing shortage.
In a speech in Colchester, Essex, on Monday setting out the final part of his Tory party’s six-point campaign platform for the May 7 election, Cameron said 200,000 properties will be built by 2020 under his starter-homes plan. Prices of the homes, only available to first-time buyers under the age of 40, will be capped at 450,000 pounds ($692,000) in London and 250,000 pounds outside the capital. Reduced planning constraints will make it easier for developers to cut building costs, allowing the homes to be sold at a 20 percent discount.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Svenja O’Donnell, BloombergMs. O’Donnell may be contacted at
sodonnell@bloomberg.net
