Construction-Industry Clients Need Well-Reasoned and Clear Policies on Recording Zoom and Teams Meetings
June 19, 2023 —
Stu Richeson - The Dispute ResolverThe use of Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and similar communication platforms has become increasingly common in the construction industry. While these platforms can greatly facilitate communication between project participants, they potentially create a source of ESI – electronically stored information – that must be understood and considered by the businesses using those systems.
Businesses using Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and similar platforms should have policies in place to address whether and why to record video conferences, how long to preserve any recorded meetings, and retention policies for instant messaging systems. The failure to adopt appropriate policies could prove quite costly in any future litigation or criminal investigation.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e) sets out the duty to preserve ESI and provides significant penalties for failing to do so once litigation is anticipated. It is important to note: there is generally no obligation to create ESI, such as recording Zoom or Teams meetings. At the same time, if the ESI is created but litigation is not anticipated, businesses are generally free to establish their own retention policy for that ESI. However, once litigation is anticipated, potential litigants have the obligation to preserve the ESI and, in connection therewith, to conduct a reasonable search for relevant information (to ensure its proper preservation).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stu Richeson, PhelpsMr. Richeson may be contacted at
stuart.richeson@phelps.com
ASCE Statement on Congress Passage of WRDA 2024
January 07, 2025 —
Feniosky Peña-Mora - American Society of Civil EngineersWASHINGTON, DC. – ASCE applauds Congress for passing the bipartisan Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) for 2024, Congress's biennial authorization for new U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) projects. WRDA 2024 authorizes 21 USACE water resources projects across 15 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, with a focus on waterway navigation, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction, flood risk management, and ecosystem restoration. This legislation will support vital port and inland waterways projects through provisions such as an adjustment of the cost share formula for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF), which helps pay for major rehabilitation and construction efforts along navigation channels, and an increase in the depth at which federal port and harbor projects can receive federal assistance for construction and maintenance. These provisions can help raise the ports (B-) and inland waterways (D+) grades reflected in ASCE's 2021
Report Card for America's Infrastructure, and we are thrilled to see WRDA 2024 prioritizing policies that will improve the nation's infrastructure systems.
The latest agreement includes the reauthorization of the National Dam Safety Program (NDSP) through 2028, a top legislative priority for ASCE and a critical program needed to improve the "D" grade that dams received in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure. The NDSP is the primary source of federal funding supporting state dam safety programs with inspection and monitoring activities, emergency preparedness, and staffing needs. The agreement also incorporates low-head dams into the National Inventory of Dams. These small structures can have deadly consequences when unaccounted for because they produce dangerous, undetectable currents. Incorporating them into the National Inventory of Dams will increase awareness and lead to more safety precautions that could save lives.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 160,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurance Company’s Reservation of Rights Letter Negates its Interest in the Litigation
November 12, 2019 —
Frank Ingham - Colorado Construction LitigationThe Colorado Court of Appeals held that an insurance company, which issues a reservation of rights letter to its insured, loses its interest in the litigation, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2), when the insured settles the claims and assigns the bad faith action against the insurance company to the plaintiff. Bolt Factory Lofts Owners Association, Inc. v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 2019WL 3483901(Colo. App. 2019).
In a 2016 lawsuit in Denver District Court, 2016CV3360, the Bolt Factory Loft Owners Association, Inc. (“Association”) asserted construction defect claims against six contractors. Two of those contractors then asserted claims against other subcontractors, including Sierra Glass Co., Inc. (“Sierra Glass”). After multiple settlements, the only remaining claims were those the Association, as assignee of the two contractors, asserted against Sierra Glass.
Auto-Owners Insurance Company (“AOIC”) issued policies to Sierra Glass and defended it under a reservation of rights. The policy afforded AOIC the right to defend Sierra Glass, and it required Sierra Glass to cooperate in the defense of the legal action. The Association presented a settlement demand of $1.9 million to Sierra Glass, which AOIC refused to pay. To protect itself from an excess judgment that AOIC might not have paid, Sierra Glass entered into an agreement with the Association whereby Sierra Glass would refrain from offering a defense at trial and assign its bad faith claim against AOIC to the Association in exchange for the Association’s promise that it would not pursue recovery against Sierra Glass of any judgment entered against it at trial. Such agreements, known as Bashor or Nunn Agreements, are allowed in Colorado. Nunn v. Mid-Century Insurance Co., 244 P.3d 116 (Colo. 2010). Therefore, Sierra Glass was entitled to protect itself in the face of AOIC’s potential denial of coverage and refusal to settle. Bolt Factory Lofts, at ¶ 15.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. Ingham may be contacted at
ingham@hhmrlaw.com
Amazon Can be Liable in Louisiana
August 05, 2024 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistIn June 2024, the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that: (1) Amazon can be considered a “seller” of defective products sold by third parties on its website; and (2) Amazon can be liable under a theory of negligent undertaking for third-party products. In Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2023-CQ-01596, 2024 La. LEXIS 1112, a Louisiana man, Archie Pickard, died from burns sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger purchased on Amazon from a third-party seller located in China. Mr. Pickard’s family filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana alleging claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) and for negligent undertaking. Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment, which prompted the federal court to certify questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana regarding these two claims.
Amazon Can be a “Seller” Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act
Amazon does not neatly fit within the definition of “seller” under the LPLA because the LPLA was drafted in 1988, before the internet existed. The LPLA defines a “seller” as a person or entity (who is not the manufacturer) who conveys title or possession of the product to another for something of value. La R.S. 9.2800.53(s) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” because it conveyed “possession” of the charger to Mr. Pickard through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA) program, which provides storage, delivery, customer service, and returns of third-party products sold on Amazon. Most products on Amazon are sold by third parties, rather than Amazon. Many third-party sellers are small or medium-size companies, and some are individuals seeking to make supplemental income. Amazon offers the FBA program to handle storage and logistics to third-party sellers. When a product is sold through the FBA program, the seller sends the product to Amazon’s warehouses, where it is stored until it is purchased. When an FBA-product is purchased, Amazon collects payment, delivers the product (often in an Amazon van), and handles the potential return of the product. The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” of the battery charger even though Amazon did not pass title to Mr. Pickard because: (1) Amazon had physical custody of the charger while stored in the warehouse; and (2) Amazon controlled the transaction and logistics through its FBA program.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and WilliamsMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Brief Overview of Rights of Unlicensed Contractors in California
September 10, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogUnder California Contractor’s State License Law enumerated in Business and Professions Code Sections 7000 to 7191, a contractor may not “bring or maintain” any action for compensation for performing any act or contract for which a license is required unless the contractor was duly licensed “at all times” during performance. Bus & Prof Code Section 7031(a).
What does this mean and who does it include?
This is a question that often has to be answered on a case by case basis. Basically, California does not want unlicensed contractors to be able to get paid for work that should be performed by a licensed contractor. The law has set forth some general parameters. General contractors, subcontractors, and master developers must be licensed. However, suppliers, manufacturers, laborers and equipment lessors are exempt and do not need a contractor’s license. Essentially, those parties that merely furnish material or supplies without fabricating them into, or consuming them in the performance of work, do not need to be licensed. Bus & Prof Code Section 7052.
There are sever fines and penalties for those who improperly perform construction work without a license. A contract between any contractor and an unlicensed subcontractor is a misdemeanor. Lack of a license bars all actions in law or in equity for collection of compensation for the performance of work requiring a license. There are very few exceptions to this rule. A “savvy” unlicensed contractor cannot simply avoid these requirements by “subbing” out all the work to licensed contractors. Any person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor may file a court action or cross-complaint to recover all payments made to the unlicensed contractor. In addition, a person who uses the services of an unlicensed contractor is a victim of a crime and eligible for restitution of economic losses regardless of whether that person had knowledge that the contractor was unlicensed. Bus. & Prof Code Sections 7028, 7028.16. It goes without saying that performing work without a license on projects is a bad idea.
Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Landlord’s Guide to California’s New Statewide Rent Control Laws
May 18, 2020 —
Colton Addy - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogApplicability of California’s Rent Control Laws: California Civil Code Sections 1946.2 and 1947.12 took effect on January 1, 2020, and implement statewide rent control in California for most residential properties. The rent control laws, however, do not apply to a rental property that was issued a certificate of occupancy in the last 15 years. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(4), 1946.2(e)(7)). The statutes also do not apply to most single-family residences, provided that (a) the owner is not a real estate investment trust, a corporation, or a limited liability company where one of the members is a corporation, and (b) the required statutory language is included in the lease agreement for tenancies commencing or renewing on or after July 1, 2020. (Civ. Code §§ 1947.12(d)(5), 1946.2(e)(8)).
Annual Increases Permitted Under California’s Rent Control Laws: Commencing on January 1, 2020, unless otherwise permitted by California law, a Landlord cannot increase the gross rental rate for a rental unit over a continuous 12-month period more than the change in the regional cost of living index where the property is located plus 5%, and gross rental rate increases are subject to a maximum cap of 10% over a continuous 12-month period regardless of the change in the cost of living index. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(1)). The gross rental rate is determined using the lowest rental amount charged in any month in the immediately preceding 12 months. (Id.) Any incentives, discounts, concessions, or credits are not taken into account. (Id.) Even if a rent increase does not exceed the amount permitted under the statute, a Landlord is prohibited from increasing rent more than twice in any continuous 12-month period. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(a)(2)).
Retroactive Applicability of Restrictions on Rent Increases: Although the statute took effect on January 1, 2020, the statute retroactively applies to all rent increases that occurred on or after March 15, 2019. (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(1)). If a landlord increased the rent amount more than the amount permitted under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1) after March 15, 2019, and prior to January 1, 2020, the rent amount on January 1, 2020, is reduced to the amount of the rent on March 15, 2019, plus the maximum permissible increase under California Civil Code Section 1947.12(a)(1). (Civ. Code § 1947.12(h)(2)). The Landlord does not have to refund the tenant any rent payments that were in excess of the permissible rent increase that the tenant made prior to January 1, 2020. (Id.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colton Addy, Snell & WilmerMr. Addy may be contacted at
caddy@swlaw.com
Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates Awarded Silver Star Award at WCC Construction Defect Seminar
May 24, 2018 —
CDJ STAFFThe staff of the Construction Defect Journal would like to extend their congratulations to Don MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc., in recognition of his receipt of the Silver Star Award as “Best Expert” at the 25th Anniversary of the West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar, hosted at the Disneyland Resort Hotel, in Anaheim CA.
Recipients of the Silver Star Awards were nominated and voted on by their peers, colleagues, and the Construction Defect Community at large, as represented by the 25,000 members who received emails on the subject.
Along with “Best Expert,” recognition was also given to the best judge, mediator, plaintiff attorney, developer attorney, subcontractor attorney, coverage counsel, and insurance claims professional. Awards were handed out last Thursday during a special ceremony at this year’s Seminar.
To Don, and all the worthy awardees, congratulations again!
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Riveting (or at Least Insightful) Explanation of the Privette Doctrine
May 02, 2022 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog“The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine” – Plutarch
And grind they do . . . slowly. For long time readers of the California Construction Law Blog you may recall a case we reported on over three years ago in 2018 – Sandoval v. Qualcomm Incorporated – a rather sad case about a severely injured employee of an electrical subcontractor with an even more surprisingly ending.
In Sandoval, the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed a $7 million judgment against project owner Qualcomm Incorporated in which a jury found that Qualcomm was liable under the Privette doctrine for injuries sustained by the employee who was severely burned over one third of his body by an “arc flash” from a live circuit breaker. The Court of Appeals, in a surprising decision, upheld the verdict holding that Qualcomm was liable even through: (1) Qualcomm had informed the electrical subcontractor that certain live circuit breakers were energized; (2) Qualcomm had not authorized the lower-tiered contractor to remove a panel that resulted in the arc flash; and (3) employees of Qualcomm were not in the room when the accident happened.
Fast forward three years to September 2021. Qualcomm attorneys petition the California Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeal’s decision. And the Supreme Court granted review.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
