2019’s Biggest Labor and Employment Moves Affecting Construction
January 27, 2020 —
Micah Dawson - Construction ExecutiveThe construction industry is fueled by change, which is the only constant in life and construction. Still, continuous change makes compliance with state and federal laws and regulations more difficult.
While contractors may thrive on the frantic pace, sometimes it is good to look back and ensure they have an understanding of, and are complying with, the newest regulations and laws.
Top 10 Stories Dominating Employment Law in Construction
1. Trio of Federal Joint Employment Rules Expected in December 2019
Joint employment took center stage during the November 20, 2019 release of the Fall Regulatory Agenda, as three separate federal agencies announced plans to move forward with revised joint employment rules in December. While the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board had already released versions of their draft rules, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also announced that it would weigh in on the topic before the end of 2019. As of January 10, 2020, the EEOC had not done so.
2. NLRB Tightens Union Access to Employer Property
In a ruling that levels the labor relations playing field, the NLRB ruled that employers could rightfully eject outside union representatives soliciting petition signatures from a shared shopping center parking area. When read in conjunction with an earlier 2019 decision conferring greater rights to limit on-premises union activity by abolishing the “public space” exception, the NLRB has significantly restricted union access to private employer property.
Reprinted courtesy of
Micah Dawson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Dawson may be contacted at
mdawson@fisherphillips.com
Duty to Defend Broadly Applies to Entire Action; Insured Need Not Apportion Defense Costs, Says Maryland Appeals Court
January 27, 2020 —
Michael S. Levine & Kevin V. Small - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn a recent decision, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reiterated that the duty to defend broadly requires a liability insurer to defend an entire lawsuit against its insured, even where only some of the allegations are potentially covered. The court further held that the insured has no obligation to apportion defense costs among multiple implicated policies. The decision, Selective Way Insurance Company v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., can be found here.
The coverage litigation arose out of a construction defect case against a general contractor. The general contractor tendered the action to its insurer, Nationwide, which, in turn, filed a declaratory judgment action against the various insurers of construction project subcontractors that had named the general contractor as an additional insured. Ultimately, the court granted a summary judgment motion declaring that all of the subcontractors’ insurers had a duty to defend the general contractor “because the allegations in the underlying lawsuit raised claims that potentially arose from the [s]ubcontractors’ work at the [construction site].” All of the subcontractors’ insurers settled with Nationwide except for one, Selective Way; and the parties proceeded to a jury trial on various issues. The jury found for Nationwide on all issues. Selective Way appealed.
Selective Way argued on appeal that even if some of the allegations were covered under its policy, it had no obligation to defend the general contractor because its insureds, the subcontractors, could not have been responsible for all of the losses given the nature of their work. Further, Selective Way contended that if it was responsible for defending the general contractor, it was not responsible for the entire defense, and the general contractor was responsible for apportioning the costs among the various subcontractors. The panel disagreed on both points.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Do You Have an Innovation Strategy?
November 08, 2017 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessConstruction and engineering are among the top five industries ripe for disruption according to research by PwC. Will innovation come from tech companies and startups, or could established firms be proactive? For Granlund, founded in 1960, innovation is a strategic essential and a core competency.
Granlund is a Finnish design, consultancy, and software services firm specializing in energy efficiency. It employs more than 800 people in 20 locations in Finland and in its offices in Shanghai and Dubai. The company is known internationally for being in the vanguard of building information modeling and for real estate management software development.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
info@aepartners.fi
Nevada Senate Bill 435 is Now in Effect
February 24, 2020 —
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPATTENTION: Nevada liability departments and auto insurance carriers! Nevada Senate Bill No. 435 was recently signed into law and there are two key points to be aware of: Disclosure of Policy Limits Demand and Voiding Releases. These both deal with pre-litigation situations.
1) Nevada law now requires a motor vehicle insurer to disclose the limits of the policy if the claimant provides a HIPAA authorization which allows the carrier to “receive all medical reports, records and bills related to the claim from the providers of health care.” This is a change from the previous Nevada statute which required the disclosure of policy limits only after litigation was commenced.
However, it appears from the language of the statute that there are limits to this new mandate. Section 4 of the new law is written in such a way to allow the argument that the new law applies only to accidents that occurred after 10/1/19, and that the insurance company has to request the HIPAA waiver from the claimant in order for the disclosure requirement to apply.
The plaintiff’s bar is already attempting to address this language in the legislature. As written, subsection (4) is governed by subsection (1) which states that the insurance company “may require the claimant … to provide … a written authorization.” The following subparts all appear to be triggered only by the act of the insurance company requesting a HIPAA waiver. The plaintiff’s bar is pushing for clarifying language that would make it clear that once the claimant sent a HIPAA waiver, irrespective of whether the document was requested by the insurance company or not, the insurance company is required to disclose policy limits. This is not how the law reads on its face, and the change would make a significant difference from a practical perspective.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Sick Leave, Paid Time Off, and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act
April 20, 2020 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogUnemployment claims hit a historic high this past week as 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment benefits. To give you some context, this is not only the highest number of unemployment claims ever filed, it is five times higher than the previous record of 695,000 unemployment claims in 1982.
Restaurants, hotels, airlines and other businesses have begun to layoff or furlough workers. According to a survey conducted by the Associated General Contractors of America this past week, 39% of respondents reported that project owners have halted or cancelled construction projects due to deteriorating economic conditions, 45% reported project delays or disruptions, and 23% reported supply chain disruptions.
While the construction industry likely won’t be impacted nearly to the same degree as the retail sector has, some involved in the construction industry may nevertheless be faced with the prospect of having to lay off or furlough workers as “shelter in place” orders are extended. If you’re faced with that situation here are a few things to remember:
Paid Sick Leave
Under California law, nearly all employers are required to provide paid sick leave to employees who work for 30 or more days in a given year. Paid sick leave can be used by an employee for illnesses, including COVID-19, the diagnosis, care, or treatment of existing health conditions, and preventative care for the employee or employee’s family member. The important thing to remember here is that use of paid sick leave is an employee’s choice. While an employer, concerned that an employee may have contracted COVID-19, may require that an employee not come to the office, the employer cannot force such an employee to use his or her paid sick leave. For more information, the California Labor Commissioner has created a webpage specific to COVID 19.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Subsurface Water Exclusion Found Unambiguous
July 14, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Eighth Circuit rejected the policyholder's appeal on the ambiguity of a subsurface water exclusion. Bull v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9703 (8th Cir. May 27, 2016).
Michael Bull, the insured, experienced a leak from a buried pipe beneath his garage slab. The leak caused settling and mold, including the settling and cracking of his foundation, a brick walkway, and interior walls.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Wisconsin Supreme Court Holds that Subrogation Waiver Does Not Violate Statute Prohibiting Limitation on Tort Liability in Construction Contracts
October 21, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Rural Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lester Bldgs., LLC 2019 WI 70, 2019 Wisc. LEXIS 272, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin considered whether a subrogation waiver clause in a construction contract between the defendant and the plaintiff’s insured violated Wisconsin statute § 895.447, which prohibits limitations of tort liability in construction contracts. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision that the waiver clause did not violate the statute because it merely shifted the responsibility for the payment of damages to the defendant’s insurance company. The waiver clause did not limit or eliminate the defendant’s tort liability. This case establishes that while
§ 895.447 prohibits construction contracts from limiting tort liability, a subrogation waiver clause that merely shifts responsibility for the payment of damages from a tortfeasor to an insurer does not violate the statute and, thus, is enforceable.
In Rural Mutual, the plaintiff’s insured, Jim Herman, Inc. (Herman), entered into a contract with Lester Buildings, LLC (Lester) to design and construct a barn on Herman’s property. The contract included a provision that stated the following:
Both parties waive all rights against each other and any of their respective contractors, subcontractors and suppliers of any tier and any design professional engaged with respect to the Project, for recovery of any damages caused by casualty of other perils to the extent covered by property insurance applicable to the Work or the Project, except such rights as they have to the proceeds of such property insurance and to the extent necessary to recover amounts relating to deductibles of self-insured retentions applicable to insured losses. . . . This waiver of subrogation shall be effective notwithstanding allegations of fault, negligence, or indemnity obligation of any party seeking the benefit or production [sic] of such waiver.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules in Builder’s Implied Warranty of Habitability Case
September 03, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to an article in JD Supra Business Advisor (written by Mark S. DePillis, Carl G. Roberts, Benjamin M. Schmidt, and Matthew White of Ballard Spahr LLP), “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a builder’s implied warranty of habitability extends only to the initial buyer of a home, and not to subsequent purchasers.” This reversed an earlier ruling in Conway v. The Cutler Group, Inc. “that created more expansive liability for home builders.”
DePillis, Roberts, Schmidt, and White suggested that “builders should monitor possible future legislation addressing the public policy issues that the Supreme Court identified as falling squarely within the legislature’s domain.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
