Hawaii Federal District Court Denies Brokers' MSJ on Duties Owed In Construction Defect Case
October 19, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe federal district court for the District of Hawaii denied the brokers' motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal from claims that they inadequately advised the insured of the law regarding construction defects in Hawaii. Am Auto. Ins. Co. v. Haw. Nut & Bolt, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148571.
Safeway sued Hawaii Nut & Bolt (HNB) and others for construction defects in a newly constructed store. The underlying complaint alleged products liability claims against HNB as the distributor of the "VersaFlex Coating System." HSB had represented that the coating system was adequate for its intended use. The underlying complaint alleged failure of the VersaFlex Coating System in waterproofing the roof deck of the store. After the store opened, water leaks from the roof deck appeared. Safeway alleged they were caused by the cracks and failures in the waterproof membrane in the roof deck.
HNB notified its insurers of the claims. The insurers defended HNB during the litigation subject to reservation of rights letters.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute
June 14, 2021 —
Christy Jachimowski - Lewis BrisboisSection 13a-149 of the Connecticut General Statutes, commonly known as Connecticut’s highway defect statute, provides that claims arising from injuries or damages to people or property resulting from a defective road or bridge can be asserted against a party responsible for maintaining that road or bridge. Conn. Gen. Stat. §13a-149. The statute also extends to sidewalks and further provides that written notice of an alleged injury must be given to a defendant municipality within ninety days of the injury.
Recently, in Dobie v. City of New Haven, 2021 Conn. App. LEXIS 162 (App. Ct. May 1, 2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court overturned the trial court’s denial of a municipal defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss. The court held that even though the plaintiff attempted to assert allegations of negligence against the defendant municipality, Connecticut’s highway defect statute was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. Since the plaintiff failed to meet the requisite notice requirements, pursuant to the statute, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in denying the municipality’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Underlying Case
In February of 2013, Plaintiff William Dobie filed suit against the City of New Haven alleging injuries and damages as a result of the negligence of a City of New Haven snowplow operator. Dobie’s claims arose from an incident that occurred on January 21, 2011, in which he was driving behind the City snowplow driver, who was in the process of plowing snow from a municipal street located in New Haven, Connecticut. As the defendant employee was operating his snowplow, he knocked off a manhole cover, causing Dobie’s vehicle to drive over the open manhole. Dobie claimed personal injuries as a result of his vehicle dropping into the open manhole, including injuries to his jaw.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christy Jachimowski, Lewis BrisboisMs. Jachimowski may be contacted at
Christy.Jachimowski@lewisbrisbois.com
West Virginia Wild: Crews Carve Out Corridor H Through the Appalachian Mountains
May 08, 2023 —
Aileen Cho - Engineering News-RecordWhen crews with Kokosing Construction Co. began a $209-million design-build contract—the largest of its kind in West Virginia—in 2015, they first had to build roads in order to build the actual road called Corridor H.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aileen Cho, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Cho may be contacted at choa@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Understanding Liability Insurer’s Two Duties: To Defend and to Indemnify
December 26, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA liability insurer has two duties that are the crux of a liability policy: the duty to defend the insured in legal actions and the duty to indemnify the insured from losses covered under the policy. Many times, policyholders (insureds) do not fully understand or appreciate these two important duties. They need to and this is why having private counsel assist with coverage-related considerations is an absolute must.
An insurers’ duty to defend is separate from its duty to indemnify. A recent opinion out of the Middle District of Florida in Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Tate Transport Corp., 2022 WL 16963815 (M.D.Fla. 2022) clarifies the distinction between these duties with a focus on an insurer’s initial duty — the duty to defend. Please read below so you can have more of an appreciation of these duties. The court does a good job discussing Florida law with the emphasis on when an insurer’s initial duty to defend kicks-in:
Duty to Defend
Under Florida law, “an insurer’s duty to defend its insured against a legal action arises when the complaint alleges facts that fairly and potentially bring the suit within policy coverage.” The duty to defend is a broad one, broader than the duty to indemnify, and “[t]he merits of the underlying suit are irrelevant.” We determine whether an insurer has a duty to defend its insured based only on “the eight corners of the complaint and the policy,” and only as the complaint’s alleged facts are “fairly read[.]” The “facts” we consider in evaluating the duty to defend come solely from the complaint, regardless of the actual facts of the case and regardless of any later developed and contradictory factual record. “Any doubts regarding
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
CISA Clarifies – Construction is Part of Critical Infrastructure Activities
April 20, 2020 —
Brenda Radmacher & Ernest Isola - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogAfter ongoing confusion by many over whether construction should be considered part of the “essential business,” during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued an updated Coronavirus Guidance for America on March 28, 2020 to clarify construction’s critical role in supporting essential infrastructure. CISA’s initial advisory list referenced construction in regard to some areas such as energy and wastewater treatment, but it was unclear as to the whole of the construction industry. CISA’s update clarified that construction activities are included in its list of essential critical infrastructure workers. This new federal guidance should remove the ambiguity that led to varying responses by state and local officials halting some construction. The guidance clarifies that construction and related activities – including the manufacture and supply/delivery of supplies and equipment, permitting, safety, and inspections of projects – are covered as part of the critical infrastructure and economic activities.
The ongoing challenge will be for construction activities to proceed in a way that protects workers and the general public from the spread of coronavirus. However, contractors are always resourceful and have been implementing safety measures effectively on projects with an unwavering commitment to safety and are ready to meet this challenge. In addition to following the guidance from the CDC, we recommend that contractors implement a comprehensive safety program for their employees as well as for all parties that come onto the jobsite. It is critical that contractors have clear a clear plan for communications with their teams to ensure compliance with the CDC recommendations. This should include what has recently become standard protocol or social distancing, not hosting large group meetings and conducting meetings online or via conference call, maintaining a six-foot distance between people, discouraging hand-shaking or other contact, not sharing tools, and sanitizing reusable PPE. Contractors also should also be sure to place safety posters about “How to Protect Yourself” where they can be readily seen and encourage staying home when sick, cough and sneeze etiquette, and hand hygiene at the entrance of a jobsite. We also recommend heightened site security including interviewing anyone coming to the jobsite.
Reprinted courtesy of
Brenda Radmacher, Gordon & Rees and
Ernest Isola, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Radmacher may be contacted at bradmacher@grsm.com
Mr. Isola may be contacted at eisola@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Colorado Supreme Court holds that loans made to a construction company are not subject to the Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute
February 21, 2013 —
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr. — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCIn a prior blog post, we summarized the Court of Appeals decision in the case of AC Excavating, Inc. v. Yale, ___ P. 3d. ___, 2010 WL 3432219 (Colo. App. Sept. 2, 2010) which provided an interpretation of the Colorado Mechanic’s Lien Trust Fund Statute, C.R.S. § 38-22-127 (hereafter “the Trust Fund Statute”). A divided Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, and held that capital loans infused into a limited liability company which performed construction could be subject to the provisions of the Trust Fund Statute.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that this determination was necessary because the statute was considered applicable to “all funds disbursed on a construction project.” Additionally, the Court of Appeals held that the intent of the provider of funds was not relevant, and that the statute applied “irrespective of the [originator of the funds]’s intended use of the funds.”
This decision was reviewed by the Colorado Supreme Court in an opinion released on February 4, 2013, and it reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. See, Yale v. AC Excavating, Inc., ___ P. 3d. ___, 2013 WL 441895 (Colo. Feb. 4, 2013). The Supreme Court strongly disagreed that loaned or infused capital funds which were obtained by the general contractor entity were “funds disbursed on a construction project,” simply because some of the infused monies were used for operational purposes to pay down specific project obligations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
W. Berkeley Mann, Jr.mann@hlmrlaw.com
School District Gets Expensive Lesson on Prompt Payment Law. But Did the Court Get it Right?
February 26, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogMy kids don’t like riding in my car.
I urge them to look outside the window (I don’t have DVD), suggest that they roll down their windows to get some fresh air (rather than have me turn on the A/C) and persist on listening to that archaic device called the radio (I don’t “stream”).
Plus, I make them play “Dad Games.” Like Synonyms.
In Synonyms, I say a word, and the next person has to come up with a synonym for that word until someone can’t think of another synonym. Sometimes, I take a walk on the wild side, and play “Antonyms.”
Things can get heated, though. Like when someone says a word and there is a disagreement over whether that word is a synonym or not.
The next case, FTR International, Inc. v. Rio School District, California Court of Appeal for the Second District, Case No. B238618 (January 27, 2015), also involved a disagreement over synonyms . . . except that the loser had to cough up nearly $10 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
The Requirement to State a “Sum Certain” No Longer a Jurisdictional Bar to Government Contract Claims
November 13, 2023 —
Marcos R. Gonzalez - ConsensusDocsThe Boards of Contract Appeals, Court of Federal Claims, and the Federal Circuit have long held that the elements of a claim under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”) to be jurisdictional. Those requirements are as follows:
(a) Claims generally.–
(1) Submission of contractor’s claims to contracting officer.–Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be submitted to the contracting officer for a decision.
(2) Contractor’s claims in writing.—Each claim by a contractor against the Federal Government relating to a contract shall be in writing.
(3) Contracting officer to decide Federal Government’s claims.–Each claim by the Federal Government against a contractor relating to a contract shall be the subject of a written decision by the contracting officer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Marcos R. Gonzalez, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Mr. Gonzalez may be contacted at
mgonzalez@pecklaw.com
