ASCE Statement on House Passage of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
November 15, 2021 —
American Society of Civil EngineersThe following is a statement by Dennis D. Truax, P.E., President, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE):
WASHINGTON, DC. – It is a great day for the nation as the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), fulfilling President Biden's vision with a historic piece of legislation that will have monumental impacts on the economy, public safety, global competitiveness, and each American's well-being. Passage of this five-year, $1.2 trillion bill proves once again that the country can lead with infrastructure.
With this legislation, the federal government will restore their critical partnership with cities and states to modernize our nation's roads, bridges, transit systems, drinking water pipes, school facilities, broadband, ports, airports and more. Without a strong federal partner, local projects that are community lifelines have hung in the balance, oftentimes being paused or outright cancelled due to funding uncertainties. When this happens, American households and businesses are the ones who pay the price.
The IIJA is the culmination of decades of advocacy by American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) members who worked tirelessly to educate Congress about the role infrastructure plays in supporting the economy and our quality of life. ASCE's Infrastructure Report Cards have sounded the alarm on our nation's infrastructure conditions since 1998, with new reports being released every four years. While all categories of infrastructure have been the cause of some concerns, the common denominator behind each category's struggles has been a backlog of projects, overdue maintenance, and a need for resilience. This bill includes investments to repair and modernize these critical assets for almost all of the 17 categories in the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure, which assigned our nation's infrastructure a cumulative grade of 'C-'.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 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
Tennessee High Court Excludes Labor Costs from Insurer’s Actual Cash Value Depreciation Calculations
May 27, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Geoffrey B. Fehling - Hunton Andrews KurthThe Tennessee Supreme Court has refused to construe an ambiguous definition of actual cash value to allow for deduction of labor costs as part of depreciation calculations where that subset of repair costs are not clearly addressed in the policy. Despite the split of authority nationwide, the Tennessee case presents a straightforward application of policy interpretation principles to a common valuation issue in first-party property claims.
In Lammert v. Auto-Owners (Mutual) Insurance Co., No. M2017-2546-SC-R23-CV (Tenn. Apr. 15, 2019), insureds brought a class-action lawsuit against their property insurer, Auto-Owners, alleging breach of contract. The plaintiffs each owned buildings damaged by a hail storm and had each submitted claims to Auto-Owners. Auto-Owners accepted the claims and determined that the losses would be determined on an actual cash value basis. In performing those valuations, Auto-Owners depreciated both the building materials and the labor costs associated with repairing the properties. The insureds challenged the labor cost depreciation. Auto-Owners moved to dismiss the lawsuit. In response, the insureds requested that the district court certify to the Tennessee Supreme Court whether, “[u]nder Tennessee law, may an insurer in making an actual cash value payment withhold a portion of repair labor as depreciation when the policy (1) defines actual cash value as ‘the cost to replace damaged property with new property of similar quality and features reduced by the amount of depreciation applicable to the damaged property immediately prior to the loss,’ or (2) states that ‘actual cash value includes a deduction for depreciation?”’
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Termination Issues Part 4: What to Do When They Want to Fire You, the Architect or Engineer
August 14, 2023 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaWhat if you are told that your own design services are no longer needed or welcome on a project? Can they do that? What happens then? How do you protect yourself.
As you probably realize, while rare, the Owner does have the legal right to fire you “for cause”. See B101 §9.4, as long as the Owner gives you 7 days written notice. In fact, the Owner can terminate your contract for any reason at all (maybe you root for the wrong basketball team?) by terminating you for convenience (i.e., for any reason whatsoever) under B101 §9.5, again with 7 days written notice.
As with
Contractor terminations, the money you get when fired for convenience is much greater than when you are terminated for cause. If you are fired “for convenience”, you get paid for all services previously rendered as well as termination expenses, including anticipated profit on the value of services not performed. See B101 §9.7.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale LiggettMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
The Burden of Betterment
February 23, 2017 —
Ryan M. Charlson, Esq. - Florida Construction Law NewsThe concept of betterment has long been used by defendants in cases involving defective design or construction to limit the damages awarded to a plaintiff.[1] The theory behind betterment is that: “if in [the] course of making repairs [an] owner adopts a more expensive design, recovery should be limited to what would have been the reasonable cost of repair according to original design.”[2] Betterment is often raised as an affirmative defense, requiring a defendant to prove that the plaintiff has received a good or service that is superior to that for which the plaintiff originally contracted. A recent South Florida case seems, at first blush, to suggest the burden of establishing the value of betterments may fall to the plaintiff, although a closer reading indicates the decision is likely to have limited applicability.
In Magnum Construction Management Corp. v. The City of Miami Beach, the Third District Court of Appeal was asked to review the damages award to the City for construction defects associated with the redesign and improvement of a park.[3] The completed project contained landscaping deficiencies, along with other “minor defects” in the playground’s construction.[4] After a unilateral audit, and without providing the contractor its contractually required opportunity to cure the defects, the City “removed, redesigned, and replaced the playground in its entirety.”[5] It did so despite no recommendation by the City’s own expert to perform such work.[6] During the bench trial, the “only measure of damages provided by the City was the costs associated with the planning, permitting, and construction of a park that is fundamentally different from the one it contracted with [the contractor] to build.”[7]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Charlson may be contacted at
ryan.charlson@csklegal.com
First Circuit Rejects Insurer’s “Insupportable” Duty-to-Cooperate Defense in Arson Coverage Suit
October 24, 2023 —
Geoffrey B. Fehling & Yaniel Abreu - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogIn
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co. v. BAS Holding Corp., the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected an insurer’s “insupportable” defense that the insured company had breached its duty to cooperate by refusing the insurer’s request for an examination under oath of the company’s president. The decision is a reminder that, while examinations under oath can be effective tools to allow the insurer to properly investigate a claim, an insured’s duty to cooperate is not boundless and does not demand attendance at examinations that are not reasonably requested.
Background
BAS Holding involves the destruction of a landmark building in Boston by an arsonist. The owner, BAS Holding Corporation, submitted an insurance claim to its property insurer to recover insurance proceeds for the damage to the building. The insurer investigated the claim to determine whether the damage to the building was covered and issued a reservation of rights letter suggesting that the policy may not provide coverage for the fire. As part of its investigation, the insurer requested an examination under oath as a condition to coverage under the policy, which led to BAS presenting the property’s operations coordinator for an interview. Shortly after examining the operations coordinator, the insurer sought another examination of BAS’s president and owner, as well as five other employees. In response, BAS questioned whether the additional examinations were “reasonably required” and said that it would consider the requests if the insurer could explain why they were necessary.
Reprinted courtesy of
Geoffrey B. Fehling, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Yaniel Abreu, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Fehling may be contacted at gfehling@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Abreu may be contacted at yabreu@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contracts and Fraud Don’t Mix (Even for Lawyers!)
August 24, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIn prior posts here at Construction Law Musings, I have discussed how fraud and contracts are often like oil and water. While there are exceptions, these exceptions are few and far between here in Virginia. The reason for the lack of a mix between these two types of claims is the so-called “source of duty” rule. The gist of this rule is that where the reason money is owed from one party to another (the source of the “duty to pay”) is based in the contract, Virginia courts will not allow a fraud claim. The rule was created so that all breaches of contract, claims that are at base a failure to fulfill a prior promise and could, therefore, be considered to be based on a prior “lie,” would not be expanded to turn into tort claims. This rule has been extended to claims that most average people (read, non-lawyers) would consider fraud because there was no intent to fulfill the contract at the time it was signed.
Just so you don’t think that lawyers are exempt from this legal analysis, I point you to a recent case where a law firm sued a construction client of theirs for failure to pay legal fees. In EvansStarrett PLC v. Goode & Preferred General Contracting, the Fairfax County Circuit Court considered a motion by the Plaintiff law firm seeking to add a count of fraud to its breach of contract lawsuit. The Court considered the following facts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Be Proactive Now: Commercial Construction Quickly Joining List of Industries Vulnerable to Cyber Attacks
June 15, 2017 —
Jeffrey M. Dennis & Nathan Owens – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPCommercial contractors have long faced their own unique business risks - labor and material shortages, delay claims, bonding issues, and defects in workmanship. But, in today's ever-evolving cyber world, it is imperative that contractors understand they are vulnerable to risks beyond finishing a project on time and on budget. As we are seeing more and more each day, cyber threats impact all businesses, including the construction industry, and the failure to protect against these threats will cost your company millions in damages and reputational harm.
UNDERSTANDING CYBER THREATS
Traditionally, cyber threats are thought of as the theft of employee and customer information over the internet. Given the construction industry is the largest employer in the world, the need to protect this information is obvious. The release or loss of personnel or consumer data could lead to extensive liability under a variety of potential claims, including statutory fines. In addition to securing confidential information, companies have to protect against outside agents accessing control of a company’s security protocols, equipment or encrypting files using malicious software. The recent “WannaCry” attack demonstrates that no business is immune from cyber attacks.
EXAMPLES OF RELATED BREACHES
For those that think these scenarios do not happen, here are two examples of these types of breaches:
* In May 2013, Chinese hackers stole floor plans, server information, and security system designs from an Australian prime contractor. Fearing the risks of compromised physical and network security, the contractor incurred additional costs of $132.6 million in project delays and costs to rework the various components that had been stolen.
* Then, in December 2014, a German governmental office reported that a steel mill suffered massive damage when malware prevented a blast furnace from being properly shut down. Hackers gained access to key technology within the company, which eventually allowed them to control the production line.
THE NEW WORLD OF THE IoT
In addition to these types of “traditional” hacking threats, cybersecurity risks continue to evolve and become more complicated every day. Some of these new threats are driven by the development of a phenomenon known as the Internet of things, or IoT. The IoT is most basically defined as the interconnection of devices with on / off switches to the Internet and each other. Since the IoT is estimated to be 20 billion or more devices within 3 years, and can be combined with malicious software, IoT poses one of the most challenging risks for contractors to protect against.
The technology included in today's commercial buildings clearly opens this avenue of risk. A centralized computer control center, typically employed in new buildings, controls and maintains the systems that are vital to the operation of the building, e.g., power, elevators, HVAC, lighting, and security. What happens if a hacker gains control to one of these systems, let alone all of them? What if a hacker simply utilizes an IoT attack to overwhelm a building’s computer systems? In either scenario, at a minimum, significant disruption would occur. Worse, the health and safety of those within the building could be jeopardized. A hacker may utilize ransomware in combination with an IoT attack to take over control of the building and hold it and possibly the occupants “hostage” until a ransom is paid.
The first significant IoT attack happened in October 2016 when a major web hosting company was attacked through the IoT, causing the host site to crash. The attack did not steal information, it simply caused the site to crash. But, that crash caused world-wide disruption across the Internet.
Hackers used malicious software to access a hundred thousand common household devices — web cameras, fitness trackers, DVR’s, smart TVs and even baby monitors — to flood the hosting company’s servers with incredibly high internet traffic. This attack showed that everyday items can be hacked and controlled by cyber criminals and then used against anyone else.
As we have all seen in recent news, the WannaCry cyber attack impacted businesses across the globe. Days after the attacks, hospitals were still left feeling its impact with continued appointment and planned operation cancellations, and delays in service. We should expect to see these types of attacks increasing in frequency.
PAY ATTENTION OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES
Make no mistake about it, the stakes are incredibly high in the realm of cyber security protection. By 2021, the annual worldwide cost attributable to cyber attacks is estimated to reach the trillions of dollars. If any of these potential attacks occur, a contractor faces significant exposure, in many forms, including:
* Monetary. Cybersecurity events result in direct monetary losses in the form of notification costs, data recovery costs, and, of course, legal and public relations fees. States are also starting to impose strict standards on companies which will result in significant regulatory punishment in the cases of cyber breaches, including the added costs associated with agency investigations, regulatory fines and consumer redress funds.
* Reputation. Perhaps more important than the monetary risk, a contractor may incur substantial reputational harm if such a breach or attack is successful. Recent data has shown that small to medium-sized companies that experience a significant cybersecurity breach go out of business within six months of the breach – due to not only high monetary costs, but severe reputational damage.
* Criminal. The recently passed New York cybersecurity regulations place potential criminal penalties on compliance personnel. Other states are likely to follow New York.
As a business leader and commercial builder, the time to act is now. While the purchase of specific cyber insurance is an important part of protecting against the risks of a cyber attack, many cyber policies contain exclusionary language embedded in the policy making coverage potentially illusory. Additional steps can and need to be taken immediately, including an honest discussion of internal cybersecurity protections, examination of risk management strategy, and the training of employees. Failure to take these important steps could result in a disastrous cybersecurity breach and the loss of millions of dollars.
Jeffrey M. Dennis currently serves as Newmeyer and Dillion’s Managing Partner and, as a business leader, advises his clients on cybersecurity related issues, introducing contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. You can reach Jeff at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
J. Nathan Owens is the Managing Partner for Newmeyer & Dillion’s Las Vegas office. With more than 10 years in the construction industry as a former contractor himself, Nathan understands the complex issues builders and developers face in all aspects of development and construction. You can reach Nathan at nathan.owens@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit http://www.newmeyeranddillion.com/.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Mexico Holds One-Sided Dispute Resolution Provisions Are Unenforceable
November 05, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneDispute resolution provisions that grant one party the unilateral right to choose either litigation or arbitration to resolve disputes are common in the construction industry. The main difference between the two forums is that courts are more likely to strictly enforce contract terms as written as well as the applicable law, while arbitrators make decisions on more equitable considerations, untethered to the contract terms and—to some degree—the law. The party with the sole discretion to select the dispute resolution procedure can select the process most beneficial to its interests based on the nature of the dispute, regardless of who brings the claims. In Atlas Electrical Construction, Inc. v. Flintco, LLC, 550 P.3d 881 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024), the Court of Appeals of New Mexico recently held that an arbitration provision in a subcontract, under which the contractor retained the exclusive right to choose whether disputes arising under the subcontract were litigated in court or arbitrated was unreasonably one-sided, substantively unconscionable, and unenforceable.
The Atlas Electrical case involved two sophisticated entities with equal bargaining strength to negotiate the terms of a subcontract. The parties agreed to a subcontract provision which provided in the relevant part:
In the event [contractor] and [subcontractor] cannot resolve the dispute through direct discussions or mediation … then the dispute shall, at the sole discretion of [contractor], be decided either by submission to (a) arbitration … or (b) litigation …
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
