California Appellate Court Confirms: Additional Insureds Are First-Class Citizens
May 04, 2020 —
Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsMany businesses shift risk by requiring others with whom they do business – e.g., vendors, subcontractors, suppliers, and others – to procure insurance on their behalf by making the business an “additional insured” under the other person’s liability insurance policy. Unfortunately, insurance companies sometimes treat these additional insureds as second-class citizens, refusing to acknowledge that the additional insured has the same rights as the policyholder, who paid the premium. In Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. SMG Holdings, a California appellate court removes any doubt whether these additional insureds are third-party beneficiaries entitled to the same rights – and bound by the same duties – as the entity that bought the policy.
While the dispute at issue in SMG Holdings was a narrow one – i.e., whether the additional insured was bound by the policy’s arbitration clause – the implications of its holding are far ranging in ways that, in some instances, may benefit the additional insured. For example, because the additional insured is an intended beneficiary under the policy, neither the insurer nor the policyholder may do anything to impair the additional insured’s rights under the policy; if they do, they may be liable for tortiously interfering with the additional insured’s contract rights. This means that (again, by way of example) if the insurer attempts to rescind, or cancel, or amend the policy in a way that impairs the additional insured’s rights, the additional insured may have recourse. It also means that if the policyholder does something untoward that jeopardizes the additional insured’s rights under the policy, the policyholder may be liable to the additional insured for any resulting harm.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & FearsMr. Thomas may be contacted at
sst@paynefears.com
OSHA Finalizes PPE Fitting Requirement for Construction Workers
December 31, 2024 —
Jonathan H. Schaefer - Construction Law ZoneOn December 11, 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced it finalized a revision to the personal protective equipment (PPE) standard for the construction industry. The
final rule adds specific language to the existing standard requiring employers to provide properly fitting PPE for construction industry workers. This change aligns the construction industry with the standards in place for the general industry.
According to OSHA, many types of PPE must properly fit workers. Improperly sized PPE can ineffectively protect workers, creating new hazards for them, such as oversized gloves or protective clothing being caught in machinery and discouraging use because of discomfort or poor fit. OSHA stated that the longstanding issue with improperly fitting PPE particularly impacted women, as well as physically smaller or larger workers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan H. Schaefer, Robinson+ColeMr. Schaefer may be contacted at
jschaefer@rc.com
AB 1701 Has Passed – Developers and General Contractors Are Now Required to Double Pay for Labor Due to Their Subcontractors’ Failure to Pay
October 19, 2017 —
Clayton T. Tanaka – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOn September 13, 2017, the California State Legislators passed a bill that would make developers and general contractors responsible for subcontractors who fail to pay their employees even though they already paid the subcontractors for the work. Assembly Bill 1701 (AB 1701), sponsored by unions who represent carpenters and other building trades, would require general contractors to “assume, and [be] liable for . . . unpaid wage, fringe or other benefit payment or contribution, including interest owed,” which subcontractors owe their employees. Despite vehement opposition from the California Building Industry Association and the Associated General Contractors of California, this bill has been submitted to the Governor and is expected to be signed into law.
NEW REQUIREMENTS
Once signed, this bill would impose the following requirements under Labor Code section 218.7:
- Applies to All Private Works Contracts That Are Entered Starting January 1, 2018.
For private works contracts entered on or after January 1, 2018, a “direct contractor” (i.e., prime contractor or contractor who has direct contractual relationship with an owner) must assume and be liable for any debt which its subcontractor or a lower tier subcontractor incurs “for [a] wage claimant’s performance of labor included in the subject of the contract between the direct contractor and the owner.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (a)(1) and (e).)
- The Labor Commissioner and Joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees May Bring Action to Recover Unpaid Wages on Behalf of Wage Claimants.
The California Labor Commissioner and joint Labor-Management Cooperation Committees established under the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. § 175a) (typically comprised of labor unions and management) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for unpaid wages owed to a wage claimant. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(1) and (3).) The Labor Commissioner may also bring its claims through administrative hearings (Labor Code section 98) or by citations (Labor Code section 1197.1). (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(1).)
- Third Parties That Are Owed Fringe or Other Benefit Payments or Contribution on Behalf of Wage Claimants (Labor Unions) May Bring Action.
Third parties who are owed fringe or other benefit payments or contributions on a wage claimant’s behalf (e.g., labor unions) may bring a civil action against the direct contractor for such unpaid benefit payments or contributions. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (b)(2).)
- It Does Not Confer Wage Claimants With Any Right to Sue Direct Contractors.
AB 1701 gives the Labor Commissioner, Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and the unions standing to bring an action against the direct contractor, but it does not confer any private right of action by the wage claimants against the direct contractor.
- Labor-Management Cooperation Committees and Labor Unions Shall Recover as Prevailing Plaintiffs Their Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, Including Expert Fees.
For actions brought by Labor-Management Cooperation Committees or labor unions, “[t]he court shall award a prevailing plaintiff in such an action its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.” (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (b)(2)-(3).)
- Direct Contractor’s Property May Be Attached to Pay for Judgment.
AB 1701 authorizes the attachment of direct contractor’s property to pay for any judgment that is entered pursuant to this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (c).)
- One-Year Statute of Limitation to Bring Action under This Section.
Actions brought pursuant to this section must be filed within one year of the earliest of: (1) recordation of a notice of completion of the direct contract; (2) recordation of a notice of cessation of the work covered by direct contract; or (3) actual completion of work covered by direct contract. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subd. (d).)
- Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply.
Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
- Rights to Receive Payroll Records and Project Award Information from Subcontractors and to Withdraw All Payments Owed for Their Failure to Comply.
Upon the direct contractor’s request, subcontractors and lower tier subcontractors must provide payroll records and project award information. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)(1)-(2).) Direct contractor may withhold as “disputed” all sums owed if a subcontractor does not timely provide the requested records and information without specifying what is untimely and such failure to comply does not excuse direct contractor from any liability under this section. (Lab. Code, § 218.7, subds. (f)( 3) and (i).)
- Further Legislative Efforts on Subdivision (h) Are Expected in 2018.
Subdivision (h), which states that “[t]he obligations and remedies provided in this section shall be in addition to any obligations and remedies otherwise provided by law . . .” (emphasis added) is potentially misleading since the author and sponsor of the bill have indicated that the bill is not intended to punish direct contractors with liquidated damages or penalties. As such, further legislative efforts on subdivision (h) are expected in 2018.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
While workers should be paid for the work they perform, AB 1701 would place undue burden on general contractors to monitor their subcontractors’ payroll, confirm that all wages and benefits are paid timely and withhold disputed payments from non-compliant subcontractors. General contractors would also need to caution against the chain reaction that could result from such withholding, including work stoppage, increased change order requests, and an overall increase in construction costs. Finally, general contractors would need to brace themselves for at least a year after project completion against any union or a Labor-Management Cooperation Committee actions armed with a prevailing party’s right to recover attorneys’ fees and expert fees, for previously unidentified subcontractor or sub-subcontractor workers.
STRATEGIES DEVELOPERS AND GENERAL CONTRACTORS SHOULD LOOK FOR
In anticipation of AB 1701 being signed into law and its potentially harsh effects, developers and general contractors are advised to consult their attorneys for a review and revision of their existing contracts, to develop plans for accessing and monitoring subcontractor payroll records, and to consider strategies for mitigating claims that may be brought against them, as follows:
- Execute all pending agreements
before January 1, 2018 to avoid the effects of AB 1701;
- Include an audit provision
requiring subcontractors and sub-subcontractors to provide payroll records (at minimum, information set forth in Labor Code section 226) and project award information, regularly and/or upon request, with specific deadlines for such production, as subdivision (f) does not specify what is untimely;
- Include defense and indemnity provisions
that would require subcontractors to defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims that are brought pursuant to this section arising from labor performed by employees for subcontractors and sub-subcontractors, and require subcontractors to include a similar provision in their own contracts with sub-subcontractors that would require lower tier subcontractors to also defend and indemnify the general contractor for claims arising from their respective employees’ work;
- Require subcontractors to provide a payment bond and/or a letter of credit
to satisfy claims that are made against the general contractor under this section;
- Require personal guarantees
from owners, partners or key subcontractor personnel;
- Include withholding and back-charge provisions
that would allow general contractors to withhold or charge back the subcontractors for disputed amounts, for claims brought against them, and for failure to comply with the audit, bond, and guarantee requirements.
- Consider implementing a system to confirm evidence of payments,
such as signed acknowledgment of payment by each subcontractor and sub-subcontractor employees and by third parties entitled to recover fringe and other benefit payments or contribution, possibly working with electronic billing software providers to implement such system.
Clay Tanaka is a partner in the Newport Beach office of Newmeyer & Dillion, focusing on construction, real estate, business and insurance disputes in both California and Nevada. As a licensed civil engineer, Clay has significant experience in design and construction of all types of construction projects, which he has effectively utilized in his litigation, trial and arbitration practice to obtain great results for his clients. For questions related to AB1701, please contact Clay Tanaka (clay.tanaka@ndlf.com) or Newport Beach Partner Mark Himmelstein (mark.himmelstein@ndlf.com).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clayton T. Tanaka, Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMr. Tanaka may be contacted at
clay.tanaka@ndlf.com
Homebuilders Opposed to Potential Change to Interest on Construction Defect Expenses
January 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFIn 2008, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that in calculating interest on the expense of repairing construction defects would start at the time that the defect was repaired. In 2009, the Colorado State Legislature introduced a bill that would have made homeowners eligible for interest back to the purchase date of their homes. The Colorado Springs Business Journal notes that the Colorado Springs Housing and Building Association is concerned that the legislature might take up the issue again, in which case, the HBA would oppose it.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court to Examine Arbitration Provisions in Several Upcoming Cases
December 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFGlen C. Hansen, writing on Abbott & Kinderman’s Land Use Law Blog looks at several cases pending before the California Supreme Court which ask if a developer can insist on arbitration of construction defect claims, based on provision in the CC&Rs. Currently, there is a split of opinions in the California appeals courts on the issue.
Four of the cases are in California’s Fourth Appellate District. In the earliest case, Villa Milano Homeowners Association v. Il Davorge, from 2000, the court concluded that the arbitration clause was sufficient to require that construction defect claims undergo arbitration. However, the Fourth Appellate District Court concluded in three later cases that the arbitration clauses did not allow the developer to compel arbitration. In two cases, argued in 2008 and 2010, the court concluded that to do otherwise would deprive the homeowners of their right to a jury trial. In the most recent case, Villa Vicenza Homeowners Association v. Nobel Court Development, the court decided that the CC&Rs did not create contractual rights for the developer.
The Second Appellate District Court came to a similar decision in Promenade at Playa Vista Homeowners Association v. Western Pacific Housing, Inc. In their decision, the court noted that CC&Rs could be enforced by homeowners and homeowners associations, but not developers.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Counter the Rising Number of Occupational Fatalities in Construction
April 19, 2021 —
Joshua Jacobsen - Construction ExecutivePrior to the pandemic, the construction industry was experiencing mental and behavioral health stressors and increasing fatalities. The pandemic is contributing to these underlying conditions threatening the safety and wellbeing of the construction workforce:
- Workers in construction occupations experienced 1,066 fatalities, a 6.3% increase and the highest total since 2007. Across all industries slips, trips and falls resulted in 880 deaths, a 11.3% increase from the previous year;
- Increasing mental health challenges as evidenced by growing percentage of Americans starting therapy; and
- Rising risk of relapse to substance use disorders and especially opioid overdoses. Deaths from unintentional overdoses of non-medical drug or alcohol use while at work climbed slightly to 313, marking the seventh straight annual increase in this category.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua Jacobsen, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Jacobsen may be contacted at
jjacobsen@holmesmurphy.com
Time Limits on Hidden Construction Defects
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFFrom the time a home is built, California starts a ten-year countdown, which Alan I. Schimmel, writing at California Lawyer, notes is not a statute of limitations, but a statute of repose. During that time, homeowners might be able file a claim over construction defects that don’t immediately become evident. After that ten-year limit, “any latent defects they discover would have to be corrected using money from their own pockets.”
The readily observable defects, the patent defects, have a four-year limit. Mr. Schimmel focusses on latent defects, “which generally lurk behind walls or underground.” He also notes that “they may cause catastrophic damage before they are even detected.” If a construction defect is found, the “law requires the owner of a single-family residence to notify the builder in writing of the claimed defects.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Colorado’s Abbreviated Legislative Session Offers Builders a Reprieve
October 26, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWould you believe me if I told you that this year could have been worse for builders? Had COVID-19 not hit, the Colorado Legislature may have passed bills that would have had a severely negative impact on the home building industry. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislature temporarily adjourned in mid-March, 67 days into the 120-day legislative session. After a two-month recess, the Legislature returned for approximately one month to pass critical bills including the state budget, the school finance act and what to do with the money from the federal CARES Act. Of the bills on the calendar when the Legislature temporarily adjourned, legislators focused on those that were “fast, free, and friendly,” and let the others fall by the wayside.
Bills that died included SB 20-138, which would have extended Colorado’s statute of repose for construction defect claims from six plus two years to 10 plus two years. The bill also contained a number of accrual and tolling provisions, which would have made it harder for builders to convince tribunals that claims were untimely. This bill died on the Senate floor, for lack of support. We will see whether plaintiffs’ attorneys will revive this effort next year.
SB 20-093, while not an outright ban on arbitration or a legislative overturning of the Vallagio decision, would have made it harder to administer and more difficult to get cases into arbitration. The bill died under the “fast, free, and friendly” test, i.e., it faced too much opposition. I expect to see this bill again next year, in some form.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
