California Case Adds Difficulties for Contractors & Material Suppliers
August 20, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFGarret Murai in his California Law Blog declared that “things just got a lot tougher for contractors and material suppliers in the Golden State.” In his blog, Murai analyzed the recent case Golden State Boring & Pipe Jacking, Inc. v. Eastern Municipal Water District, Case No. E054618 (July 23, 2014), in which “the California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District found that a subcontractor’s public works payment bond claim was time barred because its stop payment notice was served ‘before’ a notice of completion was recorded.”
Murai explained the importance of the ruling and how it changed the status quo: “Whereas before, it was commonly understood that you could serve a stop payment notice ‘during’ construction (after all, that was the point wasn’t it, to stop construction funds before they are paid out), now you may have only have a 30 day window (probably less) to serve a stop notice within 30 days after a notice of completion or notice of cessation is recorded.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stay-At-Home Orders and Work Restrictions with 50 State Matrix
April 27, 2020 —
Smith CurrieAs each day of the coronavirus pandemic passes, more and more states, cities and counties across the country are implementing stay-at-home (or shelter-in-place) orders and restrictions on individuals and businesses. These restrictions are impacting numerous persons and businesses, including those working in the construction industry. Smith Currie is keeping abreast of these restrictions and has developed the matrix below identifying statewide and local restrictions in place. This matrix is by no means complete, and we will continue updating it as we become aware of additional orders. In the write ups included with the PDF below, you will find links to the applicable orders with more detailed information. Consult legal counsel for advice on the impact of a particular restriction or restrictions to your business.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Smith CurrieThe firm Smith Currie may be contacted at
info@smithcurrie.com
Waiver Of Arbitration by Not Submitting Claim to Initial Decision Maker…Really!
August 30, 2021 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesArbitration is a form of dispute resolution that is a creature of contract. If you want an arbitrator to resolve your disputes, you need to ensure there is an arbitration provision in your contract. There are pros and cons to arbitration. One con is you lose the right to appeal. A couple of pros, however, are that your arbitrator(s), which you generally have some control in the selection of, will be versed in the construction industry and it can be a more efficient forum to resolve disputes in the times of COVID. Once you have your scheduling conference with the appointed arbitrator(s), you will be able to agree upon a set final hearing (trial) time and have milestone dates that work backwards from the final hearing date. This is much more efficient than being placed on an unrealistic trial docket or having to deal with the gamesmanship of motions just to be able to get your case at-issue for trial.
However, the right to arbitrate your dispute can be waived. This was the issue in Leder v. Imburgia Construction Services, Inc., 2021 WL 3177338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021), which I will be the first to tell you the ruling is quite baffling to me. In a nutshell, the contractor, by not complying with the submission of a claim to the Initial Decision Maker was found to have waived the dispute resolution provision in the AIA contract. Not sure this makes sense, but this was the ruling.
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
What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.
February 14, 2023 —
David Humphreys - Carson Law Group, PLLCThis article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog
One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance.
A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage.
When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases.
Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense.
A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage.
Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed.
However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is
included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added).
It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
“Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS
F. Symbols
1. Plus Sign
A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that:
“Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion.
Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it
and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck.
This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . .
“Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.”
To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.”
David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast.
*See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Concerns About On-the-job Safety Persist
August 13, 2019 —
Joanna Masterson - Construction ExecutiveNearly 40% of workers are more concerned with on-the-job safety this year than they were last year, according to a 360training.com survey of a thousand people across several manual labor-intensive industries. Additionally, a quarter of workers worry every day about getting injured because of their job. That number goes up to 27% for workers in the construction and oil industries.
Slips, trips and falls were the top workplace safety concern (36%), followed by electrical hazards (13%), ergonomic problems (9%), vehicle/equipment accidents (7%) and falling objects (6%). For the construction industry specifically, electrical hazards were identified as the leading cause of concern.
Reprinted courtesy of
Joanna Masterson, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA Releases COVID-19 Guidance
June 15, 2020 —
L. Stephen Bowers & Joshua Tumen - White and Williams LLPThe United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ensures safe and healthful working conditions for employees by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance.
The COVID-19 outbreak has increased demand for N95 filtering face piece respirators (N95 FFRs), limiting availability for workers in healthcare and emergency response. On April 3, 2020, OSHA issued interim guidance for employers to combat the supply shortages of N95 FFRs and to comply with the respiratory protection standard (29 CFR § 1910.134). This guidance will remain in effect until further notice and applies in all industries.
Employers must continue to manage their respiratory protection programs and be mindful of N95 FFR shortages. Specifically, employers should identify and evaluate respiratory hazards in the workplace, and develop and implement written respiratory protection programs. Businesses should reassess their engineering controls, work practices, and administrative controls to identify any changes they can make to decrease the need for N95 FFRs. Some examples provided in the guidance include using portable local exhaust systems or moving operations outdoors. Employers may also consider temporarily suspending non-essential operations, to the extent such operations are not already suspended due to state mandates.
Reprinted courtesy of
L. Stephen Bowers, White and Williams LLP and
Joshua Tumen, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Bowers may be contacted at bowerss@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Tumen may be contacted at tumenj@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eleventh Circuit Reverses Attorneys’ Fee Award to Performance Bond Sureties in Dispute with Contractor arising from Claim against Subcontractor Performance Bond
February 27, 2019 —
CDJ STAFFOn October 26, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) issued a decision which reversed an award of prevailing party attorneys’ fees to performance bond sureties in their dispute with a contractor arising from the contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. Had the lower court’s decision been affirmed, the performance bond sureties would have been able to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees against the contractor even though they were not parties to the underlying subcontract and the subcontract did not contain a prevailing party attorneys’ fee provision.
The underlying case is complicated and arose from the construction of Brickell CityCentre in Miami. Americaribe-Moriarty JV (the “Contractor”) asserted a claim against a performance bond procured by a defaulted subcontractor and issued by International Fidelity Insurance Company and Allegheny Casualty Company (collectively, the “Sureties”). The Sureties filed a declaratory judgment action against the Contractor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “District Court”), seeking a declaration that the Contractor failed to perfect its claim against the performance bond.
Reprinted courtesy of
Gary M. Stein, Peckar & Abramson and
K. Stefan Chin, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Stein may be contacted at gstein@pecklaw.com
Mr. Chin may be contacted at kschin@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Benefits to Insureds Under Property Insurance Policy – Concurrent Cause Doctrine
December 08, 2016 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe Florida Supreme Court in Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., Inc., 41 Fla. L. Weekly S582a (Fla. 2016) gave really good news to claimants seeking recovery under a first-party all-risk property insurance policy. The Court held that the concurrent cause doctrine and not the efficient proximate cause doctrine was the proper theory of recovery to apply when multiple perils—an excluded peril and a covered peril-combined to create a property loss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Katz, Barron, Squitero, Faust, Friedberg, English & Allen, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
