Settlement Reached in Bridge Failure Lawsuit
December 11, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFOfficials claimed the failure of a bridge in Afton Township, Illinois was because trucks owned by Welded Construction used the bridge despite exceeding the bridge’s weight limit of 36.5 tons. The firm argued that they should be responsible for the depreciated cost of the bridge, not its replacement cost. Welded Construction had been using the bridge to get to the site of an oil pipeline construction project for Enbridge Energy.
Replacement of the bridge was initially estimated at $933,000, but that was in advance of any design work. Enbridge Energy settled the case at $900,000, which should cover most or all of the cost of repair or replacement. Some federal funds may also be available for repairing or constructing a new bridge.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
South Carolina “Your Work” Exclusion, “Get To” Costs
July 30, 2014 —
Scott Patterson - CD CoverageIn Precision Walls, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., No. 2013-000787 (S.C. Ct. App. July 23, 2014), SYS was the general contractor for a project. SYS contracted with Precision for the supply and installation of exterior insulation board, to include the taping of all joints. After Precision completed its work, another subcontractor began construction of the brick veneer wall over the insulation board. During construction of the brick wall, some of the joint sealing tape installed by Precision began to come loose. To correct the problem, the existing portion of the brick veneer wall had to be torn down, all of the joint sealing tape removed and replaced, and the brick veneer wall rebuilt. SYS deducted the cost of tearing down and rebuilding the brick veneer wall from Precision’s contract. Precision sought reimbursement for this amount from its CGL policy issued by Liberty Mutual.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Patterson, CD Coverage
Measure of Damages in Negligent Procurement of Surety Bonds / Insurance
September 04, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMy broker procured the wrong insurance and I am exposed to a loss. My broker failed to procure proper insurance and I am exposed to a loss. “Where the parties enter into an agreement to procure insurance and there is a negligent failure to do so, an insurance broker may be liable for damages.” The Lexington Club Community Association, Inc. v. Love Madison, Inc., 43 Fla.L.Weekly D1860a (Fla. 4th DCA 2018). The proper measure of damages in a negligent procurement of insurance claim is “what would have been covered had the insurance been properly obtained.” Id. quoting Gelsomino v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 207 So.3d 288, 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). This measure of damages in a negligent procurement of insurance claim is important because it is the measure of damages that dictates recoverable damages under this claim.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Supreme Court Finds Insurance Coverage for Intentional (and Despicable) Act of Contractor’s Employee
July 21, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogNot to cast shade on your fun in the sun, but here’s an unusual, albeit sad and creepy, one for you. I’m bummed even writing about this one.
In Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Company, Inc., Case No. S236765 (June 4, 2018), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a general contractor’s commercial general liability carrier was obligated to defend and whether the carrier was liable for damages sustained by a young girl who was molested by an employee of the general contractor during construction at a school. At issue was whether the policy’s definition of an “occurrence,” which was defined, like most policies, as “an accident,” was triggered by the “intentional” and clearly not accidental act of the general contractor’s employee.
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
Bailout for an Improperly Drafted Indemnification Provision
February 11, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent opinion came out that held that even though an indemnification provision in a subcontract was unenforceable per Florida Statute s. 725.06, the unenforceable portion is merely severed out of the indemnification clause leaving the rest of the clause intact. In essence, an otherwise invalid indemnification clause is bailed out by this ruling (which does not even discuss whether this subcontract had a severability provision that states that if any portion of any provision in the subcontract is invalid, such invalid portion shall be severed and the remaining portion of the provision shall remain in full force and effect).
This opinion arose from a construction defect case, CB Contractxors, LLC v. Allens Steel Products, Inc.,43 Fla.L.Weekly D2773a (Fla. 5thDCA 2018), where the general contractor, sued by an association, flowed down damages to subcontractors based on the contractual indemnification provision in the subcontracts. Subcontractors moved to dismiss the contractual indemnification claim because it was not compliant with Florida Statute s. 725.06. The indemnification provision required the subcontractors to indemnify the general contractor even for the general contractors own partial negligence, but failed to specify a monetary limitation on the extent of the indemnification as required by Florida Statute s. 725.06. (The indemnification clause in the subcontract was the standard intermediate form of indemnification that required the subcontractor to indemnify the general contractor for claims regardless of whether the claims were caused in part by the general contractor.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
The Brexit Effect on the Construction Industry
June 30, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFNow that the United Kingdom (UK) has voted to leave the European Union (EU)—commonly known as ‘Brexit’—much discussion has arisen on how it will affect the construction industry both in the UK and globally.
Brexit could impact the U.S. housing market in various ways, some negative and some positive. For instance, the mortgage refinancing industry is poised to receive a “glut of applications due to low interest rates,” Construction Dive reported. It’s also possible that the U.S. will receive an influx of foreign investors who may perceive the UK as being too isolationist, making the U.S. seem “more open to global business,” according to the Detroit Free Press. They also pointed out that the vote has already impacted the U.S. housing market, since it is most likely the reason the Federal Reserve decided against raising interest rates in June.
Furthermore, Construction Dive presented two different views of how home buying may be effected. On the one hand, investors who lost money in the stock market may be less inclined or able to purchase property at this time. But on the other hand, if Brexit causes home prices to decline, it may “be a relief to those homebuyers finding it difficult to come up with a down payment, particularly first-timers who are facing limited starter-home inventory in addition to steep price tags.”
Barron’s does not seem to believe that the stock market decline due to Brexit will affect the U.S. building industry. The publication maintained their “relatively favorable view of the home builders” industry for the following reasons: “1) Healthy demand trends seen in our monthly survey of real-estate agents; 2) 100% U.S. exposure and tailwinds from lower mortgage rates; and 3) Generally undemanding valuations. However, we are somewhat balanced by: 1) Rates have already been favorable, limiting incremental buyer urgency; 2) Risk that continued market volatility or broader economic fallout could hurt housing fundamentals; and 3) Industry gross margins face pressure from rising land and labor costs. We forecast accelerating order growth through the fourth quarter, driven by community count growth and easier second-half comps, and think improving trends would be a positive catalyst.”
Less positive are the predictions for the UK construction industry. CNBC reported that migrant workers currently make up twelve percent of the UK construction force, and Brexit could cause the labor shortage to worsen. According to Global Construction, Brian Berry, Chief Executive of the Federation of Master Builders agreed that the industry needs migrant workers, however, he also stated that the UK needs to begin investing in their own “home-grown talent” through increasing apprenticeships.
Another prediction is that infrastructure projects may be adversely effected. For instance, the Independent reported that an anonymous source alleged that international investors have already begun to delay future infrastructure projects in the UK due to the uncertainty of the UK and the EU parting terms negotiation. Current projects may also be in jeopardy, according to the source, since the projects are often contingent upon existing shipping trade rules—if smaller ships can no longer go straight into Europe, it could be enough to halt these projects.
According to the Architects’ Journal, projects will stop—and they have evidence that one already has been halted: “Within minutes of the Brexit news, Daniel Minsky, who works with a boutique investment and development agency in London, was told that a proposed land deal had been pulled. The buyer withdrew at 7.05am this morning because they felt the residential value ‘was too risky.’”
The Architects’ Journal also predicted that environmentally friendly projects may decline since many of the green initiatives were governed by the EU under the Energy Performance in Buildings Directive. However, James Shackleton of Eversheds LLP disagreed with the assessment. Shackleton believes that Brexit may not result in less regulation, giving the following examples: “The Construction Design and Management Regulations 2015 which essentially enact EU Directive 1992/57/EEC and require certain minimum health and safety requirements in design and construction, are unlikely to be swept away.” Furthermore, the “Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 enacting EU Directive 2002/91/EC requiring Energy Performance Certificates for buildings is unlikely to be repealed,” Shackleton claimed.
Read the full story, Construction Dive…
Read the full story, Detroit Free Press…
Read the full story, Barron’s…
Read the full story, CNBC…
Read the full story, Global Construction…
Read the full story, Independent…
Read the full story, The Architects’ Journal…
Read the full story, Eversheds LLP (Lexology)…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Good News on Prices for Some Construction Materials
June 28, 2021 —
ABC - Construction ExecutiveThe elevated price of softwood lumber, a major talking point during much of the pandemic, appears to have peaked in early May at more than $1,700 per thousand board feet. As of June 23, the price has fallen below $900 per board feet, down about 49% in less than two months.
That’s still an unusually lofty price by historic standards—prices remain almost twice as high as in February 2020—but the trend is very much in the right direction. Builders that had been hoarding lumber have now begun to sell from their own inventory, other builders have delayed lumber purchases in anticipation of lower prices and sawmill operators have been adding shifts, as well as expanding capacity, all of which puts downward pressure on prices.
Reprinted courtesy of
ABC, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
South Carolina Supreme Court Requires Transparency by Rejecting an Insurer’s “Cut-and-Paste” Reservation of Rights
February 16, 2017 —
Theresa A. Guertin & H. Scott Williams - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.In a decision rendered on January 11, 2017, the Supreme Court of South Carolina reminded policyholders that they are entitled to an explanation of any and all grounds upon which their insurer may be contesting coverage in a reservation of rights letter. Specifically, in Harleysville Group Insurance v. Heritage Communities, Inc. et al., 1 the court found that an insurer’s reservation of rights, which included a verbatim recitation of numerous policy provisions that the court identified as the “cut-and-paste” method, was insufficient to reserve its rights to contest coverage.
In 2003, Heritage Communities, Inc. (“Heritage”), a parent company of several corporate entities engaged in developing and constructing condominium complexes from 1997 to 2000, was sued by multiple property owners’ associations. The lawsuits sought actual and punitive damages against Heritage as a result of alleged construction defects, including building code violations, structural deficiencies, and significant water intrusion. During the period of construction, Heritage was insured by Harleysville Group Insurance (“Harleysville”) under several primary and excess general liability insurance policies.
Reprinted courtesy of
Theresa A. Guertin, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Ms. Guertin may be contacted at tag@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
