General Contractor Gets Fired [Upon] for Subcontractor’s Failure to Hire Apprentices
September 23, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogAs most public works contractors know, Labor Code section 1777.5 requires the hiring of apprentices on public works projects and, under Labor Code section 1777.7, violations are subject to civil penalties of up $100/day and up to $300/day days for repeated violations within a three-year period.
In
Lusardi Construction Co. v. Dept. of Industrial Relations, 102 Cal.App.5th (2024), a prime contractor learned the hard way that not only could it be penalized for its failure to hire apprentices but that it could also be liable for its subcontractor’s failure to hire apprentices. Forewarned is to be forearmed.
The Lusardi Construction Case
In 2014, general contractor Lusardi Construction Company hired subcontractor Pro Works Contracting to perform iron reinforcing work on a public works project owned by the San Marcos Unified School District.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Absence of Property Damage During Policy Period Equates to No Coverage
April 01, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Montana Supreme Court determined there was no coverage for the insured due to a lack of property damage during the policy period. Truck Ins. Exchange v. O'Mailia, 2015 Mont. LEXIS 54 (Mont. Feb. 17, 2015).
The insured plumbing company, Lolo Plumbing & Heating, installed a water heater at Famous Dave's restaurant. At the time of installation, the insured had a CGL policy with Truck. The policy provided coverage from July 10, 2006 to November 29, 2009.
On March 12, 2010, three years after the water heater was installed, a burning smaell was detected in the restaurant's mechanical room. The fire department turned off the water heater and asked that a plumber look at it. Diamond Plumbing & Heating was called and replaced the combustion air fan assembly, but did not further examine the water heater.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Wake County Justice Center- a LEED Silver Project done right!
October 01, 2014 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback – Construction Law in North CarolinaYesterday evening, I had the privilege of attending the Triangle USGBC’s “Talk & Walk” at the Wake County Justice Center. The 576,996 square foot Justice Center was completed 6 months early and over 30 million under budget. (The final cost, including soft costs, came in at ~$141,000,000). Now that’s what I call a LEED project done right!
Interestingly, the County did not endeavor for a LEED Silver rating– the plan was to aim for a Certification. However, as the process unfolded, the Team kept meeting the goals and points for a Silver certification without any appreciable additional costs.
The end result? An “iconic but energy efficient building,” according to Tim Ashby, current Wake County Facilities Project Manager. Tim was initially involved in the Project while working at O’Brien Atkins, which served as the architecture firm for the Project under the direction of Architect Andrew Zwiacher.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Three-Year Delay Not “Prompt Notice,” But Insurer Not “Appreciably Prejudiced” Either, New Jersey Court Holds
November 04, 2019 —
Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLPIn Harleysville Preferred Insurance Company v. East Coast Painting & Maintenance, LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135295 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2019) (East Coast Painting), the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that an insurer, which received notice of a bodily injury accident three years after it happened, was not “appreciably prejudiced” by such late notice, even as the court acknowledged notice three years later did not satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The court also held that the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” which excluded coverage for bodily injury arising out of the operation of “cherry pickers and similar devices,” did not apply because the accident arose out of the use of a “scissor lift,” which is not a device similar to a cherry picker.
East Coast Painting arose out of a Queens, New York bridge-painting project, during which an employee of the insured, East Coast Painting and Maintenance LLC was injured while “standing on a scissor lift mounted to the back of a truck,” owned and operated by East Coast. The employee sued various project-related entities which, in turn, joined East Coast as a defendant. East Coast sought coverage under its business auto policy, and the insurer agreed to defend the insured under a reservation of rights. The insurer subsequently sought a declaration that it did not owe coverage based on, among other things, the policy’s “Operational Exclusion,” and the insured’s failure to satisfy the policy’s “prompt notice” condition. The insurer moved for summary judgment on both of those bases, but the court in East Coast Painting denied the motion.
As for the insurer’s “prompt notice” defense, the court in East Coast Painting concluded that, the insured’s notice to the insurer was not prompt because it did not receive notice until three years after the accident. But, the court added, the inquiry does not end there. “[T]his Court must determine whether [the insurer] was appreciably prejudiced by that delay.” Reviewing the facts, the court held that the insurer was not “appreciably prejudiced,” even though during the three-year delay the lift truck was “not properly maintained” or “in the same condition it was at the time of the Accident.” The court observed that the insurer had “ample other evidence with which it can defend itself,” such as experts who inspected the lift truck and opined about the cause of the accident.” [Emphasis added.] Further, “there are multiple contemporaneous accident reports,” “a list of the East Coast employees on site at the time,” “photographs of the lift truck and its location when [the employee] was injured,” and “depositions of [the employee] and others regarding the events at issue.” Thus, the court held, the insurer was not prejudiced and summary judgment was inappropriate.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony L. Miscioscia, White and Williams LLP and
Timothy A. Carroll, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Miscioscia may be contacted at misciosciaa@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Carroll may be contacted at carrollt@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Miller Act Bond Claims Subject to “Pay If Paid”. . . Sometimes
November 04, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThe Federal Miller Act is a great tool that subcontractors and suppliers on Federal projects can use for collection of wrongfully withheld amounts due. However, as a recent federal case from the Eastern District of Virginia points out, the construction contract’s terms affect when a subcontractor or supplier can use this great collection tool and how much it can recover.
In Aarow v Travelers the Court looked at the interaction between a typical termination clause, a “pay when paid” clause, and the Miller Act. The key facts are these. The general contractor on the project at issue, Syska, did not get paid some disputed amounts by the owner and subsequently did not pay Aarow, the plaintiff and a subcontractor on the project. Aarow then refused to continue work and was terminated by Syska who then took over the completion of the work. Aarow sued, seeking damages for the value of its work prior to the termination. Travellers, the surety defended stating that, if Aarow was properly terminated for cause by Syska, then Aarow was not entitled to payment under the contract until such time as the work was completed and accepted by the owner. The termination clauses are set out in the linked opinion.
The Court agreed with Travelers, stating that the pay when paid clause created a situation whereby Aarow could not stop work merely because of a non-payment by Syska attributed to non-payment by the owner. The Court was clear in stating that the Miller Act trumps “pay when paid” in instances where the only cause for non-payment is non-payment by an owner. The Court then reasoned that it is the interaction between the termination and “pay when paid” provisions, and not the “pay when paid” clause itself, that exonerated Travelers because it created the default by Aarow due to its refusal to continue work. In short, Aarow was properly terminated for cause because it left the job without justification and therefore Travelers was not liable.
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
Release Of “Unknown” Claim Does Not Bar Release Of “Unaccrued” Claim: Fair Or Unfair?
July 15, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA general release of “unknown” claims through the effective date of the release does NOT bar “unaccrued” claims. This is especially important when it comes to fraud claims where the facts giving rise to the fraud may have occurred prior to the effective date in the release, but a party did not learn of the fraud until well after the effective date in the release. A recent opinion maintained that a general release that bars unknown claims does NOT mean a fraud claim will be barred since the last element to prove a fraud had not occurred, and thus, the fraud claim had not accrued until after the effective date in the release. See Falsetto v. Liss, Fla. L. Weekly D1340D (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“The 2014 [Settlement] Agreement’s plain language released the parties only from “known or unknown” claims, not future or unaccrued claims. Because there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the fraud claim had accrued — that is, whether Falsetto [party to Settlement Agreement] knew or through the exercise of due diligence should have known about the alleged fraud at the time the 2014 Agreement was executed — the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on those fraud claims.”).
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
The Dog Ate My Exclusion! – Georgia Federal Court: No Reformation to Add Pollution Exclusion
September 28, 2017 —
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.While schoolchildren know that the classic “the dog ate my homework” excuse doesn’t work, insurance companies are willing to try a variation of that excuse. Ace American Insurance Company (Ace), sold a property policy (the Policy) to Exide Technologies, Inc. (Exide). Exide sought coverage under the Policy for acid damage at its former battery factory. Ace denied coverage, citing to the pollution exclusion. The only problem? The Policy contained no pollution exclusion!
Exide had procured policies from other insurers for several years prior to the inception of the Policy, all of which contained pollution exclusions. Exide instructed Marsh USA Inc. (Marsh), its broker, to procure insurance “on the same or better terms and conditions.” The resulting policy contained no pollution exclusion, and Exide sought coverage under the Policy for pollution-related losses.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Philip M. Brown-Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Brown-Wilusz may be contacted at
pbw@sdvlaw.com
Trends and Issues which Can Affect Workers' Compensation Coverage for Construction Companies
December 26, 2022 —
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Recent trends in workers’ compensation coverage suggest that the number of claims are likely to continue to increase, specifically for high-risk industries, like the construction industry. This article explores multiple trends and issues which are likely to impact workers’ compensation insurance for construction companies. Several of these trends and issues reflect demographic, labor, and technological shifts, which have important implications for contractors and construction companies.
1. Technological Innovation and Worker Safety
New wearable technologies and other data-collecting products such as helmets which warn of employee fatigue and sensors which help with ergonomic corrections have emerged in the markets to support safety measures in the construction industry. Although devices such as these tools can help business owners to demonstrate the implementation of safety programs to their insurance carriers, they can also distract the workers who are wearing them or go through a product malfunction, which could lead to injuries in the workplace and could also result in higher workers’ compensation premiums. While these new technological devices are intended to support worker safety on construction sites, it is also important for business owners to evaluate the potential risks of new technologies on a project site.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
