Industrialized Construction News 7/2022
August 15, 2022 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe
AEC Business newsletter’s Industrialized Construction edition in July featured the following news stories:
The Pros and Cons of Offsite Construction – A French Research Study
The study is titled The current use of industrialized construction techniques in France: Benefits, limits and future expectations. The authors are Emna Attouri, Zoubeir Lafhaj, Laure Ducoulombierb and Bruno Linéatte.
Read more
Rise of the machines? For Construction, Not Yet
Matthew Thibault’s article examines the opportunities and challenges of construction robotics. Robots can improve safety and productivity, but the ROI is still unclear to many contractors.
Read more Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara LLP Attorneys to Speak at the 2016 National Construction Claims Conference
September 01, 2016 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP (BWBO), announced that Keith G. Bremer, Founding Partner and John H. Toohey, Partner, will be speaking at the CLM National Construction Claims Conference being held September 28-30th this year. More than 500 professionals will gather at the conference location, the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego, California.
According to BWBO’s release, “the CLM will hold the most comprehensive construction claims conference ever. In addition to addressing construction defect claims, conference sessions will also address facets of construction-related claims including construction site accidents/injuries, coverage issues, subcontractor issues, and new technologies. Sessions will also address issues on the national, regional, and state levels.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dust Infiltration Due to Construction Defect Excluded from Policy
September 09, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFA summary judgment was affirmed in the case of Brown v. Farmers Group, by the California Court of Appeals. The Browns bought a new home in Oakley, California. At the time, they signed disclosure statement “acknowledging that the area around their home experienced gusty winds and would be in development for years to come, which might result in dust and airborne mold.”
The Browns found an unusual amount of dust in their home, which became worse when they ran their heating and air conditioning system. Shelia Brown was later diagnosed with chronic valley fever, which was attributed to airborne mold. The Browns contacted Farmers which investigated the house. Although the adjustor from Farmers said the Browns would be covered, Farmers denied the claim.
After the Browns moved out of the house, an inspector found that the HVAC line in the attic was disconnected, sending dust into the home. The Browns brought action against Mid-Century Insurance, which managed the policy, and Farmers. The identified the HVAC defect, window problems, and valley fever as causes, suing for breach of contact, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The court rejected all these claims. The policy with Farmers excluded losses due to defective construction. This ruled out the faulty HVAC system and any problems there might have been from the windows. The policy also specifically excluded losses from contamination, fungi, pathogens, and noxious substances. The court further found that the adjustor’s opinion was irrelevant to the question of what the policy actually covered. Finally, the court found no evidence of intentional infliction of emotional stress.
On review, the appeals court upheld the trial court’s conclusions and affirmed the summary judgment.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Rules that Damage From Squatter’s Fire is Not Excluded as Vandalism or Malicious Mischief
April 15, 2015 —
Valerie A. Moore, Christopher Kendrick, and Colin T. Murphy – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Ong v. Fire Insurance Exchange (No. B252773, filed 4/3/15), a California appeals court ruled that a vacancy exclusion limited to damage caused by “vandalism or malicious mischief” did not bar coverage for damage to a vacant property caused by a warming fire purposely started by a transient that got out of control and spread to other parts of the property.
In Ong, the insured’s rental premises had been vacated by tenants and the utilities turned off. Nearly two years later, the insured submitted a claim for fire damage that had just occurred. An investigator reported finding signs that a squatter had been living in the building, stating that: “[I]t appears the fire may have been initiated as the result of an uncontrolled warming fire started by an unauthorized inhabitant.” The investigator found firewood and a mattress, and concluded that holes burned in the floor were the result of the squatter attempting to throw burning wood out the door when the fire got out of control.
The policy excluded vandalism as follows: “We do not cover direct or indirect loss from: . . . 4. Vandalism or Malicious Mischief, breakage of glass and safety glazing materials if the dwelling has been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days . . . just before the loss. A dwelling under construction is not considered vacant.” The term “Vandalism” was not defined in the policy. The insurer denied coverage based on the exclusion, stating: “Our investigation indicates that this loss was the result of vandalism. A trespasser entered the vacant dwelling and intentionally set a fire on the kitchen floor.”
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Valerie A. Moore,
Christopher Kendrick and
Colin T. Murphy
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com.
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Mr. Murphy may be contacted at cmurphy@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Economic Loss Not Property Damage
November 04, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Fifth Circuit agreed with the district court that the insured subcontractor's economic losses did not amount to covered property damage. Greenwich Ins. Co. v. Capsco Industries, Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23949 (5th Cir. Aug 12, 2019).
Capsco Industries, Inc. was a subcontractor on the construction of a casino. Capsco subcontracted with Ground Control to install water, sewage, and storm-drain lines. Ground Control was terminated from the project by the general contractor for alleged safety violations and failed drug tests of its employees. Ground Control sued in state court against multiple parties, including Capsco, seeking payment for work on the project. The claims were dismissed on summary judgment because neither party had obtained the required certificates of responsibility from the state, making the parties' contract void. The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed the contract was void, but reversed and remanded for further proceedings based solely on theories of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.
While the state case was on remand, Capsco's liability insurers, Greenwich Insurance Company and Indian Harbor Insurance Company, filed a compliant for declaratory judgment in federal district court seeking a declaration that they did not owe a defense or indemnity to Capsco. The defendants were Ground Control, Capsco, the general contractor, and the casino owner. The latter two parties were dismissed. Ground Control counterclaimed for coverage of its claims against Capsco. The district court stayed proceedings until the state court litigation ended.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
When Subcontractors Sue Only the Surety on Payment Bond and Tips for General Contractors
August 13, 2019 —
Ira M. Schulman & Emily D. Anderson - ConsensusDocsPayment bonds have been a staple of public construction projects since 1874, when the U.S. Congress first passed the Heard Act, which required that contractors obtain payment bonds for public projects to ensure that subcontractors and material suppliers have a way to recover their damages if an upstream contractor fails to pay for work performed and materials furnished on the project. The 1874 Heard Act has since been replaced by the 1935 Miller Act, and the concept has been expanded to construction projects funded by the states through state statutes known as “Little Miller Acts.” But the structure remains the same: On most public projects where the project’s cost exceeds $100,000, the prime contractor (the bond principal) is required to obtain a payment bond from a surety equal to the contract price to guarantee to subcontractors and material suppliers (the bond obligees) that the surety will pay for labor and materials under certain statutory or contractual conditions should the contractor fail to make payment.
A surety is jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the subcontractor, which means that the subcontractor may seek recovery against either the contractor or the surety or both, and the contractor and surety will be liable for the damages together. Put another way, in most states and in federal court, an unpaid subcontractor has the right to sue only the surety on the payment bond without joining the contractor because a contract of suretyship is a direct liability of the surety to the subcontractor.1 When the contractor fails to perform, the surety becomes directly responsible at once — it is unnecessary for the subcontractor to establish that the contractor failed to carry out its contract before the obligation of the surety becomes absolute.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ira M. Schulman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and
Emily D. Anderson, Pepper Hamilton LLP
Mr. Schulman may be contacted at schulmani@pepperlaw.com
Ms. Anderson may be contacted at andersone@pepperlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
7 Ways Technology is Changing Construction (guest post)
July 28, 2018 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaToday, we have a guest post by Eric Weisbrot, Chief Marketing Officer of JW Surety Bonds. With years of experience in the surety industry under several different roles within the company, he is also a contributing author to the surety bond blog. Welcome, Eric!
It is difficult to argue that technology is having minimal impact on society as a whole. Not only are digital enhancements making waves on the consumer side of the line, but businesses are feeling the effects as much if not more in recent years. The construction industry is no exception to this technological shift, but the influence the change is having on licensed construction contractors and long-standing businesses is far-reaching. Here are several ways technology is disrupting construction on a day to day basis.
#1. Autonomous Equipment. One of the most notable changes in construction is the addition of autonomous equipment on job sites. Several technology-focused companies are currently testing and perfecting construction machines that require no human interaction to operate. The hope behind this shift is to reduce the impact of the labor shortage in the industry while improving efficiency and productivity on each job.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Ragsdale Liggett, PLLCMs. Brumback may be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
Will Maryland Beltway Developer's Exit Doom $7.6B P3 Project?
March 13, 2023 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordMaryland’s controversial $7.6-billion plan to build tolled express lanes along two Washington, DC-area interstates has suffered a potentially fatal blow with the departure of the private development consortium from the project.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
