FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Arkansas: Avoiding the "Made Whole" Doctrine Through Dépeçage

April 09, 2014 — Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLP
In Arkansas, a workers’ compensation carrier’s subrogated recovery is subject to a determination of whether the injured worker—or, as the case may be, the worker’s surviving beneficiaries—has been “made whole” by the worker’s recovery against the third party tortfeasor. See, e.g., Yancey v. B & B Supply, 213 S.W.3d 657, 659 (Ark. App. 2005) (“An insured’s right to be made whole takes precedence over an insurer’s right to subrogation, and an insured must be fully compensated before the insurer's right to subrogation arises.”) [1] More often than not, a “made whole” determination will completely eradicate the carrier’s lien. But under the right circumstances, a workers’ compensation carrier may be able to avoid the harsh outcome of “made whole” by intervening in a pending third party action and subsequently filing a motion for dépeçage—i.e., the conflict of laws principle requiring the court to conduct a separate choice of law analysis for discrete issues in a given case. A motion for dépeçage, in this sense, would demand that the court conduct a choice of law analysis to determine what state’s workers’ compensation subrogation law will apply on reimbursing a carrier’s lien. We recently exploited this often underutilized tactic—to avoid Arkansas’ made whole doctrine—in a case involving a fatal plane crash in Louisiana. In that case, the deceased worker and his beneficiaries were residents of Louisiana; the accident took place in Louisiana; the worker was officially employed in Louisiana; and the workers’ compensation insurance policy was governed by, and benefits were paid under, Louisiana law. The only “contact” with Arkansas [2], meanwhile, was that Arkansas was the defendant’s domicile. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Caplan may be contacted at caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com

---

Ensuring Arbitration in Construction Defect Claims

February 04, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
Jared E. Berg and John W. Mill of Sherman & Howard note that developers and general contractors would prefer that construction defect claims against them go to arbitration, instead of ending up in front of a jury. They say “there is a way to do this.” For the developer and general contractor, arbitration is “typically less costly and time consuming than litigation.” On the other side, home owner associations “tend to prefer litigation because the up-front costs of arbitration are greater and they would rather have their cases tried to a jury than a panel of arbitrators in the belief juries offer greater potential for high damage awards. In order to avoid arbitration, “HOAs have taken advantage of their statutory rights to amend declarations by instructing their members to approve amendments removing arbitration clauses. However, in a recent Colorado case, the developer had taken a precaution of including in the arbitration clauses that “they could not be removed from the declarations by amendment with the developer’s and general contractor’s consent.” The homeowners association had voted to remove these clauses, but the judge found that they could not do so. Berg and Mill give the advice to “include in the declaration’s arbitration clause a provision making your consent required to amend or nullify the arbitration provision,” adding that “courts will enforce this kind of consent provision.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Department of Transportation Revises Its Rules Affecting Environmental Review of Transportation Projects

December 04, 2018 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
On October 29, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) published a final rule in the Federal Register which amends and revises the environmental National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures rules employed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). There is a renewed interest in transportation infrastructure projects, and recent legislation is intended to accelerate required environmental reviews. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

---

Who Says You Can’t Choose between Liquidated Damages or Actual Damages?

October 11, 2017 — Kevin Walton - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation Blog
In Colorado, courts enforce liquidated damages provisions if three elements are satisfied: (1) the parties intended to liquidate damages; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was a reasonable estimate of the presumed actual damages caused by a breach; and (3) at the time of contracting, it was difficult to ascertain the amount of actual damages that would result from a breach. But what happens when a contract gives a party a right to choose between liquidated damages or actual damages? This seems troublesome because it allows a party to set the floor for their damages without limitation if actual damages exceed the contractual amount. As a matter of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ravenstar, LLC v. One Ski Hill Place, LLC, 401 P.3d 552 (Colo. 2017). In Ravenstar, plaintiffs contracted to buy condominiums from a developer. As part of their contracts, plaintiffs deposited earnest money and construction deposits equal to 15% of each unit’s purchase price. Plaintiffs breached their contract by failing to obtain financing and failing to close by the closing date. Each contract’s damages provision provided that if a purchaser defaulted, the developer had the option to retain all or some of the deposits as liquidated damages or, alternatively, to pursue actual damages and apply the deposits to that award. After plaintiffs defaulted, the developer chose to keep plaintiffs’ deposits as liquidated damages. Plaintiffs sued for return of their deposits. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kevin Walton, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Walton may be contacted at kwalton@swlaw.com

---

Property Damage to Non-Defective Work Is Covered

February 18, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The New Hampshire Supreme Court found some of the property damage evolving from the insured's portion of the work was covered under its liability policy. Cogswell Farm Condo. Ass'n v. Tower Group, Inc., 2015 N.H. LEXIS 3 (N.H. Jan. 13, 2015). Lemery Building Company, Inc. constructed and developed 24 residential condominium units. After units were sold, the Cogswell Farm Condominium Association sued Lemery, asserting that the "weather barrier" components of the units were defectively constructed and resulted in damage to the units due to water leaks. Cogswell then sued its insurer, Tower Group, Inc., seeking a declaratory judgment that its claims against Lemery were covered. The trial court eventually determined that exclusions J (1) and J (6) both applied to exclude coverage. Exclusion J (1) excluded coverage for "property damage" to property that Lemery "owns, rents, or occupies." Exclusion J (6) excluded coverage for property damage to "[t] hat particular part of any property that must be restored, repaired or replaced because [Lemery's] work was incorrectly performed on it." Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

It’s Getting Harder and Harder to be a Concrete Supplier in California

December 04, 2018 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
In 2015, the California state legislature passed AB 219, which amended the state’s prevailing wage law to add Labor Code section 1720.9, which requires the payment of prevailing wages to “ready-mixed concrete” drivers on state and local public works projects. Ready-mixed concrete suppliers filed suit in Allied Concrete and Supply Co. v. Baker (September 20, 2018) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the law on the ground that, because AB 219 singled out ready-mixed concrete drivers but not other drivers of materials on state and local public works projects, the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

---

New Jersey Federal Court Examines And Applies The “j.(5)” Ongoing Operations Exclusion

October 07, 2019 — Anthony L. Miscioscia and Timothy A. Carroll - White and Williams LLP
In PJR Construction of N.J. v. Valley Forge Insurance Company, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127973 (D.N.J. July 31, 2019) (PJR Construction), a New Jersey federal court held that the “j.(5)” “Ongoing Operations Exclusion” applied to bar coverage for property damage to property on which a construction company allegedly performed faulty work. The court’s opinion follows prior New Jersey state court precedent, including Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. Island Pool & Spa, Inc., 12 A.3d 719 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2011) (Island Pool), but also provides additional guidance on the elements which can make the Ongoing Operations Exclusion applicable to exclude coverage. In PJR Construction, a commercial property owner engaged a construction company to build a 26,000 square foot swim club and related 3,000 square foot pavilion building in New Jersey. After about 75% of the work was completed, the property owner fired the construction company and denied it access to the property. The owner later sued the construction company in New Jersey state court alleging “shoddy workmanship” in, among other things, sealants, flashing, water resistant barriers, masonry and the handicap ramps. The construction company sought coverage from its CGL insurer, which denied coverage based on, among other things, the j.(5) Ongoing Operations Exclusion. After the denial of coverage, the company sued the insurer in New Jersey federal court seeking a declaration of coverage. 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Governor Signs AB5 Into Law — Reshaping California's Independent Contractor Classification Landscape

December 02, 2019 — Eric C. Sohlgren & Matthew C. Lewis - Payne & Fears Legal Alert
Today, Governor Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), controversial legislation which will have a substantial impact on California employers when it goes into effect on January 1, 2020. AB5 enacts into a statute last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018), and the Court’s three-part standard (the “ABC test”) for determining whether a worker may be classified as an employee or an independent contractor. Under the ABC test established in Dynamex and now under AB5, a worker may be properly considered an independent contractor only if the hiring entity establishes all three of the following: (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. Reprinted courtesy of Eric C. Sohlgren, Payne & Fears and Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears Mr. Sohlgren may be contacted at ecs@paynefears.com Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---