In Florida, Exculpatory Clauses Do Not Need Express Language Referring to the Exculpated Party's Negligence
October 02, 2015 —
Edward Jaeger & William Doerler – White and Williams LLPIn Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So.3d 256 (Fla. 2015), the Supreme Court of Florida considered whether a party to a contract, in order to be released from liability for its own negligence, needs to include an express reference to negligence in an exculpatory clause. The court held that, unlike an indemnification clause, so long as the language in an exculpatory clause is clear, the absence of the terms “negligence” or “negligent acts” in an exculpatory clause does not, for that reason alone, render the exculpatory clause ineffective.
Background
Give Kids the World, Inc. (“GKW”) is a non-profit organization that provides free vacations to seriously ill children and their families at GKW’s resort village. To use the resort, vacationers have to fill out an application. Stacy and Eric Sanislo filled out an application to bring their seriously ill child to the village for a vacation and GKW accepted their application. Upon arriving at the resort, the Sanislos filled out a liability release form.
Reprinted courtesy of
Edward Jaeger, White and Williams LLP and
William Doerler, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Jaeger may be contacted at jaegere@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Doerler may be contacted at doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Contract Disputes Act: What Every Federal Government Contractor Should Know
February 07, 2018 —
Sarah K. Carpenter – Smith Currie BlogClaims on construction projects are unpleasant, but sometimes unavoidable. Contract with the federal government and you are by statute and by contract required to resolve any and all disputes under the Contract Disputes Act. So what is the Contract Disputes Act? This article sets forth basic information all federal government contractors should know when faced with the necessity of making or defending a claim on a federal project.
What Is the Contract Disputes Act?
The Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA or Act) was enacted by Congress to implement a comprehensive statutory scheme for the resolution of government contract claims. The CDA provides a framework for asserting and handling claims by either the government or a contractor. All disputes under the CDA must be submitted to either the U.S Court of Federal Claims or to an administrative board of contract appeals. The vast majority of board cases are handled by either the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals or the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. The ASBCA is generally responsible for deciding appeals from decisions of contracting officers in the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, NASA, and when specified, the CIA. The CBCA hears disputes from all other executive agencies except the United States Postal Service (USPS), the Postal Rate Commission, and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
The USPS is served by the Postal Service BCA. In addition, the Government Accountability Office Contract Appeals Board handles contract disputes arising in the legislative branch, and the Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition handles contract disputes and bid protests arising out of Federal Aviation Administration procurements.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sarah K. Carpenter, Smith Currie
Construction Litigation Roundup: “You May Want an Intervention …”
June 10, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyYou may want an intervention … but you are not getting one!
So said a federal court in New Orleans to a masonry supplier seeking to intervene in in an upstream subcontractor’s lawsuit against a payment bond surety for allegedly unpaid subcontract sums.
It all seems so obvious: the masonry supplier indicates it is unpaid, and the subcontractor to which it supplied materials is saying the same thing and pursuing monies from the general contractor’s surety. Eventually, if the subcontractor prevails against the surety, monies ought to flow to the supplier – a set of facts lending itself to an intervention.
The federal district court disagreed, however. Referring to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) and prior United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals case law the topic, the court opined that the masonry supplier lacked an interest in the subcontractor’s potential recovery that was “related to the property or transaction that forms the basis of the controversy…an interest that is ‘direct, substantial, [and] legally protectable.’"
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
White and Williams Celebrates Chambers 2024 Rankings
June 21, 2024 —
White and Williams LLPWhite and Williams practice groups and attorneys have been ranked in this year's Chambers USA 2024 Guide. Among the rankings, the firm has been recognized in the areas of Insurance and Real Estate: Finance in Pennsylvania, and Construction in Maryland.
Chambers recognized Tim Davis, Managing Partner of the Firm, and Nancy Frantz, Chair of the Real Estate Finance Group, both of whom were recognized for Real Estate: Finance. Chambers also ranked Steven Coury, Managing Partner of the Stamford, CT Office, for Real Estate, as well as Randy Maniloff, Partner, and Patricia Santelle, Chair Emeritus/Former Managing Partner and Chair of the Executive Committee, for Insurance. David Marion, Senior Counsel and Chambers’ Senior Statespeople (22-years ranked) was recognized for Litigation: General Commercial. Partner David Gilliss, Managing Partner of the Maryland office, was recognized for Construction and Amy Vulpio, Co-Chair of the Financial Restructuring and Bankruptcy Practice, was recognized for Bankruptcy/Restructuring.
In one review of Tim Davis, a client described, "He's been around a long time; he's seen it all and has an instinctive feel for getting to the right outcome." Davis has been listed for the past four years and was described by Chambers as, “experienced in representing clients, including insurance companies, banks and investments funds, in a wide variety of real estate finance transactions.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
Safety Guidance for the Prevention of the Coronavirus on Construction Sites
May 25, 2020 —
Heather Whitehead - Newmeyer DillionAlthough construction projects are generally allowed to proceed under most COVID-19 stay at home orders, owners and contractors need to know how to proceed safely on their construction sites. Not only do workers and others on site need to be protected, but implementation of these protocols is also critical to avoid potential liabilities. Last week, the California Department of Industrial Relations – Division of Occupational Safety & Health (CAL/OSHA) released guidance regarding safety and health procedures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 at construction sites. A link to the CAL/OSHA Safety and Health Guidance is provided here.
While the guidance states that it is not imposing any new legal obligations, it is imperative for businesses to not only be aware of these safety practices, but to incorporate these practices as appropriate on each construction site to protect its employees as well as subcontractors, suppliers and others who may be present on site. Otherwise, owners and contractors face potential exposure to regulatory action, including potential penalties and other liabilities, if they fail to properly incorporate these guidelines into the Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) at each construction site. Now is the time to update your current Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) to include recommended protocols for preventing the spread of the Coronavirus.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Heather Whitehead, Newmeyer DillionMs. Whitehead may be contacted at
heather.whitehead@ndlf.com
Employee or Independent Contractor? New Administrator’s Interpretation Issued by Department of Labor Provides Guidance
August 04, 2015 —
Tanya Salgado – White and Williams LLPThe question of whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee is fraught with confusion and misunderstanding for many businesses. Compounding the problem is the fact that there are a number of different tests used to determine employee status, which vary by jurisdiction and by the particular law in question. For example, the Internal Revenue Service uses the common law rules which focus on the degree of control and independence exercised by the worker. In contrast, the United States Department of Labor uses the “economic realities” test which focuses on whether the worker is economically dependent on the employer.
In an effort to help combat the confusion over proper worker classification, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a new Administrator’s Interpretation that provides a detailed explanation of the test used by the DOL to determine if a worker has been misclassified as an independent contractor. The DOL enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which mandates that employees (but not independent contractors) be paid minimum wage and overtime. When a business misclassifies non-exempt workers as independent contractors, and those workers are not paid the minimum hourly wage for their labor, or are not paid overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek, this violates the FLSA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tanya Salgado, White and Williams LLPMs. Salgado may be contacted at
salgadot@whiteandwilliams.com
Car Crashes Through Restaurant Window. Result: Lesson in the History of Additional Insured Coverage
December 29, 2020 —
Randy J. Maniloff - White and Williams LLPBack in the day, additional insureds were oftentimes afforded coverage for liability “arising out of” the named insured’s work for the additional insured. When confronted with such language, courts often concluded that it dictated “but for” causation. In other words, but for the named insured doing the work for the additional insured, the additional insured would not be in the liability-facing situation that it is in. The result in some cases: additional insureds were entitled to coverage for their sole negligence. Decisions reaching such a conclusion were generally not well-received by insurers. This was especially so when you consider that the premium received by insurers, for the AI coverage, may not have been enough to buy a package of Twizzlers.
Insurer frustration with such decisions -- which insurers did not believe expressed the intent of additional insured coverage -- led ISO to make revisions to additional insured forms in 2004 (later revisions followed). At the heart of these revisions was an attempt to require fault on the part of the named insured before coverage could be afforded to the additional insured. (This is a very brief and simple history of this complex issue.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Randy J. Maniloff, White and Williams LLPMr. Maniloff may be contacted at
maniloffr@whiteandwilliams.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
