Liability Cap Does Not Exclude Defense Costs for Loss Related to Deep Water Horizon
May 01, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Supreme Court found that Lloyd's endorsement imposing a cap on liability for a joint venture did not exclude coverage for defense costs. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Houston Cas. Co. et al., 2019 Texas LEXIS 53 (Texas Jan. 25 2019j.
Pursuant to a joint venture agreement, Anadarko held a 25% ownership interest in the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico. When the well blew out, numerous third parties filed claims against BP entities and Anadarko. Many of the claims were consolidated into a multi-district litigation (MDL). The MDL court granted a declaratory judgment finding BP and Anadarko jointly and severally liable. BP and Anadarko reached a settlement in which Anadarko agreed to transfer its 25% ownership interest to BP and pay BP $4 billion. In exchange, BP agreed to release any claims it had against Anadarko and to indemnify Anadarko against all other liabilities arising out of the Deepwater Horizon incident. BP did not agree, however, to cover Anadarko's defense costs.
Anadarko had a policy through Lloyd's. The policy provided excess-liability coverage limited to $150 million per occurrence. Lloyd's paid Anadarko $37.5 million (25% of the $150 million limit) based upon Anadarko 25% ownership in the joint venture. Anadarko argued that Lloyd's still owed all of Anadarko's defense expenses, up to the $150 million limit.
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
Repairing One’s Own Work and the one Year Statute of Limitations to Sue a Miller Act Payment Bond
April 11, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen it comes to Miller Act payment bond claims, repairing one’s own work does NOT extend the one year statute of limitations to file suit on a Miler Act payment bond. Belonger Corp., Inc. v. BW Contracting Services, Inc., 2018 WL 704379, *3 (E.D. Wisconsin 2018) (“The courts that have considered this question tend to agree that, once a subcontractor completes its work under the subcontract, repairs or corrections to that work do not fall within the meaning of ‘labor’ or ‘materials’ and, as such, do not extend the Miller Act’s one-year statute of limitations.”).
Well, what if the subcontractor was repairing its own work due to an issue caused by another subcontractor?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
In a Win for Design Professionals, California Court of Appeals Holds That Relation-Back Doctrine Does Not Apply to Certificate of Merit Law
December 20, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe year was 1995. The old guard was still in power in Sacramento. “Button-Down” Pete Wilson was Governor. Willie Brown, the self-nicknamed “Ayatollah of the Assembly,” was Speaker of the Assembly. And Bill “Huggy” Lockyer was Senate Pro Tem. Names that, for many reasons as of late, seem . . . well . . . let’s just say, “quaint.”
Their time, however, was coming to an end. Three years earlier, California voters approved Proposition 140, which instituted term limits for the first time in California. And by 1996, the first slate of legislators would be “termed out.” The immediate impact: It was the time for making deals because you didn’t know who would be keeping house next.
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
EO or Uh-Oh: Biden’s Executive Order Requiring Project Labor Agreements on Federal Construction Projects
March 14, 2022 —
Nicole Stone, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsOn February 4, 2022, President Biden issued Executive Order (“EO”) 14063[1]. The EO requires that a Project Labor Agreement (“PLA”) be in place for any federal “large-scale construction projects” estimated at $35 million or more. To compete for or perform projects subject to the PLA requirement contractors must agree to be subject to the applicable PLA. For federal projects under $35 million or projects receiving federal financial assistance are not required by the EO to have PLA, but federal agencies will have discretion to require PLAs. The EO will not go into effect until after implementing regulations are finalized, probably after the beginning of June 2022.
Requiring PLAs on federal construction projects is a substantial shift from even the Obama Administration’s policy in favor of PLAs. Biden’s PLA EO will have an impact on federal contractors and likely industry repercussions beyond federal procurement. Only time and experience will tell whether those impacts will all be positive as the Biden Administration insists or will drive up construction costs and give unions more leverage than they have in the market as the critics insist.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicole Stone, Jones Walker LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Stone may be contacted at
nstone@joneswalker.com
Design Professionals Owe a Duty of Care to Homeowners
July 09, 2014 —
Stephen A. Sunseri - Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPToday, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies.
In Beacon, architectural and engineering firms provided sole design services for The Beacon residential condominium project, a 595 unit project located in San Francisco. The condominiums were initially leased after construction, but were eventually sold to individual owners. The design firms claimed their role was limited to only providing design recommendations to the project's owner, who ultimately controlled and directed which design elements to construct. Not long after completion of the project, the homeowners' association sued the design firms (among others) for construction defects and damages related to alleged water infiltration, inadequate fire separations, structural cracks, and other purported safety hazards. The claims included allegations under SB 800 (the "Right to Repair Act," Civil Code §895, et seq.) and common law negligence theories.
The design firms demurred to the complaint, which the trial court sustained. On appeal, however, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the design firms owed a duty of care to third parties. The Supreme Court affirmed.
Historically, liability for deficient goods and services hinged on whether there is a contractual relationship between a buyer and seller. However, the Supreme Court recognized that in certain circumstances a contractual relationship is not required. In its ruling, the Supreme Court relied on fifty year old precedent, Biankanja v. Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647. In Biankanja, the California Supreme Court outlined several factors to determine whether a duty of care is owed to non-contracting third parties. Although Biankanja analyzes many factors, emphasis was placed placed on whether a purported harm was foreseeable by a defendant's conduct and how close of a connection there is between that conduct and an injury.
Here, the Court recognized that even though the design firms did not actually build the project, they did conduct weekly inspections, monitored contractor compliance, altered design elements when issues arose, and advised the owners of any nonconforming work. In applying the Biankanja factors to these circumstances, the Supreme Court determined the homeowners were intended beneficiaries of the design work and the design firms' primary role in the project bore a close connection to the alleged injuries. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the allegations in the complaint were sufficient and, if proven, establishes the defendants owed a duty of care to the homeowners' association.
Interestingly, the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether SB 800 was intended to exclusively capture design defects in its scope, even though the Court indicated it may. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's ruling is significant. The case will affect how design professionals allocate risk on future residential projects, perhaps by raising design prices or insuring around the liability exposure. The likely outcome, however, is that design professionals are now targets in construction defect lawsuits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen A. Sunseri, Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLPMr. Sunseri may be contacted at
ssunseri@gdandb.com
#6 CDJ Topic: Construction Defect Legislative Developments
December 30, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFRichard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto, and
David A. Napper of
Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger discussed Right to Repair developments occurring in Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Colorado in their article, “Right to Repair Reform: Revisions and Proposals to State’s ‘Right to Repair Statutes.”
Read the full story...
Texas also had changes that affected construction defect claims, as covered by
David H. Fisk of
Coleman & Logan PC: “Before filing a lawsuit or initiating an arbitration proceeding pertaining to a construction defect, a condominium association in Texas with eight or more units must now comply with the newly added Section 82.119 to Chapter 82 of the Texas Property Code. This is in addition to compliance with the Texas Residential Construction Liability Act (RCLA) and any preconditions included in the condominium association’s declarations.”
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
To Sea or Not to Sea: Fifth Circuit Applies Maritime Law to Offshore Service Contract, Spares Indemnity Provision from Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act
March 29, 2017 —
Richard W. Brown & Afua Akoto – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Faced with the issue of whether maritime or state law should be applied to determine the validity of an indemnity clause in a Master Services Contract (MSC), the Fifth Circuit affirmed that where there is no historical treatment of the contract in question (1), it would consider six factors established in Davis (2).
In Doiron, the Apache Corporation and STS (3) entered a broad-form blanket MSC, under which STS agreed to perform flow-back services, a process designed to dislodge solid objects from inside a well, on Apache’s well located off shore of Louisiana. The MSC also contained an indemnification provision, which required STS to defend and indemnify Apache and its company groups against all claims of property injury or bodily injury. During the flow-back operation, Larry Doiron Inc. (LDI), one of the Apache Company groups, supplied a crane barge for use by STS employees. Subsequently, the crane knocked over an STS employee, causing him to suffer severe injuries. LDI then made a formal demand to STS for defense and indemnification. STS rejected the demand and argued that the Louisiana Oilfield Indemnity Act applied to the MSC instead of maritime law. Pursuant to the Act, indemnity clauses in agreements pertaining to wells for oil, gas or water are void as against public policy. But, under maritime law, the enforcement of such provisions is not barred. Therefore, if the MSC was construed under the Act, STS had no duty to defend or indemnify LDI.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Afua S. Akoto, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at rwb@sdvlaw.com
Ms. Akoto may be contacted at asa@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Windows and Lawsuits Fly at W Hotel
July 05, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFAn Austin, Texas lawyer has filed a lawsuit against Starwood Hotels and Resorts, the operator of the W Hotel Austin, after two people were struck by glass which fell from the hotel’s balconies. YNN in Austin reports that the hotel has been closed indefinitely as construction workers removed panels. An additional three panels fell before work started. Randy Howry, the lawyer representing the injured parties, notes that in May glass falling from the W Hotel in Atlanta killed one woman and injured another. “Seventeen days pass and we put them on notice, our clients have put them on notice, yet nothing has been done an only after the glass fell yesterday did they do something about it,” YNN quotes Howry.
The hotel released a statement that they will be replacing all of the balcony glass to ensure safety for their guests and the general public. They relocated all hotel guests and coordinated with Austin officials to close adjacent sidewalks and roads. The statement identifies the firms involved with the design and construction of the balconies.
Read the full story …
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
