French Government Fines National Architects' Group $1.6M Over Fee-Fixing
December 09, 2019 —
Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordThe French government’s anti-trust agency has fined the national architects’ registration group and four regional councils $1.64 million (€1.5 million) for price-fixing design fees on public works.
Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Norfolk Southern Agrees to $310M Settlement With Feds Over 2023 Ohio Derailment
June 21, 2024 —
James Leggate - Engineering News-RecordNorfolk Southern Corp. has agreed to pay more than $310 million and implement safety improvements as part of a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Dept. of Justice over the disastrous February 2023 train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, officials and the company announced May 23.
Reprinted courtesy of
James Leggate, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Leggate may be contacted at leggatej@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York Appellate Division Reverses Denial of Landlord’s Additional Insured Tender
December 07, 2020 —
Eric D. Suben - Traub LiebermanIn Wesco Insurance Co. v. Travelers Property & Cas. Co. of America, 2020 WL 6572489 (1st Dep’t Nov. 10, 2020), the New York Appellate Division found that a commercial landlord was owed additional insured coverage in connection with an incident in which a plaintiff slipped and fell on the sidewalk while exiting the leased premises.
The tenant, Capital One, was the named insured in a CGL policy issued by Travelers. The policy added the landlord as an additional insured, but “only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased to [Capital One] and shown in the Schedule.” The lease defined the demised premises to include the building and “all appurtenances.”
Travelers denied the landlord’s tender on the basis that the sidewalk did not constitute “that part of the premises leased to” Capital One. In the ensuing declaratory judgment action brought by Wesco (the landlord’s insurer), the court granted Travelers’ motion for summary judgment on this ground.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Eric D. Suben, Traub LiebermanMr. Suben may be contacted at
esuben@tlsslaw.com
NY Supreme Court Rules City Not Liable for Defective Sidewalk
February 12, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFEileen N. Fanning sued the city of Watertown, New York after incurring injuries from a fall on a sidewalk on Court Street, according to the Watertown Daily Times. A state Supreme Court judge dismissed the lawsuit.
According to Fanning as reported by the Watertown Daily Times, the plaintiff “fell on an uneven section of sidewalk” and “suffered multiple broken bones in her hand, as well as neurological damage to her arm, among other injuries.” She claimed that the damage is permanent. The lawsuit involved Purcell Construction (the landscape pavers), Neighbors of Watertown (a renovation project), and the city of Watertown.
The judge ruled that “Neighbors of Watertown was not liable for her injuries because the agency neither owned nor controlled the property where the injuries occurred and therefore ‘did not owe a duty of care’ to users of the walk as it was not responsible for the sidewalk’s maintenance.” The city was not held liable “because it had received no prior written notice about the alleged defective condition of the property.” Furthermore, the judge “agreed with Purcell Construction’s claim that the area claimed to be defective is ‘one little section’ of sidewalk ‘over which the public walked’ for nearly 20 years.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Design-Build Contracting: Is the Shine Off the Apple?
March 09, 2020 —
John P. Ahlers - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe design-build delivery method offers many benefits to owners. Among the cited benefits are that projects are generally completed faster, at a lower cost, by allowing innovative approaches through early and continual contractor involvement in the design process. The design contractor serves as a single point of contact responsible for both the design and construction of the project.
The Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) utilized the design-build procurement method on the largest project ($2 billion) of its type in the state of Washington: the Highway 99 Tunnel, which was finished almost three years late after the tunnel-boring machine (“Bertha”) broke down six years ago. The sorted tale of the SR-99 Tunnel Project was the source of many of this firm’s blog articles.[1] The State of Washington staunchly maintained that the design-build contract protected its taxpayers from covering the repair costs to the tunnel-boring machine when it broke down in 2013. Bertha did not resume tunneling for almost two years, putting on hold removal of the Alaska Way viaduct and rebuilding of the Seattle Waterfront without an elevated highway.
In December 2013, the contractor for the project, Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), contended that a 110-foot long 8” steel pipe which Bertha hit caused the breakdown. That pipe had been installed for groundwater testing by WSDOT in 2002 during its preliminary engineering for the viaduct replacement project. The project’s Dispute Review Board (“DRB”) composed of three tunneling experts found that the pipe constituted a “differing site condition” for which the State was responsible to disclose to contractors. The Board, whose views were non-binding, did not opine about how much damage the undisclosed pipe cost.[2] In other words, the mere fact that a differing site condition occurred did not establish that there was a causal connection between the damages which STP was seeking (in excess of $600 million) and the differing site condition (the 8” steel pipe which WSDOT lawyers at trial derisively referred to as “nothing more than a toothpick for Bertha’s massive cutter head”). STP maintained that Bertha had made steady progress except for three days immediately after hitting the pipe. It didn’t help the contractors’ case that during the discovery phase of the two-month trial, WSDOT lawyers uncovered documents showing that the contractor’s tunnel workers encountered and logged the pipe before digging began.[3]
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
john.ahlers@acslawyers.com
Insurance Policies Broadly Defining “Suits” May Prompt an Insurer’s Duty to Defend and Indemnify During the Chapter 558 Pre-Suit Notice Process
May 30, 2018 —
Daniel Garcia - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogIn Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, No. SC16-1420, 2017 WL 6379535 (Fla. Dec. 14, 2017), the Florida Supreme Court addressed whether the notice and repair process set forth in chapter 558, Florida Statutes, constitutes a “suit” within the meaning of a commercial liability policy issued by Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company (“C&F”) to Altman Contractors, Inc. (“Altman”). The Court found that because the chapter 558 pre-suit process is an “alternative dispute resolution proceeding” as included in the definition of “suit” in the policy by C&F to Altman, C&F had a duty to defend Altman during the chapter 558 process, prior to the filing of a formal lawsuit.
Chapter 558, titled “Construction Defects,” sets forth procedural requirements before a claimant may file a construction defect action. It requires a claimant to serve a written notice of claim on the applicable contractor, subcontractor, supplier, and/or design professional prior to filing a construction defect lawsuit. The legislature intended for Chapter 558 to be an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in certain construction defect matters allowing an opportunity to resolve the claim without further legal process.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Garcia, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Garcia may be contacted at
daniel.garcia@grsm.com
Privity Problems Continue for Additional Insureds in the Second Circuit
November 08, 2017 —
Samantha M. Martino – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On October 4, the Second Circuit held that Harleysville Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify a project owner or general contractor as additional insureds under a sub-subcontractor’s commercial general liability (CGL) policy due to lack of direct contractual privity. 1
The underlying claim arose when an employee of The Kimmell Company, Inc. (Kimmell) was injured while repairing an HVAC system at a building owned by the University of Rochester Medical Center (UR). The injured employee sought damages for his injuries and fi led suit against (1) UR; (2) LeChase Construction Corp. (LeChase), the general contractor for the project; and (3) J.T. Mauro Co. Inc. (Mauro), a subcontractor hired by LeChase.
Mauro hired Kimmell as a sub-subcontractor to perform HVAC services at the project. The Mauro-Kimmel contract required Kimmel to add Mauro, UR, and LeChase as additional insureds under Kimmell’s CGL policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Samantha M. Martino, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Martino may be contacted at
smm@sdvlaw.com
