How a Robot-Built Habitat on Mars Could Change Construction on Earth
October 14, 2019 —
Drew Turney - Engineering News-RecordAccording to a 2018 report by the International Energy Agency and UN Environment, the global construction industry is responsible for 39% of energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions. That is a huge, scary number—but one that comes with an equally large opportunity to mitigate climate change. The 2015 Paris climate talks revealed that by using existing technology, construction could cut global carbon emissions by up to a third.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Drew Turney, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
CDJ’s Year-End Review: The Top 10 CD Topics of 2014
December 31, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFConstruction Defect Journal’s year-end review presents the top ten most popular topics featured in the journal in 2014. Some of the topics involved analysis of important construction defect cases, while others covered current events such as proposed state legislation. Most issues were heavily discussed on CDJ as well as in board rooms and during teleconferences. We hope you enjoy the look-back at 2014 interspersed throughout the issue, and we wish you and yours a prosperous 2015!
CDJ’s #1 Topic of the Year: Indalex Inc. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 2013 Pa. Super 311 (Dec. 3, 2013)
According to Darrin J. McMullen of Anderson Kill, “[t]he Indalex decision reverses a nearly decade-long trend of Pennsylvania decisions narrowing the scope of insurance coverage for construction and defect-related claims under commercial general liability insurance policies. Equally important, the Indalex ruling dealt a blow to the insurance industry’s continual efforts to win overbroad expansion of the rulings in Kvaerner Metals Div. of Kvaerner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., Millers Capital Ins. Co. v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co., and Erie Ins. Exchange v. Abbott Furnace Co., which found that claims of faulty workmanship in some circumstances may not constitute coverage-triggering ‘occurrences.’”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Accident/Occurrence Requirement Does not Preclude Coverage for Vicarious Liability or Negligent Supervision
June 06, 2018 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore - Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co., Inc. (No. S236765, filed 6/4/18) (L&M), the California Supreme Court ruled that the liability insurance requirement that injury be caused by an “occurrence,” defined as an “accident,” does not preclude coverage of an employer’s independent tort liability for injury deliberately caused by its employee.
In L&M, Liberty insured a construction company that contracted to manage a construction project at a middle school in San Bernardino, California. A 13-year-old student subsequently sued the company in state court, alleging that she had been sexually molested by a company employee, Hecht. Among others, she alleged a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention and supervision of the employee. The construction company tendered to Liberty, which defended the employer under a reservation of rights while seeking declaratory relief in federal court. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty, ruling that the injury was not caused by an “occurrence.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals certified the question to the California Supreme Court as a matter of state law.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ready, Fire, Aim: The Importance of Targeting Your Delay Notices
November 08, 2021 —
Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLP - ConsensusDocsProviding written notice of delay to subcontractors when a project is behind schedule is a regular part of good project documentation practices. A properly targeted delay notice is an important, project correspondence that is an appropriate response to a subcontractor’s specific delay or ongoing delays. However, when a project falls behind schedule and the project management team is in the fog of war, it could seem like a good idea to start firing off project delay notices to any and every subcontractor. While these delay notices may provide a short term burst of productivity, you could find that those same notices are aimed back at you in a future litigation.
This article identifies two potential unintended consequences of sending delay notices that a contractor should keep in its sights and then provides recommendations for properly calibrating future delay notices in light of these potential consequences.
Acceleration: You Might Get What You Ask For
A delay notice to a subcontractor could be interpreted as—or expressly state—direction to the subcontractor to accelerate its work. When a subcontractor is directed to accelerate its work, it may incur additional costs for premium, extended, or overtime labor, additional crews, increased supervision costs, increased overhead costs, and losses due to productivity impacts from the acceleration (e.g., stacking of trades and fatigue). A subcontractor may be entitled to recover these increased costs that are caused by a direction to accelerate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bradley Sands, Jones Walker LLPMr. Sands may be contacted at
bsands@joneswalker.com
The Double-Breasted Dilemma
July 18, 2022 —
Lauren E. Rankins & Saloni Shah - ConsensusDocsWhat Is A Double-Breasted Operation?
A double-breasted operation is when a firm has two entities, and one entity performs work under collective bargaining agreements and the other does not. While this type of operation is not outright prohibited, it is often subject to a variety of challenges and scrutiny. To legally run a double-breasted operation, the two companies must remain separate and distinct. If the companies are not sufficiently separate and distinct from one another, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) or a court may find that the two companies are operating as a single entity or that the non-union company, or also known as the open shop, is merely an alter ego of the union company and, therefore, bound by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
In order to determine whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct, the two entities must pass either the single employer test or the alter ego test depending on the nature of the double-breasted operation. Typically, the single employer test is used when the two entities run parallel operations, and the alter ego test is used when the open shop replaces the union company. Under the single employer test, the NLRB or courts will generally consider four factors: (1) the interrelation of operations; (2) common management; (3) common control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership. The alter ego test does not require a finding that the companies are a single bargaining unit, but analyzes to what extent the two entities have substantially identical management, business operation and purpose, business equipment, customers, and ownership. While common ownership is a factor considered under both the single employer and alter ego tests, common ownership alone is not dispositive of whether the companies are sufficiently separate and distinct. In other words, the NLRB and courts do not simply look for common ownership to determine whether the double-breasted operation is lawful. It is merely one of many factors to consider.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren E. Rankins, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)Ms. Rankins may be contacted at
lrankins@watttieder.com
Federal Court Requires Auto Liability Carrier to Cover Suit Involving Independent Contractor Despite “Employee Exclusion”
August 30, 2017 —
H. Scott Williams & Brendan Holt - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A recent federal court decision rendered in July of 2017 highlights the importance of worker classification in the transportation industry and the potential insurance implications. In Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Grp., Inc. v. Kailey, 1 the court determined that an “employee exclusion” in a motor carrier’s automobile liability insurance policy did not exclude coverage for liability resulting from the bodily injury of an independent contractor operating the motor carrier’s tractor-trailer. In April of 2014, a team of two drivers hired by the motor carrier, Kailey Trucking Line (KTL), were involved in a collision while operating KTL’s truck. The passenger in the truck, who was not operating the vehicle at the time, was killed in the accident. Subsequently, the spouse of the decedent filed suit against KTL as well as the driver of the truck.
KTL sought coverage for the suit under its automobile liability insurance policy, issued by Spirit Commercial Auto Risk Retention Group, Incorporated (Spirit). However, Spirit took the position that it had no duty to defend or indemnify KTL, and ultimately filed a declaratory judgment action in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The policy issued to KTL provided coverage for damages due to bodily injury or property damage caused by an accident resulting from the ownership, maintenance, or use of a covered auto. However, the policy excluded from coverage any bodily injury to an employee or fellow employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of employment of the insured. Accordingly, to the extent that the decedent qualified as an “employee” of KTL, Spirit had no duty to indemnify KTL in the litigation.
Reprinted courtesy of
H. Scott Williams, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Brendan C. Colt, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Holt may be contacted at bch@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Williams may be contacted at hsw@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Late Progress Payments on Local Public Works Projects Are Not a Statutory Breach of Contract
May 10, 2022 —
Ted Senet & Christopher Trembley - Gibbs GidenCalifornia local public agencies and their contractors should take note of a recent appellate decision pertaining to late progress payments on public works projects. In Clark Bros., Inc. v. North Edwards Water Dist., 2022 Cal. App. LEXIS 331, filed on April 22, 2022, the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District held that a local agency’s late progress payments to a general contractor did not constitute breach of contract under the prompt payment penalty statute, Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Notwithstanding this holding, the contractor recovered damages, interest, fees, and costs in excess of its contract amount.
In 2013, the North Edwards Water District awarded a $6.2 million contract to Clark Bros., Inc. to construct a water treatment facility. The District’s water contained excessive levels of arsenic, and the project was sponsored by the State of California with funds earmarked to provide safe drinking water. The State agreed to disburse funds to the District during construction upon the State’s review and approval of the contractor’s progress payment applications. The contract required completion of the work within one year following the District’s issuance of a notice to proceed to the contractor.
As a result of factors arguably outside the control of the contractor, including unforeseen site conditions and the failure of the District’s equipment supplier to meet delivery deadlines, the project was significantly delayed beyond the deadline for completion. The District nonetheless terminated the contractor, which in turn filed suit against the District and the State. The contractor asserted claims for breach of contract, including breach of contract for the District’s failure to pay the contractor’s progress payment applications within the time specified under Public Contract Code § 20104.50. Subsection (b) of the statute provides:
Any local agency which fails to make any progress payment within 30 days after receipt of an undisputed and properly submitted payment request from a contractor on a construction contract shall pay interest to the contractor equivalent to the legal rate set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 685.010 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ted Senet, Gibbs Giden and
Christopher Trembley, Gibbs Giden
Mr. Senet may be contacted at tsenet@gibbsgiden.com
Mr. Trembley may be contacted at Ctrembley@gibbsgiden.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Can’t Get a Written Change Order? Document, Document, Document
August 29, 2018 —
Todd M. Heffner - Smith CurrieMost construction contracts require that any changes to the work be made formally, in writing, via a change order, work directive, or similar written document. Frequently, however, changes to the work or extra work are communicated orally by the architect, engineer, or owner’s representative, instead of in writing. What is the contractor to do in such a situation? The best option is follow the provisions of the contract and demand a written change order before performing changed work. Unfortunately, the realities of construction sometimes make it impossible to get the changes in the proper format in a timely manner. Savvy contractors will maintain schedule and produce written documentation of the change in lieu of a formal change order or directive. But many contractors will simply proceed with the changed work, relying on the owner, architect, or engineer to do the right thing and stand by their oral instructions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Todd M. Heffner, Smith CurrieMr. Heffner may be contacted at
tmheffner@smithcurrie.com
