A Classic Blunder: Practical Advice for Avoiding Two-Front Wars
August 23, 2021 —
William Underwood - ConsensusDocs“Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders – the most famous of which is ‘never get involved in a land war in Asia’ – but only slightly less well-known is this: ‘Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.’”[1]
Vizzini forgot to include “never fight a two-front war with your owner and a subcontractor” on his list of classic blunders, but it certainly belongs there. This article examines practical tips and tricks for general contractors to avoid the classic blunder of a two-front war, including recommended contract provisions and sound project documentation practices.
Admittedly, general contractors face a wide array of obligations on a project. And perhaps one of the most delicate balancing acts is managing relationships with the owner and your subcontractors. But far too often general contractors find themselves in the difficult position of fighting a two-front war against one (or more) of their subcontractors and the project owner.
But this does not always have to be the case—there are ways for general contractors to reduce the risk of finding themselves in a two-front war. And every project does not have to devolve in a circular firing squad with you in the middle. That said, this article comes with the caveat that a general contractor cannot avoid a two-front war in every instance, nor does this article examine every imaginable way to reduce the risk of a two-front war (see e.g. https://www.consensusdocs.org/pass-through-subcontractor-claims-liquidating-agreements-and-avoiding-a-two-front-war/). But this article will provide an overview of several key tools that can be used to minimize the risk of falling into a classic blunder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William Underwood, Jones Walker LLPMr. Underwood may be contacted at
wunderwood@joneswalker.com
Ohio Supreme Court Case to Decide Whether or Not to Expand Insurance Coverage Under GC’s CGL Insurance Policies
August 14, 2018 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.According to W. Matthew Bryant of Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, the Ohio Supreme Court will be deciding whether or not a general contractor's commercial general liability ("CGL") insurance policy may provide coverage for damage caused by a subcontractor's defective construction work.
Bryant explained the status quo in Ohio: “Since 2012, Ohio has followed the rule that a CGL policy would not cover damage caused by a contractor to the contractor's own work.” That could change depending on how the Ohio Supreme Court rules in an upcoming case: “The Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether to affirm or overturn Ohio Northern University v. Charles Construction Services, Inc., 77 N.E.3d 538 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) ("ONU"), an Ohio Court of Appeals decision holding that CGL coverage may exist for property damage caused by faulty work performed by the subcontractor of an insured general contractor.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alleged Serious Defects at Hanford Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant
August 26, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Los Angeles Times, “A team of nuclear waste experts has found hundreds of serious defects at an Energy Department plant designed to turn millions of gallons of highly radioactive sludge into more stable solid glass at the former weapons facility in Hanford, Wash.” The report from 2014 was leaked, and stated that the “partially built facility is riddled with 362 ‘significant design vulnerabilities’ that could affect safety and future operations.” Thirty-seven experts led by two senior managers created the report.
The Los Angeles Times reported that the report findings “are significant because the plant is part of the Energy Department’s 2013 initiative to fix earlier problems that stalled construction of other parts of the treatment system at Hanford, the site of the nation’s worst radioactive contamination.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Deferred Maintenance?
December 17, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA Tennessee-based “outsourced maintenance vendor” to an engine company filed suit in Louisiana state court seeking to recover nearly $150,000 on “open account,” for work previously performed. The engine company removed the case to the Federal District Court in New Orleans and asserted as a defense that the vendor lacked a proper Louisiana construction contractor’s license. The engine company filed a motion for summary judgment based on the defense.
Under Louisiana law, a contract between parties is “absolutely null”--considered to have never existed--where one of the parties performed services without a required Louisiana contractor’s license, and the combined work reaches a $50,000 threshold. The engine company asserted that the vendor performed typical construction contractor work, including plywood flooring, applied epoxy to concrete flooring, erected part of a commercial carport, undertook certain heavy demolition, and installed fences, guardrails, and wire racks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
In Real Life the Bad Guy Sometimes Gets Away: Adding Judgment Debtors to a Judgment
January 05, 2017 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogAs most litigators will tell you a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit needs to be able to prove both liability and damages to win a case. That is, you need to show both that the defendant is liable under the law and that you have suffered damages as a result. Proving one but not the other and you’ll lose the case.
But there’s one other consideration that is just as important, albeit often elusive, and that is, collectability. Even if you win the case, if you can’t collect on the judgment, you might as well have lost.
The following case, Wolf Metals, Inc. v. Rand Pacific Sales, Inc., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B264002 (October 25, 2016), describes some of the remedies available, procedures to follow, and difficulties confronted when obtaining a default judgment against a judgment-proof defendant.
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
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
Performance Bond Primer: Need to Knows and Need to Dos
February 01, 2022 —
Rafael Boza - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law BlogIf you are a construction contractor, you deal with performance bonds as part of your business and daily work. They are necessary for almost every project you are participating or will participate in, and, along with other sister bonds, constitute a basic tool to be able to work in construction. However, how much do you really know about this tool? Who in your organization knows how to use it? Are you relying on your insurance broker to procure the bonds? Can your broker competently review the terms of the bond? Are you, as a contractor, relying on the surety to explain and determine what you need for the project—a fox guarding the hen house?
To understand how a performance bond works and how to effectively tailor it to your needs, we need to understand the basics. What is a performance bond? Who are the parties to a performance bond? What does performance bond not do? What should be covered under a performance bond? How does a performance bond fit in a company’s overall risk management processes? A clear understanding of these and other basic topics will facilitate operations and reduce the risk of claims.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rafael Boza, PillsburyMr. Boza may be contacted at
rafael.boza@pillsburylaw.com
Rhode Island Affirms The Principle That Sureties Must be Provided Notice of Default Before They Can be Held Liable for Principal’s Default
August 21, 2023 —
Dennis Cavanaugh & Tasnuva Islam - Construction Law ZoneMost bond forms in use today, including the standard form AIA A312-2010, contain express condition precedents that trigger a surety’s obligations under the bond. Under a performance bond, the bond obligee is required to provide formal notice to the surety that the principal has materially defaulted and that the surety must begin to perform under the terms of the bond. This principle is grounded in the idea that the surety should have an opportunity to address the default and investigate the claim so as to mitigate its own liability. Failure to provide sufficient notice will discharge the surety of its obligations under the bond.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dennis Cavanaugh, Robinson & Cole LLP and
Tasnuva Islam, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Cavanaugh may be contacted at dcavanaugh@rc.com
Ms. Islam may be contacted at tislam@rc.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
