Report Highlights Trends in Construction Tech, Digitization, and AI
November 11, 2024 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessBluebeam, a top technology provider for AEC professionals, has just released its “Building the Future: Bluebeam AEC Technology Outlook 2025” report. This report highlights key global trends in construction technology, including the role of AI and digital tools. Based on insights from over 400 AEC technology leaders, the report also uncovers challenges that prevent full-scale adoption of these tools.
The online research surveyed technology decision-makers (managers or above) within AEC firms in the US, UK, Canada, France, Spain, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand in July 2024.
AI’s Growing Role in Construction
According to the report, 74% of surveyed AEC professionals are now using AI in one or more phases of building projects. AI is especially popular in the design (48%) and planning (42%) stages. Many AEC firms recognize its value: over half (55%) of companies using AI say it’s crucial, and most now allocate up to 25% of their budgets to AI initiatives. Despite this support, concerns over AI regulation are significant. About 54% of respondents are worried about regulations, and 44% say this impacts their use of AI.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
What Construction Firm Employers Should Do Right Now to Minimize Legal Risk of Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuits
October 07, 2024 —
Anthony LaPlaca, Dawn Solowey, Andrew Scroggins & Adrienne LeeSeyfarth Synopsis: In June 2024, Seyfarth published a blog article warning construction industry employers of recent anti-harassment guidelines issued by the EEOC. We predicted that the EEOC has “put the construction industry squarely in its sights.”[1] In this follow-up Alert, we discuss recent cases confirming the renewed regulatory focus on the construction sector, which demonstrate the need to put in place sound practices for non-discriminatory recruitment, hiring, and training of the work force in order to be prepared for this heightened risk of government scrutiny.
Recent EEOC Settlements
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that over the next five years it intends to prioritize the mitigation of systemic workplace problems and the historical underrepresentation of women and workers of color in the construction sector.[2] Two recent cases confirm that the EEOC is true to its word when it comes to tackling racial and gender disparities in the construction work force.
In August 2024, the EEOC secured two consent decrees with two separate construction firms in Florida, totaling nearly $3 million.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony LaPlaca, Seyfarth,
Dawn Solowey, Seyfarth,
Andrew Scroggins, Seyfarth and
Adrienne Lee, Seyfarth
Mr. LaPlaca may be contacted at alaplaca@seyfarth.com
Ms. Solowey may be contacted at dsolowey@seyfarth.com
Mr. Scroggins may be contacted at ascroggins@seyfarth.com
Ms. Lee may be contacted at aclee@seyfarth.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jury Could Have Found That Scissor Lift Manufacturer Should Have Included “Better” Safety Features
January 02, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogA few years ago I listened to an NPR segment called “
What Can Kids Learn by Doing Dangerous Things?” It was about a summer program called the Tinkering School where kids can learn to build things, using tools of course, including power tools.
The founder of the program, Gever Tulley, also wrote a book entitled
50 Dangerous Things (You Should Let Your Children Do), in which he argued that while well-intentioned, children today are overly protected, and that giving children exposure to “slightly” dangerous things can help foster independence, responsibility, and problem-solving as well as a healthy dose of caution.
The plaintiff in the next case might have benefitted from that program.
In
Camacho v. JLG Industries Inc., 93 Cal.App.5th 809 (2023), the Court of Appeals examined whether the manufacturer of a scissor lift should have incorporated “better” safety features when a construction worker fell from the lift.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Illusory Insurance Coverage: Real or Unreal?
August 24, 2017 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn insurance coverage declaratory relief actions, there are times an insured will argue that the insurance policy coverage is illusory. Typically, an insured will raise this illusory argument if its insurer is denying coverage based on an exclusion or limitation in the policy. If a court agrees and deems the coverage illusory, the court will construe the policy to afford coverage to the insured. This is the obvious value of the argument: coverage!
“A policy is illusory only if there is an internal contradiction that completely negates the coverage it expresses to provide.” The Warwick Corp. v. Turetsky, 42 Fla.L.Weekly D1797a (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Thus, if a policy grants coverage in one section but then excludes the same coverage in another section, the coverage would be deemed illusory. Id. quoting Tire Kingdom, Inc. v. First S. Ins. Co., 573 So.2d 885, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). An illusory policy was found in the following examples: (a) a policy covered certain intentional torts but then excluded intended acts; (b) a policy covered advertising injury but elsewhere excluded advertising injury; and (c) a policy covered parasailing but excluded watercrafts. Id. (citations omitted). In all examples, coverage in the policy was completely swallowed up by an exclusion rendering the coverage illusory. Stated differently, coverage was completely contradicted by an exclusion in the policy rendering the policy absurd.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
Dadelstein@gmail.com
What to Look for in Subcontractor Warranty Endorsements
February 03, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWith increasing frequency in the construction defect cases we defend, we are seeing commercial general liability insurance policies with “subcontractor warranty” endorsements. Also known as contractor or subcontractor special conditions, these endorsements could have severe and negative consequences for builders that do not comply with their requirements. In researching for this article, I reviewed six different endorsements used by six different carriers, all of which contained some or all of the following requirements:
- The builder must have signed subcontract agreements with its subcontractors that require subcontractors to hold harmless, i.e., defend and indemnify, the builder for “bodily injury” or “property damage” claims caused by their negligence.
- The subcontractors must maintain their own insurance with limits equal to or greater than the limits in the builder’s own policy, with limits of at least $1 million per occurrence.
- The subcontractors’ insurance must not exclude the work being performed for the builder, e.g., the excavator’s policy cannot exclude earth movement claims, the subcontractor’s policy cannot exclude residential construction.
- The subcontractors must maintain their own workers’ compensation and/or employer’s liability insurance.
- The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that the builder has been added to the subcontractors’ insurance as an additional insured.
- The subcontractors must provide the builder with an endorsement or a certificate of insurance indicating that their insurance carriers have agreed to provide waivers of subrogation in favor of the builder.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Increasing Use of Construction Job Cameras
January 27, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFJob site cameras are increasingly used on construction sites, for various reasons, reports Tom Sawyer of Engineering News-Record. Mark Penny, senior vice president of the Dallas Region Manhattan Construction Inc., told Sawyer that he uses the camera primarily for marketing purposes: “We have a lot of high-profile jobs that people want to see. They are a great opportunity for us and the client to showcase the construction, which makes the job of selling what we do a lot easier.”
Warren Andres, senior vice president at Andres Construction uses cameras for safety monitoring. Andres told Sawyer that “he has three monitors on his desk. One shows live feeds from all his cameras. If he sees unsafe work, he sends a photo to the superintendent and demands action. Similarly, he says he can spot slow work crews and do enough quality control to send the message that management is watching.”
Vendors commented to Sawyer that “the growing use [of cameras] include the rise of building information modeling and its increased need for accountability; as well as companies chasing work beyond usual areas of operations and needing to extend supervision while holding down travel of staffs trimmed by the recession.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California
September 24, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogStairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so.
A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station.
Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed.
The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].)
The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256.
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
Man Pleads Guilty in Construction Kickback Scheme
November 06, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFMark M. Palombaro, a former vice president at Simon Property Group, a development firm, has plead guilty to receiving $766,000 from the head of a construction firm in payback for the projects. Robert E. Crawford at Fox Chapel then overbilled for these projects, which were located in Seattle, Washington and Laguna Beach, California, in order that he and Mr. Palombaro would profit.
The total value of the projects, overbilling included, was $15 million. The two men settled a civil suit brought by Simon Property Group by paying $3.3 million. Mr. Crawford plead guilty in June. He admitted to bribing Mr. Palombaro.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
