New York Considers Amendments to Construction Industry Wage Laws that Would Impose Significant Burden Upon Contractors
August 04, 2021 —
Richard W. Brown & Michael D. Angotti - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.A bill that would amend the the wage and hour requirements of the New York Labor Law was recently passed by the New York State Legislature and is expected to be signed by Governor Cuomo. Bill Number S2766C (the “Bill”) is intended to protect construction workers against wage theft. However, it places a heavy burden on contractors to police the payroll practices of its downstream subcontractors and exposes them to potentially significant liability for the wage and hour violations of their subcontractors.
The proposed Bill would make a contractor or upstream subcontractor jointly and severally liable for any wages owed to employees of their subcontractors. The Bill allows for a private right of action for such subcontractor’s employee (or such employee’s representative) to bring a civil or administrative action seeking payment of unpaid wages owed pursuant to Section 198 of the New York Labor Law. In such an action against a subcontractor for unpaid wages, the contractor or upstream subcontractor is not only jointly and severally liable for any unpaid wages, but also for the prevailing claimant’s reasonable attorney fees, prejudgment interest, and, absent a good faith defense, liquidated damages equal to the amount of the wages owed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard W. Brown, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Michael D. Angotti, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Brown may be contacted at RBrown@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Angotti may be contacted at MAngotti@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
San Diego Developer Strikes Out on “Disguised Taking” Claim
October 26, 2017 —
Michael C. Parme – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority et al.(D068161, filed 9/26/17, publication order 10/19/17), the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District held that the County of San Diego (County) and the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (Authority) were entitled to summary judgment on a developer’s “disguised taking” theory of inverse condemnation.
In 2001, the developer purchased two large lots (designated Lot 24 and Lot 25) adjacent to the end of a runway at the Palomar Airport in Carlsbad. Plaintiff obtained the necessary permits from the City of Carlsbad and successfully completed construction of an industrial building on Lot 24 in 2005. However, the plaintiff never began development of Lot 25 and the building permit for the property expired in 2012. The developer was then unable to renew the building permit because the Authority had adopted the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) in the interim period, which reclassified the Lots as part of a Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The developer received a letter explaining that “despite the earlier approval the proposed development was no longer feasible because the ALUCP was more restrictive than the prior compatibility plan and the application's proposed use of ‘research and development’ was not permissible.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael C. Parme, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Parme may be contacted at
mparme@hbblaw.com
A General Contractors Guide to Bond Thresholds by State
June 13, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental Conditions Author: Eric Weisbrot is the Chief Marketing Officer of JW Surety Bonds. With years of experience in the surety industry under several different roles within the company, he is also a contributing author to the surety bond blog.
For general contractors in construction, there are many facets of business management that must be considered and then accomplished over time. Operating a successful general contractor business regardless of size or niche requires an understanding of bookkeeping, personnel management, regulatory compliance, as well as revenue potential for each project. However, one often overlooked aspect of being a general contractor – having the appropriate contractor license and minimum surety bond – correlates to each of these required fragments of the business from the start.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Revisiting Termination For Convenience Clauses In Uncertain And Ever-Changing Economic Times
February 27, 2023 —
Adam M. Tuckman & Brittney M. Wiesner - ConsensusDocsIn these times of persistent inflationary forces and efforts to tame the consequences through rising interest rates, economic uncertainty abounds in the United States and around the world. As an approximately $1 trillion contributor to the economy in the United States (4.2% of GDP in 2021) alone according to the Associated General Contractors of America, the health and the growth of the construction industry is certainly susceptible to these rapidly changing macroeconomic conditions.
Presently, an unanswered question is how project developers will react to unpredictable fluctuations in project costs and interest rates. Although it seems unlikely to be a prevalent response, it is possible that substantial increases in borrowing, labor, or material costs would cause owners to pull the plug on projects that are in the advanced stages of construction. For projects in the nascent stages of development or construction, however, the calculous for owners becomes more tenuous. Both public and private owners may find it more prudent to indefinitely suspend or cancel pending or ongoing projects due to any, or a combination of, forecasted increases in project costs, shrinking funding, higher borrowing costs, or macro-economic uncertainty. Facing this quandary, how would an owner already under contract with a constructor and design team suspend or cancel its project? One potential approach is to invoke a termination for convenience clause found in the parties’ contract.
Reprinted courtesy of
Adam M. Tuckman, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs) and Brittney M. Wiesner, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLP (ConsensusDocs)
Mr. Tuckman may be contacted at atuckman@watttieder.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines
August 03, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelSeveral interesting decisions have recently been made by federal and state courts.
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – ARCO Shifts from State to Federal and No Vigor for VIM
On June 18, 2020, the court decided the case of Baker, et al. v. ARCO, holding that the revised federal removal statutes authorize the removal to federal court of a state-filed complaint against several defendants by the former residents of an Indiana housing complex who contended that the defendants were responsible for the industrial pollution attributed to the operations of a now-closed industrial plant. The housing complex was constructed at the site of the former U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery. During the Second World War, the plant produced products for the use of the government war effort, thus triggering the applicability of the federal removal statutes.
On June 25, 2020, the court decided the case of Greene, et al. v. Westfield Insurance Company. As the court notes, this is a matter that “began as a case about environmental pollution and evolved into a joint garnishment action.” An Indiana wood recycling facility, VIM Recycling, was the subject of many complaints by nearby residents that its operations and waste disposal activities exposed then to dust and odors in violation of federal law and triggered state tort law claims. VIM was sued in state court, but neglected to notify its insurer, as required by its insurance policy with Westfield Insurance. One thing led to another, and a default judgment in the amount of $ 50 million was entered against VIM. Since VIM at that point had no assets, the plaintiffs and later VIM sought recovery from Westfield. When this dispute landed in federal court, the court, after reviewing the policy, concluded that there was a provision excluding coverage when the insured knew it had these liabilities when it purchased the insurance. As a result, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and this decision has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Is Privity of Contract with the Owner a Requirement of a Valid Mechanic’s Lien? Not for GC’s
July 05, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs any reader of this construction law blog knows, mechanic’s liens make up much of the discussion here at Construction Law Musings. A recent case out of Fairfax County, Virginia examined the question of whether contractual privity between the general contractor and owner of the property at issue is necessary. As a reminder, in most situations, for a contract claim to be made, the claimant has to have a direct contract (privity) with the entity it sues. Further, for a subcontractor to have a valid mechanic’s lien it would have to have privity with the general contractor or with the Owner.
The Fairfax case, The Barber of Seville, Inc. v. Bironco, Inc., examined the question of whether contractual privity is necessary between the general contractor and the Owner. In Bironco, the claimant, Bironco, performed certain improvements for a barbershop pursuant to a contract executed by the two owners of the Plaintiff. We wouldn’t have the case here at Musings if Bironco had been paid in full. Bironco then recorded a lien against the leasehold interest of The Barber of Seville, Inc., the entity holding the lease. The Plaintiff filed an action seeking to have the lien declared invalid because Brionco had privity of contract with the individuals that executed the contract, but not directly with the corporate entity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Claim Preclusion: The Doctrine Everyone Thinks They Know But No One Really Knows What it Means in Practice
April 25, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogGenerally, I think restraint in litigation is a good thing. Don’t go crazy on your claims, don’t go nut-so in your discovery, and don’t present your case at trial in a way that causes the judge and/or jury to raise their eyebrows or shake their heads in disbelief. But, as with nearly everything, there’s always an exception. One of which is: don’t hold back on a claim because you “think” you might be able to bring it later, because you might not be able to as the next case, 5th and LA v. Western Waterproofing Company, Inc., 87 Cal.App.5th 781 (2023), demonstrates.
The 5th and LA Case
At the outset, let me first say how much I enjoyed reading this case based on the writing alone. The case, as the 2nd District Court of Appeals states, involves “a second lawsuit about an increasingly leaky roof.”
In 2012, property owner 5th and LA hired roofing contractor Western Waterproofing Company, Inc. to remove and recoat a parking lot that served also served as the roof over retail and office space below. Western completed its work in July 2012 and almost immediately 5th and LA noticed water that the coating was failing causing water leaks to the interior of the building.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
New Survey Reveals Present-Day Risks of Asbestos Exposure in America - 38% in High-Risk Jobs, 47% Vulnerable through Second-Hand Exposure
April 08, 2024 —
The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLCAUSTIN, April 04, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent nationwide survey conducted on the risks of asbestos in America revealed that 38% of respondents have worked in high-risk industries where asbestos was present, while 47% have experienced indirect exposure through family members employed in these high-risk environments. The survey results reflect the fact that, despite the
EPA's recent ban on ongoing uses of chrysotile asbestos, the threat of exposure still looms large in the US, underscoring the urgent need for continued vigilance and action to safeguard public health.
Compounding the concern is the revelation that only 8% of Americans undergo regular testing. These findings, released today, underscore the urgent necessity for Asbestos Cancer Risk Awareness and routine testing. They emphasize the crucial importance of proactive measures to mitigate the pervasive risks associated with asbestos exposure in the United States.
The study was conducted by Researchscape on behalf of
The Law Offices of Justinian C. Lane, Esq. - PLLC, a leading firm advocating for testing and compensation for individuals exposed to asbestos on the job and their families who are at risk due to second-hand exposure.
According to the survey, 86% of respondents have never undergone any testing for asbestos exposure, while a mere 8% are tested regularly. The lack of testing is particularly concerning among the Gen X demographic who could be at risk due to secondhand exposure from a family member who worked with asbestos when it was still prevalent, with 92% reporting no testing, highlighting the potential risks associated with secondhand exposure.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
