Persimmon Offers to Fix Risky Homes as Cladding Crisis Grows
February 22, 2021 —
Olivia Konotey-Ahulu - BloombergPersimmon Plc, the U.K.’s biggest homebuilder, has offered to pay for work on potentially unsafe buildings in the wake of the cladding scandal that arose from London’s Grenfell Tower fire.
The firm has made a provision of 75 million pounds ($104 million) in its 2020 results for any necessary repair work on 26 buildings it developed that may be affected by the issue, it said in a statement Wednesday. It no longer owns the properties and said it would provide support where owners failed to accept their legal responsibilities.
“The concern around now banned cladding is affecting many thousands of homeowners who live in high-rise buildings right across the country,” Chairman Roger Devlin said in the statement. “We believe we have a clear duty to act to address this issue.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Olivia Konotey-Ahulu, Bloomberg
New York City Council’s Carbon Emissions Regulation Opposed by Real Estate Board
July 01, 2019 —
Kristen E. Andreoli - White and William's Taking Care of Business BlogOn April 10, 2019, the New York City Council adopted Intro No. 1253 – the largest effort in a series of bills known as the Climate Mobilization Act. Intro No. 1253 enacts new regulations to reduce the city’s current largest source of carbon emissions – the operation of buildings.
Jared Brey, in his April 25, 2019 article in U.S. News and World Report, “How an Evolving Movement Pushed NYC to Address the Climate Crisis,” states that “[i]n the city, around 70% of carbon emissions are produced by buildings, and around half of all building emissions are produced by just 2% of structures larger than 25,000 square feet that are covered by the bill.”
The level of development, population density and relative economic power of a city such as New York have made this bill particularly interesting to other jurisdictions around the globe which may be considering their own similar legislation. In his article, Brey cites David Miller, a former mayor of Toronto and the North American regional director for C40, a group of cities coordinating strategies to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement:
“I think what New York has done is globally significant … It’s really a huge step forward, using the city’s powers and influence to directly address a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions without waiting for the national government or the international community to act.”
Several other jurisdictions have already begun to approach this issue, generally either by passing bills or creating task forces to further investigate how to meet stated emissions reduction goals. In 2018, Governor Jerry Brown of California signed an executive order with a stated goal of net-zero carbon emissions within the state by the year 2045. The California State Assembly subsequently passed a bill creating a task force to investigate the potential to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses by both commercial and residential buildings by 2030, although their plan is not due until January 1, 2021. The city of San Jose has implemented new building standards for all new residential buildings to be net-carbon neutral by 2020, and all new commercial buildings must be so by 2030.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Kristen E. Andreoli, White and Williams LLPMs. Andreoli may be contacted at
andreolik@whiteandwilliams.com
Construction Worker Falls to His Death at Kyle Field
January 15, 2014 —
Melissa Zaya-CDJ STAFFThe family of Angel Garcia, a construction worker who fell to his death while working on Texas A&M’s football stadium (Kyle Field), has filed a $100 million lawsuit against six construction companies claiming inadequate safety policies, procedures, and negligence, Jordan Overturf of The Eagle reported.
According to The Eagle, Garcia’s attorneys alleged, “[Garcia] was ‘catapulted off the edge of a fourth-floor ramp’ on the northeast side when a section of concrete fell onto the bucket of the skid steer-loader he was operating. The tractor hit a steel beam during the fall, which exerted enough force to eject Garcia from the tractor.” Garcia did not survive his injuries. The complaint claims the companies involved violated the Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules and regulations. The defendants in the suit were unavailable for comment, according to The Eagle.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Courts and Changing Views on Construction Defect Coverage
October 02, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThere have been changes recently in how courts interpret commercial general liability policies. Writing for Claims Journal, Burke Coleman, who is legal counsel and Compliance Manager for Demotech, looks at five recent cases and how they show changing views of CGL policies and construction defect claims.
He notes that the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that “defective construction itself does not trigger coverage.” The court’s view in Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. was that a CGL policy does not protect contractors from every risk, but instead covers damage to other property that occur due to its work.
But, conversely, the Georgia Supreme Court found that construction defect claims could be covered under a commercial general liability policy, noting that “the limits of coverage do not have to be found in the word ‘occurrence,’ inasmuch as the other words of the insuring agreement — as well as the policy exclusions — have their own roles to play in marking the limits of coverage.” This decision was reached in Taylor Morrison Services v. HDI-Gerling America.
The Connecticut Supreme Court also concluded that defective construction could trigger coverage from a CGL policy, however, as Mr. Coleman notes, “only damage to non-defective property may be entitled to coverage.” He concludes that the North Dakota Supreme Court “has taken an even broader approach to the issue.” That court found that construction defects were covered “if the faulty work was unexpected and unintended.”
Finally, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that faulty work can be property damage. He notes “the policy at issue included a ‘your work’ exclusion that excluded coverage for work performed by the insured, but subcontractors were excepted from the exclusion.” However, another clause excluded work performed on the behalf of the insured.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wait! Don’t Sign Yet: Reviewing Contract Protections During the COVID Pandemic
April 13, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesAs the circumstances of the COVID pandemic change day by day, and we all rush to keep business moving where and when we can, companies should consider hitting the “pause button” before renewing or executing any new contracts. Developing contracts often takes considerable time and expense, and companies are not in the habit of reworking them often. A change in law may prompt a company to revisit their contract terms, but otherwise business is often carried out with a standard form contract for a period of years. With the COVID pandemic affecting nearly every business and industry, life is not business as usual, and companies should make sure their contracts consider what previously seemed like an unforeseeable event.
Force Majeure clauses are included in many contracts to excuse contract performance when made impossible by some unforeseen circumstance. These clauses typically fall under two categories: general and specific. General force majeure clauses excuse performance if performance is prevented by circumstances outside the parties’ control. By contrast, specific force majeure clauses detail the exhaustive list of circumstances (acts of god, extreme weather, war, riot, terrorism, embargoes) which would excuse contract performance. Force majeure clauses are typically interpreted narrowly. If your contract has a specific clause and pandemic or virus is not one of the listed circumstances it may not apply. Whether a particular existing contract covers the ongoing COVID pandemic will vary depending on the language of the contract.
Force majeure clauses previously made headlines when the great economic recession hit in 2008. A number of courts held that simple economic hardship was not enough to invoke force majeure. The inability to pay or lack of desire to pay for the contracted goods or services did not qualify as force majeure. In California, impossibility turns on the nature of the contractual performance, and not in the inability of the obligor to do it. (Kennedy v. Reece (1964) 225 Cal. App. 2d 717, 725.) In other words, the task is objectively impossible not merely impossible or more burdensome to the specific contracting party.
California has codified “force majeure” protection where the parties haven’t included any language or the circumstances in the clause don’t apply to the situation at hand. Civil Code section 1511 excuses performance when “prevented or delayed by an irresistible, superhuman cause, or by the act of public enemies of this state or of the United States, unless the parties have expressly agreed to the contrary.” (Civ. Code § 1511.) What qualifies as a “superhuman cause”? In California, the test is whether under the particular circumstances there was such an insuperable interference occurring without the party's intervention as could not have been prevented by the exercise of prudence, diligence and care. (Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. v. C. S. T., Ltd. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 228, 238.)
If you find yourself in an existing contract without a force majeure clause, or the statute does not apply, you may consider the doctrine of frustration of purpose. This doctrine is applied narrowly where performance remains possible, but the fundamental reason the parties entered into the contract has been severely or substantially frustrated by an unanticipated supervening circumstance, thus destroying substantially the value of the contract. (Cutter Laboratories, Inc. v. Twining (1963) 221 Cal. App. 2d 302, 314-15.) In other words, performance is still possible but valueless. Note this defense is not likely to apply where the contract has simply become less profitable for one party.
Now that COVID is no longer an unforeseeable event, but rather a current and grave reality, a party executing a contract today without adequate protections may have a difficult time proving unforeseeability. Scientists are not sure whether warm weather will suppress the spread of the virus, as it does with the seasonal flu, but to the extent we get a reprieve during the summer we may see a resurgence of cases this Fall or Winter. Companies should take care in reviewing force majeure clauses, and other clauses tied to timely performance such as delay and liquidated damages before renewing or executing new contracts.
Your contract scenario may vary from the summary provided above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. During this critical time, BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
One Shot to Get It Right: Navigating the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace
January 18, 2021 —
Natale DiNatale, Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Emily A. Zaklukiewicz, Kayla N. West & Abby M. Warren - Construction ExecutiveThe Food and Drug Administration has granted Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines. As COVID-19 cases continue to rise, employers across all industries may be considering whether to adopt a vaccination policy requiring vaccination as a condition of working and/or accessing the workplace or jobsite. The FDA’s recent authorization of the COVID-19 vaccine raises several legal and practical issues that employers may wish to consider as they prepare for widespread distribution and availability of the vaccine in 2021.
Mandating the COVID-19 Vaccine in the Workplace
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently issued guidance suggesting that employers may mandate that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccination, subject to certain limitations. The EEOC has taken the position that administration of the COVID-19 vaccine does not implicate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because administration of the vaccine is not a medical examination. Under the EEOC’s guidance, employers, regardless of the industry, may require that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine without having to justify that the mandate is job related and consistent with business necessity. Beyond that, construction employers should be aware of numerous issues and risks associated with mandatory vaccine policies.
Reprinted courtesy of Natale DiNatale, Stephen W. Aronson, Britt-Marie K. Cole-Johnson, Emily A. Zaklukiewicz, Kayla N. West & Abby M. Warren of
Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Protects California Policyholders for Intentional Acts of Employees
July 02, 2018 —
William S. Bennett – Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.Recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that liability insurers are obligated to cover negligent supervision, hiring, and retention claims against employers resulting from the intentional acts of their employees.
The case, Liberty Surplus Insurance v. Ledesma & Meyer Construction, case no. S236765 (2018), involved an insurance coverage dispute between a construction company, Ledesma & Meyer Construction (“L&M”), and its insurers, Liberty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. (“Liberty”) and Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp (“Liberty Surplus”). Liberty was L&M’s primary insurer, while Liberty Surplus had the excess policy. L&M had contracted with the San Bernardino Unified School District to renovate a school building while the school was still in session. In a separate action, another court found that an L&M employee sexually assaulted a 13-year-old student while working at the project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William S. Bennett, Saxe Doernberger & Vita P.C.Mr. Bennett may be contacted at
wsb@sdvlaw.com
California Court of Appeal: Inserting The Phrase “Ongoing Operations” In An Additional Endorsement Is Not Enough to Preclude Coverage for Completed Operations
September 14, 2017 —
Gary Barrera - California Construction Law BlogIn a victory for additional insureds, a California appeals court held, in Pulte Home Corp. v. American Safety Indemnity Co., Cal.Ct.App. (4th Dist.), Docket No. D070478 (filed 8/30/17), that an insurer’s denial of coverage for completed operations based on the inclusion of the phrase “ongoing operations” in an additional insured endorsement, was improper. Additionally, an insurer wishing to limit coverage under an additional insured endorsement to ongoing operations must do so via clear and explicit language.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gary Barrera, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Barrera may be contacted at
gbarrera@wendel.com
