Suing the Lowest Bidder on Public Construction Projects
September 17, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThe California Court of Appeals has allowed the second lowest bidders on public construction projects to sue the lowest bidder where it appears that the lowest bidder was only the lowest because it paid its employees less than the established prevailing wage. This is a novel theory for recovery, but may provide for an opportunity to challenge improperly low bids.
Background
Between 2009 and 2012, American Asphalt outbid two asphalt companies on 23 public works projects, totaling nearly $15 million. The two asphalt companies sued American Asphalt alleging that they were the second lowest bidder all 23 construction projects and they would have been the lowest had American Asphalt paid its employees the required prevailing wage. Importantly, the municipality awarding the contracts was not sued by the second lowest bidders. Instead, the second lowest bidders alleged that American Asphalt intentionally interfered with a business expectancy and sought damages from American Asphalt, specifically the profit that they lost by not performing these contracts.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex
June 10, 2015 —
Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504.
Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit.
The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Broker Not Liable for Failure to Reveal Insurer's Insolvency After Policy Issued
March 28, 2012 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiFaced with an issue of first impression in California, the Court of Appeals held that a broker was not liable for failing to reveal the insurer's insolvency occurring after issuance of the policy. Pacific Rim Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Aon Risk Ins. Serv. West, Inc., 2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 232 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2012).
The developer for a construction project in downtown San Diego retained Aon as its broker to secure coverage. Aon procured a general liability policy for the project with Legion Indemnity Company. Legion was solvent when it issued the policy.
The developer hired Pacific Rim (“PacRim”) as one of several subcontractors on the project. The parties entered into a contract in which the developer agreed to provide PacRim with liability insurance through an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (“OCIP”). Aon was not a party to the contract and PacRim was never its client. PacRim, however, enrolled in the OCIP by contacting Aon and providing all necessary paperwork.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii. Mr. Eyerly can be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Boston Catwalk Collapse Injures Three Workers
May 10, 2022 —
Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-RecordThe collapse of a catwalk in a defunct, 124-year-old power plant building in Boston on May 4 injured three workers in the latest in a spate of serious construction accidents in the city and its environs.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-Record
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida Continues Enacting Tort Reforms, This Time Shortening the Statute of Repose
May 01, 2023 —
William L. Doerler - The Subrogation StrategistOn April 13, 2023, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, signed into law
SB 360 which, among other things, shortens the statute of repose period for improvements to real property. The law also revises the date on which the statute of limitations period runs for these types of damage claims. Florida’s revision of this law provides further evidence of the state’s tort reform efforts.
The new law went into effect upon signing and includes the following changes:
- Shortens the statute of repose period set forth in Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(c) for actions founded on the design, planning or construction of improvements to real estate from ten (10) to seven (7) years. The statute of repose period runs from the earliest (rather than the latest) of the date: a) the authority having jurisdiction issues a temporary certificate of occupancy; b) a certificate of occupancy; c) a certificate of completion; or d) of abandonment of construction if not completed. Of note, the revised repose period eliminates that date of actual possession by the owner as one of the accrual dates.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Doerler, White and Williams LLPMr. Doerler may be contacted at
doerlerw@whiteandwilliams.com
US Secretary of Labor Withdraws Guidance Regarding Independent Contractors
June 21, 2017 —
Tanya Salgado - White and Williams LLPThe United States Secretary of Labor has withdrawn an informal guidance regarding independent contractors issued in 2015. We reported on the 2015 Administrator’s Interpretation here. The 2015 Interpretation provided a detailed explanation of the economic realities test, which is used to determine whether a worker is to be classified as an independent contractor or an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
While the 2015 Interpretation did not change existing case law on independent contractor status, it was seen as sending a signal from the Department of Labor (DOL) regarding the agency’s focus. The DOL concluded the 2015 Interpretation with the statement, “most workers are employees under the FLSA’s broad definitions…” Just as the DOL’s 2015 Interpretation did not change existing case law, the DOL’s withdrawal of the Interpretation does not change the law in any way. The economic realities test remains the legal standard for determining independent contractor status under the FLSA.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tanya Salgado, White and Williams LLPMs. Salgado may be contacted at
salgadot@whiteandwilliams.com
AB 685 and COVID-19 Workplace Exposure: New California Notice and Reporting Requirements of COVID Exposure Starting January 1, 2021
February 01, 2021 —
Sewar K. Sunnaa & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.SUMMARY
Effective January 1, 2021, a new California law requires employers to notify employees about possible or known exposure to COVID-19 at the workplace. The law requires actual notification to employees within one day.
In addition, the law requires notifications to local public health authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak. The law also gives Cal/OSHA a new emergency police power to issue Orders Prohibiting Use (“OPU”), permitting Cal/OSHA to close workplaces that constitute an imminent hazard to employees due to COVID-19.
ANALYSIS AND GUIDANCE
On January 1, 2021, a new California law took effect, which will enforce stringent new mandatory protocols governing notification of employees of COVID-19 exposures in the workplace. Until now, federal agencies such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and state agencies such as the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“Cal/OSHA”) have released guidance to help employers navigate employee training, workplace surveillance and temperature-taking, among many other issues, that have arisen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Beginning January 1st, the new law places mandatory notice requirements of COVID-19 contact on all public and private employers under Labor Code Section 6409.6, with two exceptions: (1) health facilities, as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code and (2) employees whose regular duties include COVID-19 testing or screening, or who provide patient care to individuals who are known or suspected to have COVID-19.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sewar K. Sunnaa, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Sunnaa may be contacted at ssunnaa@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Contractor “Mean Tweets” Edition
June 04, 2024 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogBack in the day, if someone had a problem with you the rules of school yard jungle dictated that they had better tell it to your face or you had the right to call them out on it. That, of course, was back then. These days, with social media seemingly everywhere (e.g., Yelp, Twitter, Facebook, etc.), if someone has a problem with you they tell you . . . as well as the rest of the world . . . to your digital face. Jimmy Kimmel has even made it a “thing” with his celebrity “
Mean Tweets” segments.
In
Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. v. Hamilton, 98 Cal.App.5th 318 (2023), homeowner Vanessa Hamilton was sued by her contractor Paglia & Associates Construction, Inc. doing business as Protech Construction after she posted critical comments to her blog and on Yelp about work performed by Paglia at her home.
The Paglia Case
In or about 2016, after a tree fell on her house, Hamilton’s insurer, Safeco, recommended Paglia to perform the repairs. Paglia and Hamilton entered into a repair contract in 2016 but Paglia did not finish the work until sometime in 2017 claiming that the repair was extensive because Hamilton’s circa 1923 home was in poor condition and current building codes required extensive reconstruction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
