Six Reasons to Use Regular UAV Surveys on Every Construction Project
October 14, 2019 —
Dustin Price - Construction ExecutiveUAVs are the future of the construction industry. From accurate 3D modeling simulations to regular safety and maintenance checks, UAVs can improve construction projects in many ways—and the value and applications for UAVs is consistently growing. Drones are agile, cost-effective and safe.
Here are some reasons why UAV surveys should be part of any construction project.
1. UAV scans are much faster than human inspections
Drones can cover large territory much faster than human inspectors can. They can also be used over more difficult terrain, and they can survey areas that are otherwise inaccessible. A drone survey can be completed in a day; not only does this mean that the territory is well-surveyed each time, but it also means surveys can be done more frequently.
Construction projects need to be inspected regularly and on time if the project is to meet its deadlines. Delayed construction projects can cost a company millions of dollars, as construction projects need to be completed stage by stage, usually on a strict timeline. Drones will improve the consistency of the project and, in turn, this will improve the reputation of the company itself.
Reprinted courtesy of
Dustin Price, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Need for Situational Awareness in Construction
January 27, 2020 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessRecent research backs up what we already know from practice: construction work is suboptimal. What happens on a construction site has not kept up with the demands of an increasingly complex work environment. Situational awareness could give on-site employees the necessary means to finally reap the productivity benefits of digitalization.
Under the guidance of Professor Olli Seppänen, research teams at the Finnish Aalto University have delved into everyday conditions at a construction site. With the workers’ permission, they used video cameras, sensors, and surveys to locate the bottlenecks in productivity. The researchers also monitored the movement of products and materials on a construction site. The results are eye-opening.
According to Aalto’s data, digitalization has not improved the productivity of construction foremen and workers. A typical worker still spends up to 70% of their time on activities that add no value: searching for information, unnecessary movement, and waiting. Construction materials are moved from place to place six times on the site before being consumed. In addition, especially on large construction sites, machinery often goes missing or is displaced.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Insurers Subrogating in Arkansas Must Expend Energy to Prove That Their Insureds Have Been Made Whole
August 06, 2019 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistArkansas employs the “made whole” doctrine, which requires an insured to be fully compensated for damages (i.e., to be “made whole”) before the insurer is entitled to recover in subrogation.[1] As the Riley court established, an insurer cannot unilaterally determine that its insured has been made whole (in order to establish a right of subrogation). Rather, in Arkansas, an insurer must establish that the insured has been made whole in one of two ways. First, the insurer and insured can reach an agreement that the insured has been made whole. Second, if the insurer and insured disagree on the issue, the insurer can ask a court to make a legal determination that the insured has been made whole.[2] If an insured has been made whole, the insurer is the real party in interest and must file the subrogation action in its own name.[3] However, when both the insured and an insurer have claims against the same tortfeasor (i.e., when there are both uninsured damages and subrogation damages), the insured is the real party in interest.[4]
In EMC Ins. Cos. v. Entergy Ark., Inc., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14251 (8th Cir. May 14, 2019), EMC Insurance Companies (EMC) filed a subrogation action in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas alleging that its insureds’ home was damaged by a fire caused by an electric company’s equipment. EMC never obtained an agreement from the insureds or a judicial determination that its insureds had been made whole. In addition, EMC did not allege in the complaint that its insureds had been made whole and did not present any evidence or testimony at trial that its insureds had been made whole. After EMC presented its case-in-chief, the District Court ruled that EMC lacked standing to pursue its subrogation claim because “EMC failed to obtain a legal determination that its insureds had been made whole . . . prior to initiating this subrogation action.” Thus, the District Court granted Entergy Ark., Inc.’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and EMC appealed the decision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and Williams LLPMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Suzanne Pollack Elected to Lawyers Club of San Diego 2021 Board of Directors
May 03, 2021 —
Suzanne Pollack - Lewis BrisboisSan Diego Associate Suzanne Pollack was recently elected to the 2021 Lawyers Club of San Diego Board of Directors for a three-year term that will begin on July 1, 2021. Founded in 1972, the mission of Lawyers Club - San Diego’s largest specialty bar association - is to advance the status of women in the law and society.
“I am honored to be joining Lawyers Club’s Board of Directors, particularly after this last year, during which we saw the dramatic impact that the pandemic had upon women in the workforce," said Ms. Pollack. "Promoting equality, diversity, and advocacy has never been more important, and I look forward to working with the Board to further these goals.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Suzanne Pollack, Lewis BrisboisMs. Pollack may be contacted at
Suzanne.Pollack@lewisbrisbois.com
Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co.
December 20, 2017 —
John Chiocca - Florida Construction Law NewsThe Florida Supreme Court issued its opinion in Altman Contractors, Inc. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co., Case No., SC16-1420, which answered the following certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: Is the notice and repair process set forth in Chapter 558 of the Florida Statutes a “suit'” within the meaning of the CGL policies issued by C&F to ACI?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John Chiocca, Cole Scott & Kissane P.A.Mr. Chiocca may be contacted at
john.chiocca@csklegal.com
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds
February 18, 2020 —
Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law NewsThe United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds.
The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit.
The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit.
Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Charlson may be contacted at
Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com
Undocumented Debris at Mississippi Port Sparks Legal Battle
July 26, 2017 —
Jim Parsons - Engineering News-RecordUndocumented underground debris fields at a Gulf of Mexico port project are at the heart of a contractor’s nearly $50-million federal lawsuit against the Mississippi Development Authority and eight engineering and construction consultants.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Parsons, ENRENR may be contacted at
ENR.com@bnpmedia.com
Another Law Will Increase Construction Costs in New York
May 29, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneNew York recently enacted legislation known as Carlos’ Law, which increases penalties for corporate liability for the death of, or serious injury to, an employee. The bill, S.621B / A.4947B, was named after Carlos Moncayo, a construction worker killed in a trench collapse on a New York City construction project. Moncayo’s employer repeatedly flouted safety rules and ignored warnings of dangerous conditions on its construction site before failing to properly support the trench that collapsed and killed Moncayo. Moncayo’s employer was convicted for his death, but the penalty was light. The company was sentenced to pay only $10,000, the maximum penalty at the time for any company convicted of a felony in New York State. The legislature responded with Carlos’ Law, which increases accountability for “employers,” and expands the scope of “employees” covered.
The corporate criminal law, NY Penal § 20.20(2)(c)(iv), imposes liability on an employer when “the conduct constituting the offense is engaged in by an agent of the corporation while acting within the scope of his employment and on behalf of the corporation, and the offense is . . . in relation to a crime involving the death or serious physical injury of an employee where the corporation acted negligently, recklessly, intentionally, or knowingly.” An “agent” of an employer is any “director, officer or employee of a corporation, or any other person who is authorized to act on behalf of the corporation.” § 20.20(a). An “employee” now includes any person providing labor or services for remuneration for a private entity or business within New York State without regard to an individual’s immigration status, and includes part-time workers, independent contractors, apprentices, day laborers and other workers. § 10.00 (22). The penalties for criminal corporate liability for the death or serious injury of an employee now include maximums of $500,000 when centered on a felony, and $300,000 when centered on a misdemeanor. § 80.10(1)(a) and (b).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
