COLUMBUS OHIO BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Quick Note: Insurer Must Comply with Florida’s Claims Administration Act

September 14, 2017 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
As an insured, know YOUR rights under Florida’s Claims Administration Act (Florida Statute s. 627.426). I wrote an article on this exact topic. If a third-party claim is asserted, or in the process of being asserted, against you, do yourself a favor and consult a lawyer that can assist you with preserving your insurance coverage rights. You pay liability insurance premiums for a reason so make sure you are not doing anything that could jeopardize rights under applicable insurance policies. A liability insurer must comply with the Claims Administration Act if it wants to deny coverage based on a coverage defense (e.g., the insured’s failure to cooperate with the insurer). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal Updates
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at Dadelstein@gmail.com

---

Court Slams the Privette Door on Independent Contractor’s Bodily Injury Claim

May 06, 2019 — Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Johnson v. The Raytheon Company, Inc., Case No. B281411 (2019) WL 1090217, plaintiff Laurence Johnson (Johnson) was a maintenance engineer employed by an independent contractor that provided control room staff to defendant Raytheon Company, Inc. (“Raytheon”). Johnson was monitoring the computers in the control room when he received low water level alarms pertaining to the water cooling towers. Johnson went to the cooling tower wall in order to look over the wall and verify the water level. Johnson saw the upper half of an extension ladder leaning against the cooling tower’s wall. The ladder had a warning sign which said, “CAUTION” and “THIS LADDER SECTION IS NOT DESIGNED FOR SEPARATE USE.” Despite these warnings, Johnson used the ladder. As he was climbing the ladder it slid out causing him to fall and suffer injuries. Johnson sued Raytheon, the hirer of the independent contractor, arguing the ladder, among other things, was unsafe and lead to Johnson’s injuries. Johnson believed that Raytheon’s course of conduct of leaving a platform ladder (as opposed to the extension ladder) at the wall constituted an implied agreement to always have one present, on which the independent contractor’s employees relied. Johnson further argued that Raytheon was negligent in providing a dangerous extension ladder, as opposed to a platform ladder, at the wall on the night of the accident. Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys Brett G. Moore, Michael C. Parme, Lindsey N. Ursua and Lawrence S. Zucker II Mr. Moore may be contacted at bmoore@hbblaw.com Mr. Parme may be contacted at mparme@hbblaw.com Ms. Lindsey may be contacted at lursua@hbblaw.com Mr. Lawrence may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

EPC Contractors Procuring from Foreign Companies need to Reconsider their Contracts

July 18, 2018 — Hwan Kim – Construction & Infrastructure Law Blog
A recent California case may force engineering, procurement and construction companies doing business with foreign suppliers to reconsider—and maybe rewrite—their contracts. In Rockefeller Technology Investments (Asia) VII v. Changzhou SinoType Technology Co., Ltd., the California Court of Appeal held that parties may not contract around the formal service requirements of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, commonly referred to as the Hague Service Convention. The decision could have profound implications for international business. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hwan Kim, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
Mr. Kim may be contacted at hkim@sheppardmullin.com

---

Insurer Must Defend Claims of Negligence and Private Nuisance

July 10, 2018 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The court determined there was a duty to defend negligence and private nuisance claims for dumping materials on the plaintiffs' property. Peters Heavy Construction, Inc. v. X-Pert One Tracking Corp., 2018 Wisc. App. LEXIS 358 (Wis. Ct. App. March 29, 2018). Peters Heavy Construction sued X-Pert One for negligently depositing shingle materials, tires, and other solid materials on Peters' property, causing damage to Peters, including loss of use of portions of the property. Peters also alleged that X-Pert One's actions negligently created a private nuisance causing harm to Peters' property. X-Pert One's insurer, Northfield Insurance Company, was also sued. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Partner Jason Taylor and Senior Associate Danielle Kegley Successful in Appeal of Summary Disposition on Priority of Coverage Dispute in the Michigan Court of Appeals

December 11, 2023 — Jason Taylor & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub Lieberman
In this appeal brought before the Michigan Court of Appeals, the appellate court ruled in favor of Traub Lieberman’s insurance carrier client (the “Carrier” or “Client”), affirming an award of summary disposition in favor of the Carrier in a coverage lawsuit. The coverage lawsuit involved a priority dispute between the Carrier and another insurer over which company’s policy had responsibility to cover the defense of their mutual insured, a heating and cooling contractor (the “Insured”) in an underlying lawsuit alleging carbon monoxide poisoning. The Carrier issued a contractor’s pollution liability policy and the other insurer issued a commercial general liability policy to the Insurer. Both the Carrier and the other insurer filed cross-motions for summary disposition in the trial court on the priority of coverage issue. The trial court granted the Client’s motion, holding that the CGL carrier was the primary insurer based on the language in the policies’ “other insurance” clauses. The trial court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument to apply the “total policy insuring intent” or “closest to the risk” tests—tests which Michigan courts have not adopted. Specifically, the court rejected the CGL carrier’s argument that the Client’s contractor’s pollution liability policy was more specifically tailored to the loss in the underlying lawsuit. The trial court also rejected CGL carrier’s alternative argument that the “other insurance” clauses in the policies were irreconcilable, requiring a pro rata allocation based on the respective limits of the policies. Reprinted courtesy of Jason Taylor, Traub Lieberman and Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman Mr. Taylor may be contacted at jtaylor@tlsslaw.com Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Time is of the Essence, Even When the Contract Doesn’t Say So

January 11, 2021 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
Welcome to 2021! As often happens here at Construction Law Musings, the year starts with a few posts on notable construction law cases that dropped in the past year or so. Not only does this review hopefully help you keep up, but helps me keep up with the latest developments (one of the reasons why I keep blogging). The first of these cases is Appalachian Power Co. v. Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. out of the Western District of Virginia federal court. In this case, Wagman Heavy Civil, Inc. (“Wagman”) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) contracted for the design and construction of a highway interchange project (the “Project”). Wagman and the Appalachian Power Company (“APCO”) entered into a written contract (the “Written Contract”) for APCO to remove and relocate its utility structures (the “Work”) in order to facilitate construction for the Project. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

---

Construction Law Advisory: Mechanical Contractor Scores Victory in Prevailing Wage Dispute

September 03, 2014 — Steven M. Cvitanovic & Jessica M. Lassere Ryland - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
On August 27, 2014, the First District Court of Appeal weighed in on whether prevailing wages are required for public contracts in situations where work is performed in furtherance of the project but at a permanent offsite manufacturing facility that is not exclusively dedicated to the project. In Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 401 v. John C. Duncan and Russ Will Mechanical, the project at issue was for a community college district where Russ Will was the HVAC subcontractor. The contract documents required contractors to pay prevailing wages but they did not limit where or how Russ Will would fabricate sheet metal required for the job. Russ Will used its existing fabrication facility to form the sheet metal. An employee of Russ Will filed a complaint with the DIR alleging he should have been paid prevailing wages for work related to the project. The worker fabricated sheet metal for the project but at Russ Will’s Hayward facility, not at the site. The DIR issued a coverage determination in which it concluded that Russ Will was required to pay prevailing wages for the offsite fabrication work associated with the project. The DIR's determination turned on whether Russ Will was exempt from the prevailing wage law as a material supplier. To qualify for the material supplier exemption, the employer must sell supplies to the general public and its fabrication or manufacturing facility must not be established for the particular public works contract or be located at the site of the public work. Following the DIR determination, Rush Will filed an administrative appeal. The department reversed its initial coverage determination, concluding that the offsite fabrication performed by Russ Will was not subject to the prevailing wage law. Reprinted courtesy of Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and Jessica M. Lassere Ryland, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at scvitanovic@hbblaw.com; Ms. Ryland may be contacted at jlassere@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

How Will Artificial Intelligence Impact Construction Litigation?

September 12, 2023 — Patrick McKnight - The Dispute Resolver
In the first half of 2023, artificial intelligence (“AI”) caught the public’s imagination. Attorneys have not been immune from the fever-pitch of commentary regarding the possible applications. While early adopters have had varying degrees of success, commentators have proposed various potential impacts on construction projects and disputes. This article discusses potential areas where AI can assist in preventing and resolving disputes from the pre-bid stage through project completion and close-out. What is AI? Artificial intelligence entered the popular zeitgeist accompanied by both optimistic and pessimistic predictions about the future. Internet searches on AI exploded in December 2022, reflecting a rapid and widespread public interest in the topic. The term “AI” itself is often loosely used to refer to a machine or computer software with the ability to conduct machine learning.[1] Whereas “automation” is the simple process of computing inputs, artificial intelligence refers to the ability to learn without additional programming from a human being. Now, increased computing power is finally helping some of the potential applications of this technology come into focus. Nonetheless, artificial intelligence is still maturing and is subject to “hallucinations” where the technology essentially generates erroneous nonsense. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick McKnight, Fox Rothschild LLP
Mr. McKnight may be contacted at pmcknight@foxrothschild.com

---