Preventing Common Electrical Injuries on the Jobsite
February 03, 2020 —
Kelsey Rzepecki - Construction ExecutiveDespite the overall decrease in electrical workplace fatalities, construction workers remain the most at risk of death from electrical accidents. In 2016, 53% of all fatal electrical injuries were in the construction industry, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Employers can improve their bottom line by implementing prevention strategies to reduce chances of electrical injuries and create a safer, more efficient jobsite.
What Are the Most Common Electrical Injuries in Construction?
The three types of electrical injuries that occur the most often on construction jobsites are:
- electrocution (such as electric shock and burns) through unintentional contact with high-voltage lines or equipment;
- severe burns or death from explosive gases accidentally ignited by electrical equipment; and
- injuries from falls or from contact with moving equipment after worker experiences a low-voltage electrical shock and can no longer keep balance or physical control of the tools or equipment they have when shocked.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kelsey Rzepecki, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ms. Rzepecki may be contacted at
krzepecki@graphicproducts.com
Be Sure to Bring Up Any Mechanic’s Lien Defenses Early and Often
November 27, 2023 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs those of you who regularly read Musings are aware, mechanic’s liens are a big part of my law practice and a big issue here at this construction law blog. I’ve discussed the picky requirements of the mechanic’s lien statutes in Virginia and how the 90 and 150-day rules are strictly enforced. However, a recent case out of the City of Norfolk Virginia Circuit Court cautions that while failure to meet these strict requirements may invalidate a lien, it only does so if the owner or general contractor seeking to invalidate the lien argues the invalidity and/or presents evidence of that invalidity either pretrial or during trial.
In Premier Restoration LLC v. Barnes, the Court considered the following facts. The defendant homeowners had a house fire and the resulting damage was the subject of an insurance claim that was paid and checks sent to the homeowners. Premier filed a mechanic’s lien in response to Barnes’s failure to pay for Premier’s restoration construction services after Barnes’s home was destroyed by fire. Premier seeks a decree to enforce the lien, asking the court to order the sale of Barnes’s property to recover its damages or, alternatively, a judgment in its favor. With the Complaint seeking enforcement of the lien and damages for breach of contract, and this is a key point, Premier provided a copy of the mechanic’s lien along with the affidavit that is part of the statutory form swearing that the Owner was justly indebted to Premiere. The homeowners filed a counterclaim for unfinished work, including unfinished punch list work. After a trial during which no evidence regarding either the timeliness of the lien recording or whether any of the work sought to be encompassed in the lien was performed outside of the statutory 150-day window was presented by either side, the defendants filed a post-trial motion seeking to invalidate the lien as including sums for work outside of the 150-day window.
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
Release Language Extended To Successor Entity But Only Covered “Known” Claims
August 06, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesA recent case contains valuable analysis that has impact on whether a “successor” entity will be bound by a settlement agreement it was not a direct party to. This case contains arguments for contractors that can be raised in a number of different contexts if it is sued by a successor or related entity.
The same case discusses the difference between releasing a party for “known” claims without releasing the same party for “unknown” claims. This is an important distinction because unknown claims refer to latent defects so a release that only releases a party for known claims is not releasing that party for latent defects.
In MBlock Investors, LLC v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1432d (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), an owner hired a contractor to construct a project. At completion, the owner transferred the project to an affiliated entity (collectively, the “Owner”). The contractor sued the Owner for unpaid work, the Owner claimed construction defects with the work, and a settlement was entered into that released the contractor for KNOWN claims. Thereafter, the Owner defaulted on the construction loan and agreed to convey the property through a deed in lieu of foreclosure to an entity created by the lender (the “Lender Entity”).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Client Alert: Expert Testimony in Indemnity Action Not Limited to Opinions Presented in Underlying Matter
February 18, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLPIn National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh Pa. v. Tokio Marine and Nichido Fire Insurance Co. (filed 2/4/2015, B24899 and B247258), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held that the insurer of Costco Wholesale Corporation, in a subsequent indemnity action, could offer expert opinions which were not developed by the third-party plaintiff’s experts in an underlying dispute.
Jack Daer filed suit against Costco and Yokohama Tire Corporation, alleging a tire manufactured by Yokohama (and sold by Costco), was defective and caused an accident resulting in Mr. Daer’s injuries. The case proceeded through expert discovery and depositions. On the first day of trial, Costco settled with Daer for $5.5 million, and Yokohama settled for $1.1 million.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anti-Concurrent Causation Endorsements in CGL Insurance Policies: A Word of Caution
August 29, 2022 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationWhile I have not performed exhaustive research into the origin of anti-concurrent causation (“ACC”) endorsements on insurance policies, or how or when they migrated from first-party property policies to commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies, they have done so. The result for Colorado’s construction professionals may rear its ugly head as an unwelcome and surprise outright declination of coverage for construction defect claims.
ACC endorsements state that if there are two causes of damage: one of which is covered by a policy and one of which is not, the carrier can invoke the ACC endorsement to disclaim coverage for all of the damage. An exemplar ACC endorsement is ISO Form CG 21 67, entitled “Fungi or Bacteria Exclusion.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
New York Appellate Court Affirms 1966 Insurance Policy Continues to Cover WTC Asbestos Claims
January 02, 2019 —
Michael S. Levine & Joshua S. Paster - Hunton Andrews KurthIn a prior post, we discussed a New York trial-court decision that found an insurance policy issued in 1966, to insure the construction of the World Trade Center, continues to cover modern-day asbestos claims, with each claim constituting an individual occurrence. Last week, in American Home Assurance Co. v. The Port Authority of N.Y. and N.J., 7628-7628A (1st Dep’t Nov. 15, 2018), an intermediate appellate court affirmed that decision, agreeing that coverage is triggered for claims tied to alleged asbestos exposure at the WTC site in the 1960s and ’70s.
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joshua S. Paster, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Paster may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Newmeyer Dillion Secures Victory For Crown Castle In Years-Long Litigation With City Council Of Piedmont Over Small Cell Wireless Telecommunications Sites
December 30, 2019 —
Newmeyer DillionNewmeyer Dillion, a prominent business and real estate law firm, is pleased to announce that, on November 18, 2019, the City Council of the City of Piedmont unanimously voted to approve the installation of 17 small cell wireless telecommunications sites by Newmeyer Dillion client Crown Castle NG West LLC, the leading provider of shared communications infrastructure in the United States. This victory ends a long-running legal dispute over Crown Castle's small cell wireless network, which was vehemently opposed by Piedmont residents and previously rejected by the City Council, prompting Newmeyer Dillion to bring a lawsuit against the city in 2017.
The dispute began in 2016 when Crown Castle filed an application with the City Council of the City of Piedmont to build nine small cell wireless sites designed to provide critical wireless telecommunications coverage in Piedmont. In October 2017, the Council denied the network, rejecting some of the proposed sites or approving others with onerous conditions.
Newmeyer Dillion's Government, Land Use and Environmental practice group filed a lawsuit on behalf of Crown Castle in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in November 2017, challenging the Council's decision. Drawing from the language established in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the lawsuit alleged that Piedmont's ordinances established an unreasonably high bar of approval, unlawfully prohibiting telecommunications services in the city.
The city quickly requested a court-supervised settlement, which was approved by the City Council in December 2018 and allowed Crown Castle to reapply to build 17 small cell wireless telecommunications facilities. The unanimous City Council approval came after extensive mediation work between the two parties.
"We are excited that our years-long efforts have culminated in this major win for Crown Castle, allowing them to build out critical telecommunications infrastructure in the City of Piedmont," said Michael Shonafelt, partner at Newmeyer Dillion. "With the growing national need for robust telecommunications networks that can handle voice communication and modern data demands, approvals such as this are significant, not just for the community the network serves, but for the viability of the national telecommunications network as a whole. Our team is proud to be using our multidisciplinary, business-oriented approach to successfully advise clients navigating these issues."
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of corporate, privacy & data security, employment, real estate, construction, insurance law and trial work, Newmeyer Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client's needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Zurich American Insurance Company v. Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company
October 05, 2020 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Ironshore Specialty Ins. Co., __F.3d__(July 2, 2020), the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified the following questions to the Nevada Supreme Court in connection with a contribution action for defense costs filed by Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company (“Zurich”) against Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”) with respect to the defense and settlement of 14 construction defect lawsuits on behalf of eight subcontractors (“lawsuits”) insured by both companies:
Whether, under Nevada law, the burden of proving the applicability of an exception to an exclusion of coverage in an insurance policy falls on the insurer or the insured? Whichever party bears such a burden, may it rely on evidence extrinsic to the complaint to carry its burden, and if so, is it limited to extrinsic evidence available at the time the insured tendered the defense of the lawsuit to the insurer?
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
