Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Safety Standards Issued by ASSE and ANSI
March 28, 2012 —
Melissa Brumback, Construction Law in North CarolinaThe American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE) have recently announced their approval of two new safety standards to enhance construction site safety.
The two new standards, which are set to take effect during June 2012, are the ANSI/ASSE A10.1-2011 Pre-Project and Pre-Task Safety and Health Planning for Construction and Demolition Operations, and the ANSI/ASSE A10.26-2011 Emergency Procedures for Construction and Demolition Sites.
The new A10.1-2011 standard was designed to assist construction owners, contractors, and designers by ensuring that safety and health planning were standard parts of their pre-construction planning. It is also intended to help owners of construction sites to establish a process for evaluating constructor candidates with regard to their safety and health performance planning.
The A10.26 standard applies to emergency situations, including fires, collapses, and hazardous spills. The standard deals with emergency rescue, evacuation, and transportation of injured workers, and also plans for coordinating with emergency medical facilities ahead of potential disasters.
Read the full story…
Reprinted courtesy of Melissa Dewey Brumback of Ragsdale Liggett PLLC. Ms. Brumback can be contacted at mbrumback@rl-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith
June 17, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Sixth Circuit rejected the insurer's claim for reverse bad faith against its insured who made a fraudulent claim after her home was destroyed by fire. State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hargis, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7475 (6th Cir. April 23, 2015).
The insured's home burned to the ground early one morning. She filed what she would later admit was a fraudulent insurance claim with State Auto for approximately $866,000. State Auto paid in excess of $425,000 before filing an action to declare the policy void. State Farm's investigation eventually led to the insured's admission that she had a friend burn down her house to collect insurance proceeds. An indictment was issued and the insured pled guilty. She was sentenced to a 60-month term and was ordered to pay restitution to State Auto totaling $672,497.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Lakewood Introduced City Ordinance to Battle Colorado’s CD Law
September 24, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to The Denver Post, the Lakewood City Council “introduced an ordinance that would make it more difficult for homeowners associations to sue developers for construction defects and give builders more opportunity to fix problems before litigation begins.” A hearing and final vote is scheduled for October 13th.
"If there are defects, we want to get them fixed rather than dragging this through the courts for years," Lakewood Mayor Bob Murphy told The Denver Post. Murphy believes the ordinance will bring “more diverse housing options to Lakewood, especially around stations along the Regional Transportation District’s West Rail Line.” Lakewood’s City Planner Travis Parker also declared that the defects law is to blame for the lack of condos in the area.
However, some believe that “Lakewood is overstepping its bounds as a home-rule city,” according to The Denver Post. "What they're trying to do is use an ordinance to circumvent state law in order to make it impossible for homeowners to seek redress against builders for defects," Molly Foley-Healy an attorney who serves as legislative liaison for the Community Associations Institute's Legislative Action Committee told the Post. “Mayor Murphy needs to incentivize quality construction in Lakewood instead.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Coverage for Faulty Workmanship Found In South Dakota
October 11, 2017 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe South Dakota Supreme Court found coverage in favor of the general contractor who was sued for alleged faulty workmanship. Owners Ins. Co. v. Tibke Constr., Inc., 2017 S.D. LEXIS 106 (S.D. Aug. 23, 2017).
The homeowners hired Tibke Construction Inc. as general contractor to build a new house. Tibke hired Jerry's Excavating Inc. as a subcontractor to prepare the soil and perform excavation work. After the project was completed, the homeowners sued Tibke and Jerry's Excavating for negligent construction and breach of contract. The homeowners alleged that Jerry's Excavating failed to conduct soil-compaction testing before construction. They alleged that the home was built upon highly expansive soils, resulting in damage to the home by "excessive settlement, cracking, structural unsoundness and other damages." The complaint further alleged that damages existed only on portions of the home not worked on by Jerry's Excavating.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
"My Bad, I Thought It Was in Good Faith" is Not Good Enough - Contractor Ordered to Pay Prompt Payment Penalties
February 23, 2016 —
David A. Harris & Jesse M. Sullivan – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPRetention clauses are almost always included in California construction contracts and permit an Owner to withhold a portion of what is owed to the General Contractor as security to ensure the proper completion of the work. General Contractors pass the withholding of retention down to the subcontractors. Thus, if the subcontractor fails to complete its work, or fails to correct deficiencies, the Owner/General Contractor can use the retention to pay the costs of completing or correcting the subcontractor’s work.
The contractor must release any retention it receives from the owner within ten days unless a “good faith dispute exists between the direct contractor and the subcontractor.” (Civil Code section 8814.) Where there is a good faith dispute, the contractor “may withhold from the retention to the subcontractor an amount not in excess of 150 percent of the estimated value of the disputed amount.” (Civil Code section 8814(c).) If the contractor wrongfully withholds retention, it must not only pay the retention but must also pay the subcontractor “a penalty of 2 percent per month on the amount wrongfully withheld.” The contractor must also pay the subcontractor’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in collecting the retention. (Civil Code section 8818.)
Reprinted courtesy of
David A. Harris, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Jesse M. Sullivan, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Harris may be contacted at dharris@hbblaw.com
Mr. Sullivan may be contacted at jsullivan@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Mind Over Matter: Court Finds Expert Opinion Based on NFPA 921 Reliable Despite Absence of Physical Testing
September 12, 2022 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Smith v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142262, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (District Court) considered whether the plaintiffs’ liability expert met the requirements of Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and could testify that a filter pump for an aquarium tank was defectively designed and caused a fire at the plaintiffs’ home. The defendant filed a motion to exclude the plaintiffs’ liability expert on grounds that the expert’s opinion did not satisfy the reliability element of Rule 702 because the expert never conducted physical testing on the filter pump. The court found that the cognitive testing employed by the expert through various methods, including visual inspections of the evidence, a review of photographs of the scene and literature from the manufacturer, and research on similar products, was sufficiently reliable to admit his opinion.
The Smith case involved a civil action brought by Jeanette Scicchitano Smith and Alexander Smith that arose from a 2019 fire at their residence in Lincoln University, Pennsylvania. The fire purportedly started in a filter pump, which was operating at the time of the fire, that the plaintiffs purchased in 2002 as part of an aquarium tank kit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
The Sensible Resurgence of the Multigenerational Home
August 13, 2014 —
Chris Farrell – BloombergOne of the biggest fears spawned by the recession and subsequent up-and-down recovery is getting stuck at home. The commonly expressed concern is that millennials are too burdened with student debts and poor job prospects to make it on their own. According to the narrative of generational dependency, the resurgence in multigenerational living is a trend hardly worth celebrating.
Or is it? Yes, many young college graduates have faced tough economic circumstances in recent years. But the trend toward embracing the multigenerational home began well before the Great Recession, suggesting something else is at work. A record 57 million Americans, or 18.1 percent of the population, lived in a multigenerational household in 2012, according to a Pew Research report, “In Post-Recession Era, Young Adults Drive Continuing Rise in Multi-Generational Living,” released on June 17, 2014. (You can include the First Family among the multigenerational households.) That’s up from 28 million, or 12.1 percent of the population, in 1980. Equally impressive, the return of the multigenerational household marks a striking reversal of the post-World War II decline. In 1940, 24.7 percent of the population resided in a multigenerational home, a living arrangement that bottomed in the early 1980s.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Farrell, Bloomberg
