Is Safety Compliance Putting Your Project in Jeopardy? Examining the Essentials of DOE’s Worker Safety and Health Program
July 02, 2024 —
Lucas T. Daniels & Benjamin J. Hochberg - ConsensusDocsMost contractors are familiar with the myriad of labor and safety regulations intended to safeguard the health and safety of workers. Many contractors will be equally familiar with the maze of forms and reports, the maintenance of safety personnel, safety walks and talks, and the many other measures intended to prevent and prepare for accidents. Less known among contractors and construction industry leaders is the regulatory framework establishing safety requirements and the ramifications of ignoring safety-related rules. Knowing and understanding the jurisdiction and authority of the agencies monitoring safety compliance on your project is critical to avoiding administrative ordeals and audits that could add days or weeks to your schedule and frustrate your staff.
The Department of Energy’s Worker Safety and Health Program
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (OSH), the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issues and enforces occupational health and safety regulations. OSHA, or a state with approval from OSHA, regulates the occupational health and safety of private sector employees unless another federal agency has and exercises its statutory authority to regulate. Several federal agencies have developed their own safety programs and conduct their own enforcement of those regulations independent of OSHA. For example, projects receiving funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) are subject to additional oversight of their safety programs by this agency. DOE directly manages its own Worker Safety and Health Program (WSHP), codified at 10 C.F.R. § 851, et seq., and will enforce compliance with its WSHP at all DOE sites. A “DOE site” is defined as a DOE-owned or -leased area or location or other area or location that DOE controls, where a contractor performs activities and operations in furtherance of a DOE mission. This broad definition encompasses a wide range of facilities and operations, including those not directly managed by the DOE but still under its control. The contractor at such a site must be aware of the specific requirements and procedures of the DOE under the WSHP and the ramifications of violating these regulations.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lucas T. Daniels, Peckar & Abramson, P.C and
Benjamin J. Hochberg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C
Mr. Daniels may be contacted at ldaniels@pecklaw.com
Mr. Hochberg may be contacted at bhochberg@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Policy Sublimit Does Not Apply to Business Interruption Loss
December 02, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiRefusing to give the sublimit in a flood policy an expansive reading, the court found that the sublimit did not apply to business interruption loss. Federal-Mogul Corp. v. Ins. Co. of Pa., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137394 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 8, 2015).
The insured's facility in Thailand was damaged by flood. The parties stipulated that the insured suffered a loss of $64,500,000, which included $39,406,467 in property damage and $25,093,533 in time element loss (i.e., economic loss due to an inability to operate normally). The insurer paid $30 million, stating that the High Hazard flood zone provision in the policy limited the amount owed under the policy.
The insured argued the High Hazard sublimit applied only to physical loss or damage caused by the flood, and not to time element loss. Therefore, the insured was entitled to judgment on its time element loss claim for $29,093,533. The insurer argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the High Hazard sublimit applied to all loss caused by flood, including time element loss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Job is Substantially Complete, the Subcontract was Never Signed, the Subcontractor Wants to be Paid—Now What?
July 28, 2016 —
John P. Ahlers – Ahlers & Cressman PLLCA recent case in North Carolina illustrates the types of problems created when a general contractor accepts a subcontractor’s bid and then allows the subcontractor to perform the work without obtaining a signed subcontract.[i] In this case, the general contractor (Choate Construction Company – “Choate”) accepted a bid from a foundation subcontractor (Southeast Caissons, LLC – “SEC”). Choate sent the subcontract to SEC. SEC provided its changes in a “Proposed Addendum” to the subcontract stating, “[SEC] hereby accepts the terms of the attached Subcontract, subject to and conditioned upon Choate[’s] acceptance of the terms set forth in this Addendum[.]” After that, Choate called SEC and exchanged emails concerning the subcontract terms, but did not reach an agreement. SEC then performed its subcontract and sought payment, and acknowledged it had not signed the subcontract. Choate agreed it owed SEC something, but refused to pay because SEC did not have a signed subcontract, asserting the subcontract was not binding on Choate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
John P. Ahlers, Ahlers & Cressman PLLCMr. Ahlers may be contacted at
jahlers@ac-lawyers.com
Lucky No. 7: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Pro-Policyholder Decision Regarding Additional Insured Coverage for Upstream Parties
November 02, 2020 —
Daniela Aguila - Saxe Doernberger & VitaIn Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Columbia Ins. Group, Inc,1 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a subcontractor’s insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify the project owner’s insurer for damages associated with the subcontractor's employee's personal injury lawsuit where the underlying complaint alleged negligence by the additional insureds. The case cements the notion that under Illinois law, one can significantly benefit from the facts presented in third party complaints as a basis for additional insured coverage.
Rockwell Properties (“Rockwell”) was the project owner, along with Prairie Management & Development (“Prairie”), the general contractor, on a construction project in Chicago. Prairie subcontracted HVAC services to TDH Mechanical (“TDH”). When an employee of TDH Mechanical sustained serious injuries performing work at a construction site, a suit was lodged against Rockwell and Prairie in state court. The lawsuit did not bring any claims against TDH but instead alleged that both Rockwell and Prairie had negligently failed to supervise the subcontractors’ work on-site, thus contributing to the worker’s injuries.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniela Aguila, Saxe Doernberger & VitaMs. Aguila may be contacted at
dag@sdvlaw.com
What if the "Your Work" Exclusion is Inapplicable? ISO Classification and Construction Defect Claims.
February 14, 2023 —
David Humphreys - Carson Law Group, PLLCThis article was first published by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) on their NAHBNow blog
One of the risks faced by a residential builder is that, following completion of construction, the homeowner may assert a claim against the builder for damage to the home caused by an alleged construction defect. One of the ways a builder manages the risk of such construction defect claims is by purchasing commercial general liability (“CGL”) insurance.
A builder’s CGL policy covers those sums the builder is legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage caused by an “occurrence,” that is, damage that is accidental rather than being expected or intended by the builder, so long as the claim does not fall within any of the policy’s several “exclusions” from coverage.
When faced with a construction defect lawsuit, our builder clients are often surprised—and dismayed—when their CGL insurer denies coverage and refuses to defend the builder. However, builders shouldn’t take their insurer’s denial of coverage at face value. This article discusses a new argument we recently discovered that has been a game-changer for our builder clients who were denied coverage in construction defect cases.
Whether coverage exists always depends on the specific language of the particular CGL policy, and courts generally construe exclusions against insurers. This allows experienced coverage attorneys to, at times, successfully challenge declinations of coverage and, at a minimum, convince insurers to pay for the builder’s defense.
A typical CGL policy provides products-completed operations coverage, which is sought by businesses that face potential liability arising out of the products that they have sold or operations that they have completed. Products-completed operations coverage allows builders to obtain many years of coverage for a completed project. Over the years, insurers have added to their policies modifications and exclusions that limit their exposure for claims that fall under that coverage.
Exclusion (l) or the “your work” exclusion, will often exclude coverage for a latent defect claim against the builder. A standard “your work” exclusion provides:
This insurance does not apply to: . . . “[p]roperty damage” to “your work” arising out of it or any part of it and included in the “products-completed operations hazard.”
This “your work” and similar exclusions are designed to limit coverage for business risks that are within the contractor’s own control; e.g., a claim that the contractor caused damage to the contractor’s own work. These exclusions apply both to ongoing and completed projects, which can leave a builder unprotected from lawsuits for years after a project is completed.
However, builders who are classified on the declarations page with Code 91580 Contractors— Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents, may not be subject to the “your work” exclusion. 91580 is a common classification assigned to builders during insurance underwriting. This classification falls into what is referred to as “dagger class” or “plus sign class,” which indicates that Products and/or Completed Operations coverage is
included as part of and not separate from the Premises/Operations coverage (emphasis added).
It has been noted that dagger” and “plus sign” classifications create confusion because of the seeming contradiction between policy wording and coverage rules.* The CGL policy seems to expressly exclude products and/or completed operations losses for “dagger” or “plus sign” classes. In the definitions section we find the following:
“Products-completed operations hazard”: . . .b. Does not Include “bodily Injury” or “property damage” arising out of:. . . (3) Products or operations for which the classification, listed In the Declarations or in a policy schedule, states that products- completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit.”
This apparent exclusionary language, however, must be read in conjunction with the Insurance Services Office’s (ISO) Rule 25.F.1.:
Rule 25. CLASSIFICATIONS
F. Symbols
1. Plus Sign
A plus sign when shown in the Premium Base column under General Liability insurance in the Classification Table - means that coverage for Products and/or Completed Operations is included in the Premises/Operations coverage at no additional premium charge. When this situation applies, the classification described in the policy schedule or Declarations must state that:
“Products-completed operations are subject to the General Aggregate Limit” to provide Products and/or Completed Operations coverage(s).
When read together then, the exclusionary wording in the policy definition removes any product or operation loss subject to the “dagger” or “plus sign” classification from the definition of Products Completed Operations Hazard. Under the dagger or plus sign classification of Rule 25, coverage for products and/or operations is included in the premises operations coverage. Consequently, a loss can no longer be defined as a product completed loss, and as a result it is no longer subject to the “your work” exclusion.
Recall that the standard “your work” exclusion quoted above excludes coverage for “property damage” to “your work” “arising out of it or any part of it
and included in the “products-completed operations hazard”.” Here, we emphasize “and” because the “your work” exclusion applies only to property damage that is also included in the “products-completed operations hazard.” Since property damage claims arising under “plus sign” classifications are expressly excluded from the “products-completed operations hazard” (they are included in the premises/operations coverage) the “your work” exclusion simply does not apply. This means that, if your CGL insurer denies your construction defect claim based on the “your work” exclusion, do what the title of this article suggests: Check your ISO classification! If 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents” is listed on your Declarations page, you may be in luck.
This new ISO classification-based coverage argument will likely also apply to other exclusions and endorsements that CGL insurers routinely rely on in denying coverage in construction defect cases. We recently successfully challenged a coverage denial based on the following “prior work” exclusionary endorsement:
”This insurance does not apply to ‘your products’ or ‘your work’ completed prior to” a certain date listed in the endorsement. . .
“Specifically, this insurance does not apply to. . . “property damage”. . . included in the ‘products-completed operations hazard’ and arising out of. . . ‘your work’ performed by or on behalf of you prior to the date shown above.”
Again, this endorsement incorporates the “products-completed operations hazard,” which allowed us to successfully argue that the exclusion was inapplicable to a builder classified as a 91580 “Executive Supervisor or Executive Superintendent.”
To our knowledge, this new ISO classification-based coverage argument has not yet been addressed by a court. Our recent successes with it have concluded with favorable settlements for our clients. Accordingly, for now, the ISO classification-based argument is a powerful new tool to challenge denials of coverage in construction defect cases where the builder is classified under 91580 “Executive Supervisors or Executive Superintendents.”
David Humphreys is a Partner at Carson Law Group, PLLC, and has been representing construction contractors, subcontractors, and owners for more than two decades in Mississippi and throughout the Southeast.
*See “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean, Chris Boggs - Virtual University | “Dagger” or Plus Symbol Classes: What They Mean) (independentagent.com)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sales of New U.S. Homes Rose More Than Forecast to End 2014
January 28, 2015 —
Bloomberg News(Bloomberg) -- Purchases of new homes in the U.S. jumped in December to the highest level in more than six years, a sign the industry is poised to keep expanding in 2015.
Sales increased 11.6 percent to a 481,000 annualized pace, exceeding all estimates in a Bloomberg survey of economists and the most since June 2008, figures from the Commerce Department showed Tuesday in Washington. Demand increased in three of four regions.
Gains in employment, borrowing costs close to historically low levels and easing credit may prompt more prospective buyers to enter the housing market. The improving outlook is driving up confidence among builders, and companies such as D.R. Horton Inc. and Lennar Corp. project the recovery will be sustained.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg News
Saved By The Statute: The Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Bar Claims Under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
May 10, 2021 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Earl v. NVR, Inc., No. 20-2109, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 6451, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) considered whether, under Pennsylvania law, the plaintiff’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) claims against the builder of her home were barred by the economic loss doctrine. The UTPCPL is a Pennsylvania statute that prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201-3. The Third Circuit previously addressed the impact of the economic loss doctrine on UTPCPL claims in Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002). In Werwinski, the court held that the plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine. The Court of Appeals overturned its decision in Werwinski and held that the economic loss doctrine does not bar UTPCPL claims since such claims are statutory, and not based in tort.
In Earl, the plaintiff, Lisa Earl, entered into an agreement with defendant NVR, Inc. (NVR) for the construction and sale of a home in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Earl learned of the home through NVR’s marketing, which described the home as containing “quality architecture, timeless design, and beautiful finishes.” Ms. Earl alleged that during the construction of the home, she had further discussions with agents of NVR, who made representations that the home would be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and that any deficiencies noted by Ms. Earl would be remedied. The defendant also assured Ms. Earl that the home would be constructed in accordance with relevant building codes and industry standards. After moving into the home, Ms. Earl discovered several material defects in the construction. She provided notice of these defects to NVR, but NVR’s attempts to repair some of the defects were inadequate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
Hartford Stadium Controversy Still Unresolved
September 22, 2016 —
Scott Van Voorhis - Engineering News-RecordThe Hartford Yard Goats and the city of Hartford, Conn., say Arch Insurance—the surety for the dual developer/prime contractor of the minor-league baseball team’s new, unfinished stadium—has committed to helping complete the project now that the team and its developer have acrimoniously split.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Van Voorhis, Engineering News-RecordENR may be contacted at
enr.com@bnpmedia.com
