Signed, Sealed and (Almost) Delivered: EU Council Authorizes Signing of U.S. – EU Bilateral Insurance Agreement
August 02, 2017 —
Stella Szantova Giordano - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.On July 14, 2017, the Trump administration released a statement indicating that the United States intends to sign the U.S. – EU bilateral insurance agreement. The announcement came several weeks after the Council of the European Union adopted a decision authorizing the signing of this agreement. The agreement attempts to “level the playing field for U.S. insurers and reinsurers operating in the EU.”[1] This U.S. – EU bilateral agreement is a direct response to EU’s January 2016 enactment of Solvency II. Solvency II is a legislative program implemented in all twenty-eight Member States, aimed at codifying EU insurance regulations in an attempt to protect policy holders and to incentivize risk management. We previously wrote about this comprehensive program of insurer regulatory requirements here.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Stella Szantova Giordano, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Mr. Giordano may be contacted at
ssg@sdvlaw.com
Construction Defect Specialist Joins Kansas City Firm
January 13, 2014 —
CDJ STAFFDavid Schatz, whose practice specializes in construction disputes and defects, has joined the Kansas City, Missouri firm Spencer Fane Britt & Brown LLP in their litigation practice group. Mr. Schatz’s expertise also includes banking and finance, banking litigation, commercial disputes, insurance, surety, employment, contract claims, and personal injury.
Pat Whalen, Chairman of Spencer Fane Britt & Brown, said that Schatz “brings great experience across a range of industries, but many of us in Kansas City are particularly pleased by his construction and general litigation credentials, which will fit will with the resources we’re building in those areas.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Do Engineers Owe a Duty to Third Parties?
June 10, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorA Texas Court of Appeals, in USA Walnut Creek, DST v. Terracon Consultants, Inc., recently ruled that an engineer owed a duty to the buyer of an apartment complex, even though the engineer had no contractual relationship with the buyer. This is an expansion of the duty professionals owe on construction projects and could signal a change in the law.
In the case, Walnut Creek purchased a three year old apartment complex. A few years after taking possession, Walnut Creek noticed problems with the apartments, including cracking foundations, walls, breaking windows, and out of square door frames. Walnut Creek sued the developer and general contractor, alleging construction defects. The developer claimed that the engineer, Terracon, was at fault and Walnut Creek added Terracon to the lawsuit, asserting that Terracon was negligent in performing engineering services during construction. Terracon asked the court to dismiss the claim, arguing that it did not owe a duty to Walnut Creek. Walnut Creek in turn argued that engineers do owe a duty to subsequent owners. The trial court dismissed the case against the engineer and Walnut Creek appealed.
The appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that the engineer did owe a duty to subsequent purchasers. The court seemed persuaded by the allegations that the engineer actually created the construction defects which were the basis for the litigation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
COVID-19 Response: Essential Business Operations: a High-Stakes Question Under Proliferating “Stay at Home” Orders
April 27, 2020 —
Karen C. Bennett, Katherine I. Funk & Jane C. Luxton - Lewis BrisboisAn ever-expanding number of states and local government authorities are issuing “shelter in place” or “stay at home” orders that restrict the movement of employees of non-essential businesses. These orders have prompted many businesses to question whether they qualify as “essential,” requiring employees to continue working. With substantial differences among the stay at home orders – and even potential conflicts between state and local directives – it is a matter of extreme urgency for businesses to determine whether they fall within the definition of “essential,” particularly as many of these orders include civil and criminal penalties.
Developments are unfolding very quickly, and clients we are advising are encountering law enforcement visits and threats of criminal prosecution as a consequence of decisions to stay open. As these designations are heavily fact-specific, and being revised, advance preparation and advice of counsel are essential.
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois attorneys
Karen C. Bennett,
Katherine I. Funk and
Jane C. Luxton
Ms. Bennett may be contacted at Karen.Bennett@lewisbrisbois.com
Ms. Funk may be contacted at Katherine.Funk@LewisBrisbois.com
Ms. Luxton may be contacted at Jane.Luxton@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chinese Billionaire Developer Convicted in UN Bribery Case
August 02, 2017 —
Bob Van Voris - BloombergA Chinese developer was convicted of charges he paid bribes to win backing for a United Nations conference center that he hoped to build in Macau.
A jury in Manhattan on Thursday found the developer, billionaire Ng Lap Seng, guilty of all six charges he faced, including conspiracy, bribery and money laundering, in the biggest UN corruption scandal since the oil-for-food program in the early 2000s. Prosecutors claimed Ng funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to former UN General Assembly President John Ashe and other officials.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bob Van Voris, Bloomberg
Texas Legislature Puts a Spear in Doctrine Making Contractor Warrantor of Owner Furnished Plans and Specifications
May 31, 2021 —
Paulo Flores, Timothy D. Matheny & Jackson Mabry - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The Texas Legislature has just sent Senate Bill 219 (“S.B. 219”) to the Governor for signature; if this legislation is signed by the Governor, it will further erode the Texas legal doctrine that makes the contractor the warrantor of owner-furnished plans and specifications unless the prime contract specifically places this burden on the owner.
Background
49 states follow what is known as the Spearin doctrine (named after the U.S. Supreme Court case of United States v. Spearin) in which owners warrant the accuracy and sufficiency of owner-furnished plans and specifications. Texas, on the other hand, follows the Texas Supreme Court created Lonergan doctrine, which has been an unfortunate presence in Texas construction law since 1907. In its “purest form,” as stated by the Texas Supreme Court, the Lonergan doctrine prevents a contractor from successfully asserting a claim for “breach of contract based on defective plans and specifications” unless the contract contains language that “shows an intent to shift the burden of risk to the owner.” Essentially, this then translates into the contractor warranting the sufficiency and accuracy of owner-furnished plans and specifications, unless the contract between them expressly places this burden on the owner. Over the years some Texas courts of appeal had ameliorated this harsh doctrine, but in 2012, the Texas Supreme Court indicated Lonergan was still the law in Texas, in the case of El Paso v. Mastec. In 2019, the Texas Legislature took the first step toward hopefully abrogating the Lonergan doctrine by implementing a new Chapter 473 to the Texas Transportation Code with respect to certain projects undertaken by the Texas Department of Transportation, and Texas political subdivisions acting under the authority of Chapters 284, 366, 370 or 431 of the Transportation Code, adopting, as it were, the Spearin Doctrine in these limited, transportation projects. Now, the legislature has further chipped away at the Lonergan doctrine with the passage of S.B. 219.
Reprinted courtesy of
Paulo Flores, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
Timothy D. Matheny, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Jackson Mabry, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Flores may be contacted at PFlores@Pecklaw.com
Mr. Matheny may be contacted at tmatheny@pecklaw.com
Mr. Mabry may be contacted at jmabry@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Provides Guidance on ‘Pay-When-Paid’ Provisions in Construction Subcontracts
July 13, 2020 —
Ted R. Gropman & Cindy J. Lee - ConsensusDocsOn April 17, the California Court of Appeal decided Crosno Construction, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America,1 effectively narrowing the scope of enforceable “pay-when-paid” provisions in construction subcontracts to the extent the subcontractor seeks recovery against a general contractor’s payment bond surety. Although the Crosno case involved a public works project, the rationale and holding should apply with equal force to private works projects. Basing the bulk of its decision on the Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Insurance Co.2 case, the court found that an open-ended “pay-when-paid” provision in a subcontract is not enforceable against a subcontractor that seeks to recover on a public works payment bond claim. This article discusses the Crosno decision and the implications for contractors on both sides of the contract moving forward.
Brief Case Summary
In Crosno, general contractor Clark Bros., Inc. contracted with the North Edwards Water District (the District) to build an arsenic removal water treatment plant. Clark hired steel storage tank subcontractor Crosno Construction, Inc. to build and coat two steel reservoir tanks. Clark and Crosno’s subcontract included a “pay-when-paid” provision, which stated that Clark would pay Crosno within a “reasonable time” of receiving payments from the owner, but “in no event less than the time Contractor and Subcontractor require to pursue to conclusion their legal remedies against Owner or other responsible party to obtain payment.” After Crosno completed its work, a dispute arose between Clark and the District, and the District withheld payment from Clark (including the monies earmarked for Clark’s subcontractors). Clark sued the District for payment, and Crosno filed its own action against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America, the surety on Clark’s statutory public works payment bond, for recovery of the unpaid subcontract balance. Travelers rejected Crosno’s bond claim as premature, invoking the “pay-when-paid” subcontract language and pointing to Clark’s pending payment action against the District. The issue on appeal was whether the “pay-when-paid” provision in the subcontract blocked Crosno from recovering under the payment bond from Travelers while Clark’s lawsuit against the District was still pending.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ted R. Gropman, Pepper Hamilton LLP and
Cindy J. Lee, Pepper Hamilton LLP
Mr. Gropman may be contacted at ted.gropman@troutman.com
Ms. Lee may be contacted at cindy.lee@troutman.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Court Again Defines Extent of Contractor’s Insurance Coverage
November 26, 2014 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorThe ever changing landscape of insurance coverage for contractors continues to be clarified in Texas. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals applied Texas law in Crownover v. Mid-Continent Casualty Company, concluding that contractors do have insurance coverage to cover claims that a project was not constructed in a good and workmanlike manner.
In this case, the Crownovers hired a contractor to build a house. The contract contained a warranty-to-repair clause. Shortly after construction was completed, cracks began to appear in the walls and foundation, and there were problems with the heating and air conditioning system. The Crownovers demanded that the contractor repair the problems and the contractor refused. The Crownovers brought an arbitration proceeding against the contractor and prevailed, obtaining a judgment that the contractor must pay for repairs to the foundation and HVAC system. The contractor then filed for bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court allowed the Crownovers to pursue their claim against the contractor’s insurer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
