Construction Defect Not an Occurrence in Ohio
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Supreme Court has concluded that claims of defective construction or workmanship are not an occurrence under a general liability policy. The court looked at appellate decisions and concluded that CGL policies are not intended to insure against risks under the control and management of the insured. These risks should instead be mitigated with performance bonds.
The question was raised in the case Westfield Ins. Co. v. Custom Agri Systems, Inc. The Sixth District Court of Ohio concluded it was an “open question under Ohio law whether a CGL policy covers defective construction claims.” Westfield filed a motion, granted by the Sixth Circuit, to certify the question to the state Supreme Court. The Sixth Court additionally found that the contractual liability exclusion barred coverage in the case, issues a summary judgment to Westfield.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lawsuits over Roof Dropped
December 04, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFAn Iowa roofing contractor has dropped its lawsuit over a contract to re-roof a condominium complex. The condominium association has dropped its counterclaim against the roofer. Hansel Construction alleged that the Harbourage Owners Association failed to fulfill the contract’s provisions, which prevented Hansel Construction from fulfilling its contract. Further, Hansel alleged that it had expenses, losses, and damages, as a result of Harbourage’s actions.
In response, Harbourage sued James Hansel. Now, both lawsuits have been dismissed by the parties.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Smart Contracts Poised to Impact the Future of Construction
November 12, 2019 —
Frederick D. Cruz and Seth Wamelink - Construction ExecutiveIn August 2018, the State of Ohio passed legislation making it easier for businesses in Ohio, including the construction industry, to use blockchain technology in business transactions, which can result in significant savings and increased efficiency if used correctly. Specifically, Senate Bill 220 amends the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (Ohio Rev. Code. 1306.01, et seq.) and ensures that records (or signatures) secured through blockchain are legally binding. With the enactment of this bill, Ohio has joined several other states to allow their businesses to take advantage of this budding technology. While the implications of this enactment are widespread, the use of “smart contracts” utilizing blockchain technology is particularly helpful in the construction industry to streamline certain processes and increase efficiency.
What is Blockchain?
While blockchain technology is most commonly associated with cryptocurrency (e.g., Bitcoin), the technology has far greater applications as it can be used to “eliminate the middle-man” in a variety of transactions across a broad spectrum of industries. At its core, blockchain is a decentralized ledger that allows transacting parties to interact directly (i.e., peer-to-peer) in a secure manner. Essentially, the blockchain “ledger” is where users record transactions. These transactions are then verified, viewed, and shared with others in the network. The information is stored across a peer network and allows for approved users to view the data simultaneously. It is often analogized to using GoogleDocs, where multiple people can access and edit the same document simultaneously. While that is an easy comparison, blockchain itself is a bit more complex.
Reprinted courtesy of
Frederick D. Cruz & Seth Wamelink, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Cruz may be contacted at frederick.cruz@tuckerellis.com
Mr. Wamelink may be contacted at seth.wamelink@tuckerellis.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Professional Services Exclusion Bars Coverage Where Ordinary Negligence is Inseparably Intertwined With Professional Service
August 17, 2017 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Energy Ins. Mutual Ltd. v. Ace American Ins. Co. (No. A140656, filed 7/11/17, ord. Pub. 8/10/17), a California appeals court found that a professional services exclusion barred coverage for wrongful death and other claims blamed on pipeline inspectors’ failure to identify and properly mark a gas pipeline that was ruptured during construction of another pipeline, resulting in an explosion and fire.
In Energy Ins. Mutual, a pipeline owner hired two temporary construction inspectors through a staffing company. The inspectors had to ensure compliance with engineering and safety standards, practices and procedures for pipeline construction, and understand construction drawings and blueprints. They worked together with one of the owner’s employees to perform daily surveillance to ensure the integrity of the pipeline and avoid third party damage.
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Are “Green” Building Designations and Certifications Truly Necessary?
January 28, 2019 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsAs anyone who reads this construction blog on a regular basis knows, I believe that the move to newer sustainable building practices (while bringing about a new or different set of potential risks) is both necessary and laudable. Because of this fact, you may be asking why the headline for today’s post. After all, I am a LEED AP and assisted in the drafting of the LEED/Green Building addendum to the ConsensusDOCS so I must be pro LEED (or any other) certification of buildings. To the extent that such certification encourages best practices and more sustainable building stock, I am pro certification.
However, certification is not a necessary carrot to bring builders around to such practices. As a recent article in EcoHome Magazine (thanks to Todd Hawkins at BuilderFish for alerting me to the article) points out, companies are already moving toward these practices with or without certification and it’s added layer of expense. Economic, air quality, and moral (“its the right thing to do”) factors are pushing executives to such practices. According to EcoHome Magazine, while LEED retains the lions share of green certifications, more and more companies are either using internal standards or trying out other certification programs, including Energy Star.
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
Fargo Shows Record Home Building
October 01, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFHome builders in the area of Fargo, North Dakota are describing growth in the area as “enormous.” Darrick Guthmiller, the president of the Home Builders Association of Fargo-Moorhead noted that in sixteen years of building homes, this was the best he’d seen. The Home Builders Association expects that next year might even be better.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Amazon Can be Liable in Louisiana
August 05, 2024 —
Michael J. Ciamaichelo - The Subrogation StrategistIn June 2024, the Supreme Court of Louisiana held that: (1) Amazon can be considered a “seller” of defective products sold by third parties on its website; and (2) Amazon can be liable under a theory of negligent undertaking for third-party products. In Pickard v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2023-CQ-01596, 2024 La. LEXIS 1112, a Louisiana man, Archie Pickard, died from burns sustained in a house fire allegedly caused by a defective battery charger purchased on Amazon from a third-party seller located in China. Mr. Pickard’s family filed a lawsuit against Amazon in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana alleging claims under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA) and for negligent undertaking. Amazon filed a motion for summary judgment, which prompted the federal court to certify questions to the Supreme Court of Louisiana regarding these two claims.
Amazon Can be a “Seller” Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act
Amazon does not neatly fit within the definition of “seller” under the LPLA because the LPLA was drafted in 1988, before the internet existed. The LPLA defines a “seller” as a person or entity (who is not the manufacturer) who conveys title or possession of the product to another for something of value. La R.S. 9.2800.53(s) (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” because it conveyed “possession” of the charger to Mr. Pickard through the “Fulfillment by Amazon” (FBA) program, which provides storage, delivery, customer service, and returns of third-party products sold on Amazon. Most products on Amazon are sold by third parties, rather than Amazon. Many third-party sellers are small or medium-size companies, and some are individuals seeking to make supplemental income. Amazon offers the FBA program to handle storage and logistics to third-party sellers. When a product is sold through the FBA program, the seller sends the product to Amazon’s warehouses, where it is stored until it is purchased. When an FBA-product is purchased, Amazon collects payment, delivers the product (often in an Amazon van), and handles the potential return of the product. The Supreme Court of Louisiana determined that Amazon was a “seller” of the battery charger even though Amazon did not pass title to Mr. Pickard because: (1) Amazon had physical custody of the charger while stored in the warehouse; and (2) Amazon controlled the transaction and logistics through its FBA program.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael J. Ciamaichelo, White and WilliamsMr. Ciamaichelo may be contacted at
ciamaichelom@whiteandwilliams.com
Contractor Liable for Soils Settlement in Construction Defect Suit
February 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on January 9 in Burrow v. JTL Dev. Corp., a construction defect case in which houses suffered damage due to improperly compacted soil, upholding the decision of the lower court.
Turf Construction entered into a deal with JTL to develop a parcel they acquired. A third firm, Griffin Homes, withdrew from the agreement “when a geotechnical and soils engineering firm reported significant problems with soil stability on 14 of the lots.” Turf Construction then took over compacting and grading the lots. Turf “had never compacted or graded a residential tract before.” Robert Taylor, the owner of Turf, “testified he knew there was a significant problem with unstable soils.”
After homes were built, the plaintiffs bought homes on the site. Shortly thereafter, the homes suffered damage from soil settlement “and the damage progressively worsened.” They separately filed complaints which the court consolidated.
During trial, the plaintiff’s expert said that there had been an inch and a half in both homes and three to five inches in the backyard and pool areas. “He also testified that there would be four to eight inches of future settlement in the next fifteen to twenty years.” The expert for Turf and JTL “testified that soil consolidation was complete and there would be no further settlement.”
Turf and JTL objected to projections made by the plaintiffs’ soil expert, William LaChappelle. Further, they called into question whether it was permissible for him to rely on work by a non-testifying expert, Mark Russell. The court upheld this noting that LaChappelle “said that they arrived at the opinion together, through a cycle of ‘back and forth’ and peer review, and that the opinion that the soil would settle four to eight inches in fifteen to twenty years was his own.”
Turf and JTL contended that the court relied on speculative damage. The appeals court disagreed, stating that the lower court based its award “on evidence of reasonably certain damage.”
Turf also that it was not strictly liable, since it did not own or sell the properties. The court wrote that they “disagree because Turf’s grading activities rendered it strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.” The court concluded that “Turf is strictly liable as a manufacturer of the lots.”
Judge Coffee upheld the decision of the lower court with Judges Yegan and Perren concurring.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
