Supreme Court Addresses Newly Amended Statute of Repose for Construction Claims
June 26, 2023 —
David R. Cook Jr. - Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPWe have been following the protracted legal battle concerning
Southern States Chemical, Inc. v. Tampa Tank & Welding, Inc. This case had been litigated at the Supreme Court and resulted in legislation. In the latest round, the Supreme Court answered whether Georgia’s statute of repose for construction claims applies to claims arising or brought before the statute was amendment in 2020.
What is a Georgia’s statute of repose? Under the statute, “[n]o action to recover damages: (1) For any deficiency in the survey or plat, planning, design, specifications, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property; (2) For injury to property, real or personal, arising out of any such deficiency; or (3) For injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such deficiency shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the survey or plat, design, planning, supervision or observation of construction, or construction of such an improvement more than eight years after substantial completion of such an improvement.”
The case began ten years ago when Southern States suited Tampa Tank and Corrosion Control for alleged defects in renovating a 24-foot tall, 130-foot wide storage tank. The tank renovation was completed in 2002, and in 2011, the tank was found to leak sulfuric acid.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David R. Cook Jr., Autry, Hall & Cook, LLPMr. Cook may be contacted at
cook@ahclaw.com
When is Forum Selection in a Construction Contract Enforceable?
September 29, 2021 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsIf there is one mantra that is repeated often here at Construction Law Musings, it is that your construction contract will be strictly construed and Virginia Courts will enforce the provisions as written. This rule includes forum selection clauses. For those that aren’t attorneys, this means that absent a statute to the contrary, the parties can pick the location of any litigation or arbitration by contract. However, the timing of signing that contract makes a difference as a relatively recent Eastern District of Virginia case points out.
Marathon Res. Mgmt Grp v. C. Cornell, Inc. examined what happens when work is performed by one party to the contract prior to the execution of the written contract that contains the forum selection provision. In this case, the defendant C. Cornell, Inc. obtained a default judgment in Texas for non-payment by Marathon for painting and cleaning of rooms at Texas A & M University for work invoiced on August 22, 2017, and September 11, 2017. Upon receipt of the garnishment from the Texas Court, Marathon sued C. Cornell in Virginia state court and the defendant removed the case to federal court. Marathon alleged two separate breaches of contract, the first was that C. Cornell violated the forum selection clause of a Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) executed on September 23, 2017. The second was a violation of another clause of the MSA that barred direct communication with any of Marathon’s customers. The second breach was alleged to be by virtue of the garnishment summons to one of Marathon’s customers.
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
New Home Permits Surge in Wisconsin
October 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFSeptember saw a 42% increase in the number of permits issued to build new homes in the metro areas of Wisconsin. MTD Marketing Services of Wisconsin described it as “another good month as starts continue to increase across the state.” In September 2012, 266 permits were issued, while September 2013 saw that increase to 378.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Texas Federal Court Delivers Another Big Win for Policyholders on CGL Coverage for Construction-Defect Claims and “Rip-and-Tear” Damages
March 14, 2022 —
Blake A. Dillion, Jared De Jong & Scott S. Thomas - Payne & FearsInsurers regularly argue that commercial general liability (“CGL”) policies are not performance bonds and therefore there is no coverage for claims seeking damages for defective or faulty workmanship. Insurers also argue there is no coverage for so-called “tear-out” or “rip-and-tear” damages, where fixing property damage requires replacing defective work that has not itself been damaged. Fortunately, in a newly decided case, a Texas federal district court rejected both arguments by an insurer. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. McMillin Texas Homes, LLC, No. SA-20-CV-01332-XR, 2022 WL 686727 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2022).
As with most construction-defect claims, this case involved homeowner claims against a residential developer, McMillin Texas Homes (“McMillin”). After the homes were completed, homeowners complained about defects in the artificial stucco exterior finish and filed suit. McMillin tendered to its insurer, Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (“Amerisure”). Amerisure then sued McMillin for declaratory relief, arguing that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the homeowner claims. McMillin filed a counterclaim alleging Amerisure breached its policies by refusing to defend or indemnify McMillin.
Reprinted courtesy of
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears,
Jared De Jong, Payne & Fears and
Scott S. Thomas, Payne & Fears
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com
Mr. De Jong may be contacted at jdj@paynefears.com
Mr. Thomas may be contacted at sst@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Employee Screening and Testing in the Covid-19 Era: Getting Back to Work
August 10, 2020 —
Aaron C. Schlesinger & Shannon D. Azzaro - Peckar & AbramsonCurrently Available Workplace Protocols for Employers
Employers seeking to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the workplace should consider from among the three currently available protocols: Written Questionnaires; Temperature Checks; and Viral or Diagnostic Testing.
When implementing a screening or testing protocol, employers should explain the following in writing to employees: (1) the specific screening process or test utilized by the employer; (2) employee compliance expectations and any consequences for a refusal to participate; (3) how employee privacy will be protected; (4) if screening, the general benchmarks that indicate the employee has “passed” (e.g., temperature below 100.4ºF, per CDC guidelines); and (5) the outcome of an unsuccessful screen or test (e.g., being sent home from the workplace). Employers must also ensure that those administering the screening and/or testing are properly trained, and that appropriate written acknowledgements are obtained from employees consenting to the applicable protocol.
Reprinted courtesy of
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson and
Shannon D. Azzaro, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Ms. Azzaro may be contacted at sazzaro@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis Obtain Affirmation of Final Summary Judgment
February 28, 2022 —
C. Ryan Jones & Scot E. Samis - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partners Ryan Jones and Scot Samis recently obtained affirmation of final summary judgment in favor of a windstorm and general insurance provider (“Insurer”) in the Florida First District Court of Appeal. The Appellant, a restoration service provider (“Restoration Service”), provided emergency mitigation services in the wake of hurricane damage to a residential home that was covered by an insurance policy issued by the Insurer. The Restoration Service invoiced the Insurer and, following an investigation, the Insurer paid a portion of the invoiced amount and invoked the policy’s appraisal clause to resolve the dispute over the difference. The Restoration Service brought suit against the Insurer, arguing that the appraisal process did not apply to mitigation services. The Insurer countered that it was entitled to resolve the claim by appraisal and, following arguments, the Court determined that the appraisal provision applied to mitigation services.
Reprinted courtesy of
C. Ryan Jones, Traub Lieberman and
Scot E. Samis, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Jones may be contacted at rjones@tlsslaw.com
Mr. Samis may be contacted at ssamis@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Summary Judgment in Favor of General Contractor Under Privette Doctrine Overturned: Lessons Learned
March 27, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt seems like we’ve been seeing a lot of Privette doctrine cases recently. Here’s another,
Brown v. Beach House Design & Development, 85 Cal.App.5th 516 (2002), which provides a cautionary tale for general contractors to watch what they include in their scope of work and how they manage projects.
The Beach House Case
Kyle Brown was a carpenter employed by subcontractor O’Rourke Construction, Inc. who contracted with general contractor Beach House Design and Development to provide finish carpentry on a construction project. A&D Plastering Co., another subcontractor on the project, had erected scaffolding on the project.
On June 16, 2017, while using A&D’s scaffolding, Brown fell onto a concrete walkway where he suffered severe injuries. Following the accident, Beach House and A&D inspected the scaffolding and found that some of the scaffolding was not properly secured to the building and that planks, crossbars, ties and guardrails had been cut or were missing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Partner Jonathan R. Harwood Obtained Summary Judgment in a Case Involving a Wedding Guest Injured in a Fall
December 30, 2019 —
Jonathan R. Harwood - Traub Lieberman PerspectivesOn September 30, 2019, Traub Lieberman partner Jonathan Harwood obtained summary judgment in an action involving a guest injured in a fall at a wedding. Traub Lieberman’s client owned the property where the fall occurred. Plaintiff fell while exiting a row of seats after the bridal party had recessed down the aisle. Plaintiff claimed that she tripped over the raised side of a paper runner that had been placed in the aisle at the property. Plaintiff brought an action against Traub Lieberman’s client (the owner of the building) and the florist that had provided the runner. The owner had provided the bridal party with access to the property but did not assist in the set up for the wedding or have any employees present during the ceremony. The florist had supplied the runner for the wedding. The florist commenced a third-party action against the bride, whose wedding party had actually placed the runner in the aisle. Plaintiff asserted that the runner had become bunched and crumpled during the ceremony, creating a dangerous condition. She further asserted that the owner was responsible for her injuries since the dangerous condition existed on its property and it should have an employee present to insure no dangerous conditions existed.
During the course of discovery, Mr. Harwood established that no one representing the owner was present during the wedding, had any involvement in the placement of the runner or had received any complaints about the runner. In support of the motion for summary judgment Mr. Harwood introduced pictures showing, in conjunction with deposition testimony, that there were no problems with the runner minutes before plaintiff’s fall. Mr. Harwood also argued that the alleged defect did not involve the property itself, absolving the owner of any obligation to plaintiff. In granting the motion for summary judgment, the court held that evidence and testimony showed that the owner neither created the condition nor had actual or constructive notice that any dangerous condition existed. The court also held that there the owner did not have any duty to have a representative present during the wedding since the property itself was not dangerous or defective. Finally, the court held that the condition of the runner was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan R. Harwood, Traub LiebermanMr. Harwood may be contacted at
jharwood@tlsslaw.com
