FAIRFIELD CONNECTICUT BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

OSHA’s Multi-Employer Citation Policy: What Employers on Construction Sites Need to Know

September 09, 2019 — Phillip C. Bauknight - Construction Executive
Multi-employer worksites are a frequent occurrence in the construction industry as employees from various companies often occupy the same site while a project is being completed. While the need for employees from different companies may be necessary to perform the various tasks required by a project, the presence of multiple employers, and their employees, on the same worksite can result in an increased risk of safety hazards. Companies performing construction work should be, and generally are, aware of OSHA’s ability to issue citations for workplace safety violations. What many companies may not know, however, is that OSHA’s ability to cite employers is not limited to workplace conditions that are unsafe only to that employer’s direct employees. Rather, OSHA also has the ability to cite an employer, and often does issue such citations, for conditions that could result in injury or death to another company’s employees. The policy which provides OSHA with this citation ability is CPL 02-00-124 and is called the Multi-Employer Citation Policy (the “Policy”). Under the language of the Policy, OSHA has the ability to cite multiple employers for violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act for the same hazardous workplace condition. Critically, responsibilities under the Policy do not depend on the employer’s job title but are determined by the employer’s role. Reprinted courtesy of Phillip C. Bauknight, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of
Mr. Bauknight may be contacted at pbauknight@fisherphillips.com

---

Not All Design-Build Projects are Created Equal

June 28, 2021 — Nicole Markowitz & Richard Robinson - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
As the need for faster and more efficient construction increases, design-build agreements are growing in popularity. Design-build projects may account for 44% of nonresidential building in the United States this year. However, contractors who venture into a “design builder” role may unexpectedly become liable for design errors/omissions that are not covered by their insurance policies. In turn, they may expose themselves to liability and insurance risks that are neither insured nor managed. In this article, we’ll discuss how the contractor who becomes a design-builder, or performs design-related work through subcontractors, faces potentially unmanaged risk. We will also explore indemnity, warranty, and insurance traps by paying attention to contract language in both traditional design-build and design-assist scenarios. Reprinted courtesy of Nicole Markowitz, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Richard Robinson, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Ms. Markowitz may be contacted at nmarkowitz@pecklaw.com Mr. Robinson may be contacted at rrobinson@pecklaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Elon Musk's Boring Co. Is Feuding With Texas Over a Driveway

July 25, 2022 — Sarah McBride - Bloomberg
While Elon Musk is publicly making a big deal about moving to Texas and cozying up to the governor, behind the scenes his tunnel-building venture, Boring Co., is wrangling with local authorities in the state over a host of seemingly mundane permitting issues. Since Boring bought land last May to create a research and development center in Bastrop, Texas, a rural area outside Austin, the company has put workers up on mobile homes at the site without authorized sewage facilities, failed to get air and stormwater permits and built a driveway without first getting official approval, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News through a public records request. The company’s dealings with Bastrop are yet another illustration of how Musk’s businesses often push the boundaries of or simply ignore regulations that bind other companies. In recent years his Tesla Inc. restarted production at its Fremont plant in defiance of pandemic rules to stay closed, Boring tried to build a tunnel in Los Angeles without going through an environmental review process and the US Securities and Exchange Commission is examining the disclosure of Musk’s stake in Twitter Inc. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Sarah McBride, Bloomberg

---

Second Circuit Affirms Win for General Contractor on No Damages for Delay Provision

September 02, 2024 — Bill Wilson - Construction Law Zone
In NASDI, LLC v. Skanska Koch Inc. Kiewit Infrastructure Co. (JV), 2024 WL 1270188 (2d Cir. Mar. 26, 2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing a subcontractor’s delay claim against a general contractor on a public project in New York state. The Court enforced a typical no-damages-for-delay provision to bar the subcontractor’s breach of contract claim. The no-damages-for-delay provision in the subcontract at issue provided:

NO DAMAGE FOR DELAY. Except as otherwise provided …, Subcontractor agrees that it shall have no Claim against Contractor for any loss or damage it may sustain through delay, disruption, suspension, stoppage, interference, interruption, compression, or acceleration of Subcontractor’s Work (‘Delay Damages’) caused or directed by Contractor for any reason, and that all such Claims shall be fully compensated for by Contractor’s granting Subcontractor such time extensions as it is entitled to as a result of any of the foregoing.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com

---

Hawaii Court of Appeals Remands Bad Faith Claim Against Title Insurer

January 14, 2015 — Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law Hawaii
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacated the trial court's issuance of summary judgment to the title insurer on a bad faith claim and remanded the case. Anastasi v. Fidelity Nat. Title Ins. Co., 2014 Haw. App. LEXIS 585 (Haw. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2014). Fidelity issued a title insurance policy to Anastasi insuring that Alajos Nagy had good title to the property. The policy insured Anastasi against loss in the event a mortgage on the property executed by Nagy was not enforceable. Anastasi had loaned $2.4 million to Nagy and Nagy had executed the mortgage in favor of Anastasi as security for the loan. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law Hawaii
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

---

Making the Construction Industry a Safer place for Women

February 22, 2018 — Laura Parsons - CDJ STAFF
Women make up 47 percent of the total U.S. workforce yet they only hold approximately 9 percent of construction jobs nationwide. Because of this minority, women endure health and safety issues that men usually don’t, according to Safety.BLR.com’s article “OSHA renews alliance to protect women in construction.” The main areas that women face problems in the construction industry are healthy, safety and workplace culture. Women are potentially exposed to sexual harassment, demeaning remarks, and bodily assaults. Most of personal protective equipment (PPE) and tools are made for the typical male body to use and operate and are too heavy or oversized for many women. The National Association of Women in Construction (NAWIC) partnered with OSHA in 2013 and just renewed their alliance aiming to improve upon workplace intimidation and violence as well as sanitation and PPE. The partnership is committed “to providing NAWIC members and others with information, guidance, and access to training resources that will help them protect the health and safety of workers, and understand the rights of workers and the responsibilities of employers under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act).” This will be achieved by the implementation of national rules, laws, and standards as well as the circulation of preventative information. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Is A Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound by A Default or Default Judgment Against Its Principal?

February 08, 2021 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Maguire-O’Hara Construction, Inc. v. Cool Roofing Systems, Inc., 2020 WL 6532852 (W.D. Oklahoma 2020) is an interesting case dealing with suretyship law and the subject of whether a Miller Act payment bond surety is bound by a default or default judgment against its prime contractor (bond principal). In this case, a subcontractor sued a prime contractor for breach of contract and the contractor’s Miller Act payment bond surety for a breach of the payment bond. The prime contractor did not respond to the lawsuit and the subcontractor obtained a default against the contractor. The Miller Act payment bond surety did engage counsel to defend itself in the dispute. Prior to trial, the subcontractor moved in limine to preclude the surety from raising defenses at trial under the subcontract because a default was entered against the prime contractor. The subcontractor argued that the surety should be bound by the default and, therefore, precluded from raising liability defenses under the subcontract. Such a ruling would leave the surety no defenses disputing liability at trial.

[A] suretys’ liability under the Miller Act coincides with that of the general contractor, its principal. Accordingly, a surety [can] plead any defenses available to its principal but [can]not make a defense that could not be made by its principal. Maguire-O’Hara Construction, supra, at *2 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Appraisers’ Failure to Perform Assessment of Property’s Existence or Damage is Reversible Error

July 30, 2015 — Christopher Kendrick and Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Lee v. California Capital Insurance Co. (No. A136280; filed 6/18/15), a California Court of Appeal held that it was error for an appraisal panel to assign loss values to items simply because they were listed in the insured’s scope of loss, and regardless of whether inspection revealed they were undamaged or never existed. California Capital insured a twelve unit apartment building owned by Ms. Lee in Oakland, California. When a fire damaged one unit, the insurer prepared an estimate of $69,255 and paid an undisputed amount of $46,755, which was the amount of the estimate less depreciation and the deductible. But Ms. Lee claimed that six of the units had been damaged, and she retained a public adjuster who submitted a claim exceeding $800,000. This included cleaning, asbestos abatement, reconstruction of the affected apartments, and loss of rent. She claimed burn damage to one unit and smoke damage requiring complete replacement of all the interior rooms of five apartments, along with removal of a portion of the stucco exterior and iron balcony railings and repainting of the entire building. 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 decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---