Construction Employers Beware: New, Easier Union Representation Process
October 17, 2023 —
Natale V. DiNatale - Robinson+ColeThis week we are pleased to have a guest post by Robinson+Cole Labor Relations Group chair Natale V. DiNatale.
The NLRB has reversed decades of precedent and made it far easier for unions to represent employees, including construction employers, without a secret ballot election. Initially, it is important to understand that this new standard applies to traditional “9(a)” relationships, not prehire agreements under 8(f) of the NLRA. While both types of relationships exist in the construction industry, 9(a) relationships require support from a majority of employees, while prehire agreements do not and tend to be project specific. The NLRB’s new standard (announced in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023)) emphasizes union authorization cards that are gathered by union officials and union activists who often employ high-pressure tactics to obtain a signature. Employees often sign authorization cards without the benefit of understanding the significance of the cards. Even if they don’t want a union, they may sign because they feel pressured by a coworker, don’t want to offend a colleague, or want to avoid being bothered.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natale V. DiNatale, Robinson+ColeMr. DiNatale may be contacted at
ndinatale@rc.com
Considerations in Obtaining a Mechanic’s Lien in Maryland (Don’t try this at home)
December 21, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday at Construction Law Musings I welcome Matthew Evans. Matt is the owner of Law Offices of Matthew S. Evans, III, LLC located in Annapolis, Maryland. He has practiced construction, real estate and land use law in Maryland and D.C. for thirteen years. Prior to opening his own firm in May 2011, Mr. Evans was a partner at a mid-sized firm in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Mr. Evans lives in Historic Annapolis (only three short blocks from his office) with his wife Margaret, and three children, Matthew (5), Bo (4) and Peyton (2).
Some of the most common calls I get are from irate contractor or subcontractor clients who have not been paid demanding that I “lien the property”. Many times after calming the client down, I determine, to their dismay, that they are not entitled to a mechanic’s lien. In Maryland, the mechanic’s lien law is driven by statute, which contains specific requirements which must be met before the client is entitled to a lien.
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
Will a Notice of Non-Responsibility Prevent Enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien?
August 06, 2019 —
William L. Porter - Porter Law GroupThe “Notice of Non-Responsibility” is one of the most misunderstood and ineffectively used of all the legal tools available to property owners in California construction law. As a result, in most cases the answer to the above question is “No”, the posting and recording of a Notice of Non-Responsibility will not prevent enforcement of a California Mechanics Lien.
The mechanics lien is a tool used by a claimant who has not been paid for performing work or supplying materials to a construction project. It provides the claimant the right to encumber the property where the work was performed and thereafter sell the property in order to obtain payment for the work or materials, even though the claimant had no contract directly with the property owner. When properly used, a Notice of Non-Responsibility will render a mechanics lien unenforceable against the property where the construction work was performed. By derailing the mechanics lien the owner protects his property from a mechanics lien foreclosure sale. Unfortunately, owners often misunderstand when they can and cannot effectively use a Notice of Non-Responsibility. As a result, the Notice of Non-Responsibility is usually ineffective in protecting the owner and his property.
The rules for the use of the Notice of Non-Responsibility are found in California Civil Code section 8444. Deceptively simple, the rules essentially state that an owner “that did not contract for the work of improvement”, within 10 days after the owner first “has knowledge of the work of improvement”, may fill out the necessary legal form for a Notice of Non-Responsibility and post that form at the worksite and record it with the local County Recorder in order to prevent enforcement of a later mechanics lien on the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William L. Porter, Porter Law GroupMr. Porter may be contacted at
bporter@porterlaw.com
Buildings Don't Have To Be Bird-Killers
February 07, 2022 —
Alexandra Lange - BloombergThe narrow stretch that separates Quay Tower from a thatch of bamboo and oaks in Brooklyn Bridge Park doesn’t look like much, especially in winter. Unless you’re a bird.
To a bird, the copper-colored building’s glass is a mirror, reflecting the thick grove of trees and suggesting that the wilderness continues across the road. To a bird, that can be a deadly mistake.
“You see that reflection? To a bird that looks like a tree, that is a tree, and they will go right for the tree,” says Catherine Quayle, social media director at the Wild Bird Fund.
The surprising uptake of birding as a pandemic hobby, along with social media and data collection tools like eBird and dBird, has created new visibility for bird collisions with glass, which kill as many as 1 billion birds in the U.S. per year. At the same time, a new generation of urban parks has given birds more places to roost in highly populated areas. But something else has followed these parks as well: real estate capital. The vogue for urban parks creates more economic impetus to build shiny buildings with big windows opposite those urban wetlands, glades and groves.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alexandra Lange, Bloomberg
Montrose Language Interpreted: How Many Policies Are Implicated By A Construction Defect That Later Causes a Flood?
March 17, 2011 —
Shaun McParland BaldwinThe Court of Appeals of Indiana recently addressed the “Montrose” language added to the CGL ISO form in 2001 in the context of a construction defect claim where a fractured storm drain caused significant flooding a year after the drain was damaged. The insuring agreement requires that “bodily injury” or “property damage” be caused by an “occurrence” and that the “bodily injury” or “property damage” occur during the policy period. The Montrose language adds that the insurance applies only if, prior to the policy period, no insured knew that the “bodily injury” or “property damage” had occurred in whole or in part. Significantly, it also states that any “bodily injury“ or “property damage” which occurs during the policy period and was not, prior to the policy period known to have occurred, includes a continuation, change or resumption of that “bodily injury” or “property damage” after the end of the policy period.
In Grange Mutual Cas. Co. v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., No. 29D04-0706-PL-1112 (Ct. App. IN March 15, 2011), http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03151109ehf.pdf, Sullivan was the General Contractor for a school construction project. Its subcontractor, McCurdy, installed the storm drain pipes. One of the storm pipes was fractured in 2005 while McCurdy was doing its installation work. More than a year later, the school experienced significant water damage due to flooding. It was later discovered that the flooding was due to the fractured storm drain. Sullivan’s insurer paid $146,403 for the water damage. That insurer brought a subrogation claim against McCurdy and its two insurers: West Bend and Grange. West Bend had issued CGL coverage to McCurdy while the construction was ongoing , including the date in which the storm pipe was fractured. Grange issued CGL coverage to McCurdy at the time of the flooding. Those two carriers jointly settled the subrogation claim and then litigated which insurer actually owed coverage for the loss. Significantly, the loss that was paid included only damages from the flooding, not any damages for the cost of repairing the pipe.
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Shaun McParland Baldwin of Tressler LLP. Ms Baldwin can be contacted at sbaldwin@tresslerllp.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Unlicensed Contractor Shoots for the Stars . . . Sputters on Takeoff
September 20, 2017 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogElon Musk . . .
Eccentric engineer.
Technology billionaire.
And, now, litigation bad ass.
Frequent readers of the California Construction Law Blog know that we’ve talked about the importance of being properly licensed when doing construction work and the risks to you if you don’t.
One California contractor recently found this out the hard way.
In Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., California Court of Appeals for the Second District, Case No. B269186 (June 13, 2017), contractor Phoenix Mechanical Pipeline, Inc. (Phoenix) lost its boosters . . . err britches . . when it sued Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (Space X) due to its failure to have a California contractor’s license.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Auburn Woods Homeowners Association v. State Farm General Insurance Company
January 11, 2021 —
Michael Velladao - Lewis BrisboisIn Auburn Woods HOA v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 56 Cal.App.5th 717 (October 28,2020) (certified for partial publication), the California Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) regarding a lawsuit for breach of contract and bad faith brought by Auburn Woods Homeowners Association (“HOA”) and property manager, Frei Real Estate Services (“FRES”) against State Farm and the HOA’s broker, Frank Lewis. The parties’ dispute arose out of the tender of two different lawsuits filed against the HOA and FRES by Marva Beadle (“Beadle”). The first lawsuit was filed by Beadle as the owner of a condominium unit against the HOA and FRES for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an accounting related to amounts allegedly owed by Beadle to the HOA as association fees. The second lawsuit filed by Beadle was for the purpose of setting aside a foreclosure sale, cancelling the trustee’s deed and quieting title, and for an accounting and injunctive relief against an unlawful detainer action filed by Sutter Group, LP against Beadle. The complaint filed in the second lawsuit alleged that Allied Trustee Services caused Beadle’s property to be sold at auction and that Sutter Capital Group, LP purchased the unit and obtained a trustee’s deed upon sale. Beadle claimed the assessments against her were improper and the trustee’s deed upon sale was wrongfully executed. Beadle sought an order restoring possession of her unit and damages.
The HOA and FRES tendered both lawsuits to State Farm. As respects the first lawsuit, State Farm denied coverage of the lawsuit based on the absence of alleged “damages” covered by the policy issued to the HOA affording liability and directors and officers (“D&O”) coverages. State Farm agreed to defend the HOA under the D&O coverage in the second lawsuit. However, State Farm denied coverage of FRES in both lawsuits as it did not qualify as an insured under the State Farm policy issued to the HOA. Subsequently, the HOA and FRES filed an action against State Farm arguing that a duty to defend was triggered under its policy for the first lawsuit and a duty to defend FRES was also owed under the D&O policy for the second lawsuit. After a bench trial, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of State Farm based on the failure of the first lawsuit to allege damages covered by the State Farm policy under the liability and D&O coverages afforded by the policy. As respects the second lawsuit, the trial court held that FRES did not qualify as an insured and State Farm did not act in bad faith by refusing to pay the HOA’s alleged defense costs in the second lawsuit before it agreed to defend the HOA against such lawsuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Michael Velladao, Lewis BrisboisMr. Velladao may be contacted at
Michael.Velladao@lewisbrisbois.com
Three Recent Cases Strike Down Liquidated Damages Clauses In Settlement Agreements…A Trend Or An Aberration?
November 01, 2021 —
Adam M. Tuckman - ConsensusDocsBeginning more than one century ago, owners and contractors generally have adopted the convention of including liquidated damages in their contracts to fix potential liability for delay (and other losses) at the inception of the project. The proliferation of liquidated damages clauses in modern contracts can be attributed to economic and legal factors. From the owner’s standpoint, it may be exceedingly difficult to prove the actual cost impact of a delayed completion of the project. A properly calculated liquidated damages rate would save the owner the significant expense of quantifying its delay damages. On the contractor’s side, a reasonable amount of liquidated damages may be preferable to uncapped or unknown liability, allowing the contractor to more accurately price its bid and efficiently allocate risk.
Coinciding with, or perhaps a leading cause of, the industry’s embrace of liquidated damages provisions, was the shift in courts throughout the country from disfavoring such clauses to accepting them (within limits) as an appropriate exercise of contract rights. While some variation exists among the states, courts have generally recognized that liquidated damages clauses are a viable alternative to proof of actual loss so long as (i) actual losses were difficult to quantify, and (ii) the stipulated sum bears a reasonable relationship to the anticipated loss at the time of contracting. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 356. Conversely, a clause that penalizes the breaching party rather than serving as an estimate of probable loss is likely to be found unenforceable.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Adam M. Tuckman, Watt, Tieder, Hoffar, & Fitzgerald, LLPMr. Tuckman may be contacted at
atuckman@watttieder.com
