Connecticut Court Clarifies a Limit on Payment Bond Claims for Public Projects
May 15, 2023 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneIn All Seasons Landscaping, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co., No. DBD-CV21-6039074-S, 2022 WL 1135703 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 4, 2022) the plaintiff, a subcontractor on a state project, commenced a lawsuit against the surety who issued a payment bond on the project two years after the subcontractor last performed any original contract work on the project. The defendant surety moved to dismiss the action based on the one-year statute of limitation in Connecticut General Statute § 49-42. The plaintiff countered that it complied with that deadline because it also performed warranty inspection work after the contract was completed and within the limitation period in section 49-42. The issue of whether warranty work or minor corrective work can extend the limitations period in section 49-42 had not previously been addressed by a Connecticut court.
Section 49-42(b) governs the limitation period on payment bond claims on public projects. It provides in relevant part that “no … suit may be commenced after the expiration of one year after the last date that materials were supplied or any work was performed by the claimant.” Section 49-42 provides no guidance on what “materials were supplied or any work was performed” by the claimant means, nor is there any direct appellate-level authority in Connecticut on this issue. What is clear under well-established law in Connecticut is that the time limit within which suit on a payment bond must be commenced under Section 49-42 is not only a statute of limitation but a jurisdictional requirement establishing a condition precedent to maintenance of the action and such limit is strictly enforced. If a plaintiff cannot prove its suit was initiated within this time constraint, the matter will be dismissed by the court as untimely.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Planes, Trains and Prevailing Wages. Ok, No Planes, But Trains and Prevailing Wages Yes
October 25, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogThe California Supreme Court doesn’t often delve into construction-related issues, but this year we’ve got two cases, both related to the payment of prevailing wages on California public works projects.
The first, Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1118 which we discussed in our last blog post, concerned whether mobilization work qualifies as a “public work” and in turn requires the payment of prevailing wages. On the same day that the Supreme Court issued its decision in Mendoza, it issued a decision in Busker v. Wabtec Corporation, et al. , Case No. S251135 (August 16, 2021). This is the equivalent of being struck by lightning twice.
In Busker, the California Supreme Court considered whether on a public transportation project “field work” (e.g., building and outfitting radio towers on land adjacent to train tracks) and “onboard work” (e.g., installing electronic components on train cars and locomotives”) requires the payment of prevailing wage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Reinsurer's Obligation to Provide Coverage Determined Under English Law
July 24, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe Second Circuit turned to English law to determine the obligations of the reinsurer. Ins. Co. of the State of Pa. v. Equitas Ins. Ltd., 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 12461 (2nd Cir. May 22, 2023).
Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSOP) provided an umbrella policy to a predecessor of Dole Food Company for a policy period from October 1968 to October er 1971. Equitas then reinsured part of ICSOP's exposure for the same three-year period. English law governed the reinsurance policy.
In 2009, homeowners in Carson, California sued Dole for polluting their soil and groundwater. Dole and ICSOP settled these claims and allocated $20 million of the settlement liability to the ICSOP-Dole policy, even thought the homeowners' property damage and personal injuries continued to accrue after the ICSOP-Dole policy period ended. In doing so, the settlement followed The California law for allocation, known as the "all sums rule." This rule treated any insurer whose policy was in effect during any portion of the time during which the continuing harm occurred as jointly and severally liability for all property damages or personal injuries caused by a pollutant.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Differing Site Conditions: What to Expect from the Court When You Encounter the Unexpected
September 05, 2022 —
Margarita Kutsin - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight[
1]Seattle Tunnel Partners (“STP”), a joint venture of Dragados USA and Tutor Perini, entered into a $1.4 billion contract with the Washington State Department of Transportation (“WSDOT”) to replace the Highway 99 viaduct. In December 2013, a tunnel boring machine (“TBM”) bearing the moniker “Bertha,” then the largest TBM ever built, measuring 425 feet long and 57 feet in diameter, struck an underground pipe. Shortly after the impact, Bertha overheated and eventually could no longer make forward progress. A massive repair effort ensued causing a 2.5-year delay in reaching substantial completion.
WSDOT sued STP for the delay, seeking liquidated damages of $57 million. In response, STP argued its delay was excusable because it was caused by Bertha’s impact with the pipe, and the steel well casing was a Differing Site Condition (DSC) undisclosed in the contract documents. STP asserted counterclaims against WSDOT, alleging breach of contract and seeking $300 million in damages. Ultimately, a jury found that the steel well casing on the pipe was not a DSC, foreclosing STP’s excusable delay defense and counterclaims, and resulting in a $57 million verdict, plus interest, in favor of WSDOT.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Margarita Kutsin, Ahlers Cressman & SleightMs. Kutsin may be contacted at
margarita.kutsin@acslawyers.com
Not Everything is a Pollutant: A Summary of Recent Cases Supporting a Common Sense and Narrow Interpretation of the CGL's Pollution Exclusion
October 26, 2020 —
Philip B. Wilusz & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & VitaThose of us who suffered through law school are familiar with the argument that there are fundamental rules applicable to contract interpretation and that a certain contract language interpretation would “swallow the rule.” However, insurance companies have long advocated for an interpretation of the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion that would “swallow the coverage” that the insureds thought they were purchasing. Insurers have successfully argued in several states that the pollution exclusion’s definition of “pollutant” should be read literally, and be applied to any “solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals, and waste.” As anyone with children can attest to, the range of items and substances that can be considered an “irritant” is limitless. The logical extent of the insurer’s interpretation brings to mind the high school student who, for his science fair project, convinced his fellow students to ban “dihydrogen monoxide.”1 Citing evidence such as the fact that everyone who has ever died was found to have consumed “dihydrogen monoxide,” he convinced them of the dangers of . . . water. Similarly, an overly expansive reading of the definition of “pollutant” could lead to the absurd result of even applying it to ubiquitous harmless substances such as water. The pollution exclusion, therefore, has run amok in many states and has allowed insurers to avoid liability for otherwise covered claims.
Fortunately, insureds in many states have successfully argued that the pollution exclusion is subject to a more limited interpretation based on several different theories. For example, some courts have agreed that the pollution exclusion, as initially introduced by the insurance industry, should be limited to instances of traditional environmental pollution. Others have held that the exclusion is ambiguous as to its interpretation. The reasonable expectations of the insureds do not support a broad reading of the defined term “pollutant.” Below, this article addresses a number of recent decisions that have adopted a pro policyholder interpretation of the pollution exclusion. As with most insurance coverage issues, choice of law clearly matters.
Reprinted courtesy of
Philip B. Wilusz, Saxe Doernberger & Vita and
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita
Mr. Wilusz may be contacted at pbw@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Vita may be contacted at jjv@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reminder: The Devil is in the Mechanic’s Lien Details
February 16, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsAs readers of Construction Law Musings are well aware, mechanic’s liens and their picky and at times overly form oriented nature are near and dear to my heart as a construction attorney here in Virginia. I recently had the opportunity to meet this head on in Hanover County, Virginia Circuit Court. I was defending a suit to enforce a mechanic’s lien in the context of a lien that had been released pursuant to a bond deposited with the court under Va. Code 43-71 on behalf of my client, the defendant in that suit.
The case, G.H. Watts Construction, Inc. v. Cornerstone Builders, LLC, involved a memorandum of lien recorded by G. H. Watts without the assistance of an attorney in which the claimant was identified as “G. H. Watts Construction, Inc.” while the signatory on the memorandum of lien and the claimant identified in the notary block were identified as “Gary H. Watts” and “Gary Watts” respectively. Nowhere on the memorandum was Gary Watts’ capacity as it related to the company, nor did it state that Gary Watts was an agent for claimant.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Insuring Lease/Leaseback Projects
August 19, 2024 —
David G. Jordan & Jeffrey J. Vita - Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Overview
Several states utilize a unique statutory mechanism to allow school districts to finance the construction of public-school facilities. This arrangement (known as a “lease-leaseback agreement”) allows a school district to lease property to a contractor/developer, who then constructs or renovates a school facility on the property. Once the work is completed, the contractor/developer leases the school building back to the school district. The school district then makes lease payments over time, often many years, which can be structured in various ways to spread out the cost of construction. The arrangement typically requires a site lease for the land leased to the contractor/developer, a facilities lease for the lease-back of the school building to the school district and a traditional construction agreement. In some ways, the arrangement resembles a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) whereby a public entity collaborates with a private entity for the purpose of financing and delivering a project traditionally provided solely by the public sector.
Reprinted courtesy of
David G. Jordan, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. and
Jeffrey J. Vita, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
Mr. Jordan may be contacted at DJordan@sdvlaw.com
Mr. Vita may be contacted at JVita@sdvlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Macron Visits Notre Dame 2 Years After Devastating Fire
April 26, 2021 —
The Associated Press (Thomas Adamson & Jeffrey Schaeffer) - BloombergParis (AP) -- Two years after a fire tore through Paris’ most famous cathedral and shocked the world, French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday visited the building site that Notre Dame has become to show that French heritage has not been forgotten despite the pandemic.
Flanked by ministers, architects and the retired French army general who is overseeing the restoration of the 12th-century monument, Macron viewed the progress of the ambitious rebuilding project. He offered the pandemic-weary French public hope that a completion date will arrive one day, if not in the near future.
“We're seeing here how, in two years, a huge job has been accomplished,” Macron said, recalling the “emotion” throughout France at the images of flames devouring Notre Dame on April 15, 2019. “We also see what remains to be done.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
