Cold Stress Safety and Protection
February 27, 2023 —
The Hartford Staff - The Hartford InsightsThe best time to think about cold stress safety isn’t when it’s about to snow – it’s actually when it’s still warm out.
“Construction firms and other businesses may start to think about protecting workers against the cold when frigid temperatures and the winter are right around the corner. But we’ve found that oftentimes, that may be too late to start thinking about cold stress prevention,” said Chris O’Hala, director of construction Risk Engineering at The Hartford. “Thinking about cold protection months ahead can prevent serious injuries, illnesses or even death.”
O’Hala added that possible solutions for cold-related risks, like planning for temporary heat or building temporary enclosures, “require very specific planning, equipment and materials.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Hartford Staff, The Hartford Insights
April Rise in Construction Spending Not That Much
June 28, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFApril saw an increase in construction spending that didn’t even break a half of a percent with just a 0.4% increase, although that’s better than March’s slight decrease of 0.8%, Both government and residential construction spending dropped, although government spending dropped only 1.2% and residential a miniscule 0.1%. This was slightly more than offset by the modest 2.2% increase in residential spending.
Although the April gains were modest, they come after the first year to increase after five years of decline.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Connecticut Civil Engineers Give the State's Infrastructure a "C" Grade
October 10, 2022 —
The American Society of Civil EngineersWATERBURY, CT. — The Connecticut Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) released the 2022 Report Card for Connecticut's Infrastructure today, with five categories of infrastructure receiving an overall grade of a 'C'. That means Connecticut's infrastructure is in mediocre condition, an improvement over the 'C-' grade issued in the 2018 report card. The bump is thanks in large part to improved condition of assets across several categories and additional funding allocated for roads, bridges and rail. Connecticut is also set to receive more than $5 billion from the federal bipartisan infrastructure bill, which was passed in late 2021. However, these improvements are threatened by Connecticut's aging infrastructure – one of the oldest infrastructure networks in the U.S. – and the recent suspension of the state's already-insufficient gas tax. Civil engineers graded bridges (C), drinking water (C), rail (B), roads (D+), and wastewater (C-).
"This Infrastructure Report Card shows that while Connecticut has made great progress, much more needs to be done to rebuild our state's roads and bridges and deliver essential services like clean drinking water," said U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal. "President Biden's historic Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is expected to invest more than $5 billion in Connecticut's infrastructure and create thousands of good paying jobs for the workforce. These federal funds, along with critically increased job training resources, will help address the challenges outlined in the Report Card. I thank the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers for their commitment to designing and building our infrastructure, as well as all of the workers who innovate and advance the systems and structures we rely on every day."
To view the report card and all five categories, visit https://infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/connecticut/.
ABOUT THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
Founded in 1852, the American Society of Civil Engineers represents more than 150,000 civil engineers worldwide and is America's oldest national engineering society. ASCE works to raise awareness of the need to maintain and modernize the nation's infrastructure using sustainable and resilient practices, advocates for increasing and optimizing investment in infrastructure, and improve engineering knowledge and competency. For more information, visit www.asce.org or www.infrastructurereportcard.org and follow us on Twitter, @ASCETweets and @ASCEGovRel.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York’s Highest Court Weighs in on N.Y. Labor Law
September 23, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneN.Y. Labor Law § 241(6) requires owners and contractors to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed at or lawfully frequenting a construction site. If a worker is injured on a construction site and establishes a violation of a specific and applicable Industrial Code regulation, both the owner and contractor will be held vicariously liable for the worker’s injury, without regard to their fault and even in the absence of control or supervision of the worksite. The Court of Appeals of New York recently addressed the broad scope of the Labor Law in the context of slipping hazards.
In Bazdaric v. Almah Partners, LLC, 41 N.Y.3d 310 (2024), the plaintiff, an injured painter, slipped and fell on a plastic covering placed over an escalator in an area he was assigned to paint. The plaintiff claimed that the plastic covering was a foreign substance for purposes of Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) because it was not part of the escalator. Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d) states:
Slipping hazards. Employers shall not suffer or permit any employee to use a floor, passageway, walkway, scaffold, platform or other elevated working surface which is in a slippery condition. Ice, snow, water, grease and any other foreign substance which may cause slippery footing shall be removed, sanded or covered to provide safe footing.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLPMr. Wilson may be contacted at
wwilson@rc.com
Building a Case: Document Management for Construction Litigation
October 07, 2019 —
Robert A. Gallagher, Jane Fox Lehman, & Michael I. Frankel, Pepper Hamilton LLP - ConsensusDocsSuccess in construction litigation often turns less on counsel’s ability to craft legal arguments and more on counsel’s ability to gather, master and present the often complex set of facts underlying the case. In construction matters, most of the key facts are found in documents: contract documents, drawings, plans and specifications, schedules, submittals, progress reports, daily logs, change orders, invoices and payment records. Nowadays, these documents will almost certainly be created, exchanged and stored electronically; many will never exist in hard copy. As such, timely collection, organization and analysis of electronically stored information (ESI) is crucially important in construction litigation.
The construction industry has always involved a large quantity of records. Today, the majority of those records exist only as ESI: Design professionals use computer-aided design (CAD) software to create construction plans. Construction managers use Primavera or similar software to create schedules and workflows. Estimators use job cost control programs. Innovative firms capture digital photos of the project, from mobilization through the punch process.
Because ESI is created and exchanged at a higher rate than hard-copy documents, ESI has facilitated a dramatic increase in the volume of records associated with construction projects. Further compounding the increase is the proliferation of mobile devices. With a smartphone in every pocket, ESI creation has moved out of the home office and the site trailer and onto the site itself. As the volume of ESI expands, so too does the time and expense associated with storing, processing, reviewing and producing these records. This article will cover strategies for balancing time and expense with the requirements of the rules and the needs of the case.
Reprinted courtesy of Pepper Hamilton LLP attorneys
Robert A. Gallagher,
Jane Fox Lehman and
Michael I. Frankel
Mr. Gallagher may be contacted at gallagherr@pepperlaw.com
Ms. Lehman may be contacted at lehmanj@pepperlaw.com
Mr. Frankel may be contacted at frankelm@pepperlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ninth Circuit Rules Supreme Court’s Two-Part Test of Implied Certification under the False Claims Act Mandatory
May 13, 2019 —
Meredith Thielbahr - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogFor those contractors in the government arena, read on.
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) was enacted to deter knowingly fraudulent actions by contractors which resulted in a loss of property to the Government. Intent to defraud with resulting financial hardship was required. Contrary to popular misconception, the statute was not designed to punish all false submissions to the Government simply because those submissions, or claims, are later found to be false. The statute’s inclusion of the requisite element of knowledge is consistent with this notion:
- A defendant must submit a claim for payment to the Government;
- the claim must be false or fraudulent;
- the defendant must have known the claim was fraudulent when it was submitted (also known as scienter); and
- the claim must have caused the Government to pay out money.
See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a).
Despite these explicit elements (in addition to common law elements of fraud), over the last two decades, contractors have seen ever-expanding theories of FCA recovery presented by qui tam plaintiffs and the Government. For example, under the FCA, the false “claim” evolved over time: the claim no longer needs to be an express false claim (i.e. the truthfulness of the claim is a direct condition of payment); the claim can be “implied” misrepresentation or “half-truth”.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Meredith Thielbahr, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Thielbahr may be contacted at
mthielbahr@grsm.com
You Cannot Always Contract Your Way Out of a Problem (The Case for Dispute Resolution in Mega and Large Complex Construction Projects)
September 16, 2024 —
Lisa D. Love - The Dispute ResolverMost experienced commercial transaction and construction attorneys strive to negotiate a concisely written and well-drafted contract that addresses all scenarios and issues that creative and highly contemplative professionals can conjure. Although contracts are extremely important in construction projects, “you can’t generally contract your way out of a problem,” states Michael Loulakis, a founder of Capital Project Strategies, LLC and a nationally recognized expert on project delivery systems in complex public sector design-build projects and public-private partnership programs. Loulakis adds, “the contract certainly matters. But particularly when the losses are big, litigators prosecuting the contractors often find effective ways to argue that facts and circumstances trump the contract.” However, “the difference between the best construction projects and the worst construction projects is not the written words of the contracts but how the parties have committed to engage collaboratively and with trust to complete the project,” notes Robynn Thaxton, an attorney and consultant with Thaxton Parkinson PLLC and Progressive Design-Build Consulting, LLC and one of the leading experts in construction law and alternative procurement on a national basis.[i]
In large, complex construction projects, the need for parties to collaboratively resolve disputes is highlighted by the judicial acceptance of the “Doctrine of the Contextual Contract”[ii] to interpret construction contracts. “As construction’s increasing technological and managerial complexity came to be recognized, some common law courts began turning away from strict interpretation of language within the four corners of a contract and moving toward recognizing in the enforcement of contracts the construction industry’s own experience, customs, practices and implied conditions and duties and the factual context underlying the contract. Courts [began the journey] along the road from ‘text’ to ‘context.’”[iii] Thus, the precise wording of the contract has become less important and industry practices and other conditions provide insight for resolving disputes. Consequently, despite the specific language of any construction contract and the clear allocation of responsibilities and risks, early dispute evaluation and resolution are critical to a successful project.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lisa D. Love, JAMS
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, Finds Wrap-Up Exclusion Does Not Bar Coverage of Additional Insureds
February 18, 2020 —
Callie E. Waers - Florida Construction Law NewsThe United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, recently took a close look at the application of a “controlled insurance program exclusion” (wrap-up exclusion) to additional insureds on a commercial general liability policy. In Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 886 F.3d 366 (4th Cir. 2018), the Fourth Circuit examined the interplay of an enrolled party’s additional insured status on an unenrolled party’s commercial general liability (“CGL”) policy with a wrap-up exclusion. The court applied North Carolina law and found that pursuant to the policy’s own language, the exclusion only applied to the original named insured, not the additional insureds.
The case arose out of an injury incurred by an employee of a second-tier subcontractor during the construction of a hospital. On this particular project, the owner maintained a “rolling owner controlled insurance program” (wrap-up insurance program) in which all tiers of contractors were required to enroll, but enrollment was not automatic. The general contractor was enrolled in the owner’s wrap-up policy, but neither the steel manufacturer subcontractor nor its sub-subcontractor, the steel installation company, were enrolled. The underlying plaintiff was injured while he was an employee of the steel installation company, but he did not name his employer in his personal injury lawsuit.
The Cont’l Cas. Co. case was instituted by Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) after it defended and settled the underlying plaintiff’s claims against its insured and additional insured, the steel manufacturer and general contractor, respectively. Continental sought to be reimbursed for the $1.7 million settlement and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred for the defense and indemnity of the underlying lawsuit.
Continental alleged that Amerisure Insurance Company (“Amerisure”) breached its duty to defend and Amerisure’s policy provided the primary coverage for both the general contractor and steel manufacturer, who were additional insureds on the Amerisure policy. Amerisure denied a duty to defend the additional insureds based on the presence of the wrap-up exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ryan M. Charlson, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Mr. Charlson may be contacted at
Ryan.Charlson@csklegal.com
