Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania
June 03, 2019 —
Gus Sara - The Subrogation StrategistIn Morse v. Fisher Asset Management, LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. 78, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the plaintiff’s action was stayed when the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint after sustaining the defendants’ preliminary objections seeking enforcement of an arbitration clause in the contract at issue. The Superior Court—distinguishing between a defendant who files a motion to compel arbitration and a defendant who files preliminary objections based on an arbitration clause—held that, in the latter scenario, if the defendant’s preliminary objections are sustained, the statute of limitations is not tolled. This case establishes that, in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs seeking to defeat a challenge to a lawsuit based on a purported agreement to arbitrate need to pay close attention to the type of motion the defendant files to defeat the plaintiff’s lawsuit.
In Morse, the plaintiff entered into a contract with Fisher Asset Management (Fisher) in 2008 for investment-advisor services. The contract included a provision stating that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of the agreement between the parties shall be determined by arbitration. In June 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Fisher and two of its employees in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. The defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint seeking dismissal on grounds that the contract between the plaintiff and Fisher required that the dispute be determined by arbitration. The court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not appeal the court’s ruling.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gus Sara, White and WilliamsMr. Sara may be contacted at
sarag@whiteandwilliams.com
In Oregon Construction Defect Claims, “Contract Is (Still) King”
April 25, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFWriting in Oregon’s Daily Journal of Commerce, David Anderson looks at the aftermath of the case Abraham v. T. Henry Construction, Inc. In that case, Anderson notes that “the homeowners hired a contractor to build their house, and subsequently discovered extensive water damage” “after expiration of the time to sue for breach of contract.” The homeowners claimed negligence. Oregon’s Supreme Court concluded that “homeowners only had to prove that the contractor negligently caused reasonably foreseeable harm to the homeowner’s property.”
Anderson views this decision as leading to two risks for contractors. “First, contractors can be held liable in tort for breaching building code standards; second, they can be held liable for violating the often-difficult-to-define ‘reasonable care’ standard.” But here, “contract can be king.” The Oregon Supreme Court noted that the contractor “could have avoided exposure to the general ‘reasonable care’ standard by more carefully defining its obligations in the original construction contract.”
He notes that contractors who fail to define their obligations or use generic definitions “may be exposing themselves to a more vague scope of liability.”
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
What If There Is a Design Error?
October 30, 2023 —
Scott L. Baker - Los Angeles Litigation BlogMany challenges can crop up when working on a construction project. Among these challenges, errors are the last thing that contractors or project owners want to face. Yet, they are not uncommon as you navigate the process.
Design errors or mistakes are one such issue that can result in serious construction disputes and delays. It is important to determine who is liable when it comes to defects and design errors.
So, who is responsible for design errors?
Many might assume the architect – or the person who created the project design – is responsible for design errors. That is not necessarily true.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott L. Baker, Baker & AssociatesMr. Baker may be contacted at
slb@bakerslaw.com
10 Safety Tips for General Contractors
October 09, 2018 —
Eric Weisbrot – JW Surety BondsThe construction industry continues to grow each year, paving the way for general contractors to make a profitable, sustainable living when the job is done right. However, to do so effectively, safety standards need to be met with consistency and focus on each worksite. General
contractors who are licensed and bonded must take proactive steps to avoid potentially fatal injuries among their subcontractors and employees, even though this may be easier said than done. To create and maintain a safe worksite each and every time, general contractors should consider how to implement the following best practices and safety tips on the job.
1 – Know the Risks
The most crucial step toward maintaining a safe construction site is to first be aware of the risks involved. Each year, thousands of
construction workers experience injuries on the job, and some ultimately lose their life because of safety missteps at work. As a general contractor, it is your responsibility to know that construction risks run rampant given the nature of the work. Being tuned into the potential for falls, slips, and other common safety-related incidents is a necessary part of operating a safe worksite for you and your employees.
2 – Require Protective Gear
An often overlooked safety precaution on construction sites is the use of up-to-date and well-maintained protective gear. For many subcontractors and employees, it is easy to skip this necessary step in safeguarding themselves from potential safety issues. However, general contractors can take steps to make protective gear a requirement on the job. This may include mandating hardhats and steel-toed shoes, gloves, and eyewear when appropriate. All visitors and workers on a construction site should follow protective gear instructions to avoid unnecessary safety risks.
3 – Educate on Ladder Safety
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, ladder injuries account for a significant number of construction worker incidents each year, making up more than 200,000 accidents on average. Ladders have continuously ranked high on OSHA’s list of violations at construction sites because the prevalence of injuries is so high. General contractors can help thwart ladder-related injuries among workers by promoting ladder safety training, including reminders about the right ladder to use for each task. Workers should also be well aware of the importance of inspection before use, and they should always follow the three points of contact rule when going up or down a ladder.
4 – Recognize Equipment Pitfalls
Many construction workers experience injuries relating to equipment used on the job. This could be tied to getting on or off equipment, or loading and unloading materials from machinery. In any case, general contractors can encourage simple tactics to improve equipment safety measures. Paying close attention to secure footing while getting on or off a machine, having more than one person assist with loading and unloading, and ensuring everyone feels comfortable asking for help with these tasks reduces safety risks.
5 – Document Potential Hazards
A general contractor’s main responsibility is to manage the construction site efficiently from start to finish. Part of this duty is recognizing the possible issues on a worksite that may lead to accidents or injuries if not addressed at the beginning of a project. It is necessary to take the time to identify safety risks such as unstable working surfaces, dangerous trenches, or weather-related concerns that may impact the safety of subcontractors, suppliers, or other site visitors. Potential hazards should be documented and shared with site workers, and they should be updated as the project progresses.
6 – Maintain Equipment and Tools
Poorly maintained equipment and tools also cause issues on construction sites. The Infrastructure Health and Safety Association suggests that general contractors
remind workers to inspect tools, machines, handheld equipment, and vehicles before each use to ensure they are properly maintained. Additionally, understanding the maintenance standards for certain tools or equipment and following those guidelines is crucial to reducing injury on the job.
7 – Minimize Crowds
Crowded work areas can be a serious safety issue for general contractors, subcontractors, and vendors and suppliers on site. It is common for crowds to gather during the use of heavy equipment or when a significant task is being completed. However, general contractors should discourage crowd-forming for spectating purposes. This can be done by limiting the number of people allowed to be in an area when certain activities are taking place, and enforcing these rules at every possible opportunity.
8 – Hire Licensed Subcontractors
General contractors may have full- or part-time employees as part of their business model, or there may be a heavy presence of subcontractors not directly tied to the main business. In either case, it is essential to have faith in the capabilities of workers, including their willingness and commitment to follow safety standards. General contractors can help ensure each worker is more likely to take safety seriously when they hire licensed contractors who follow through with
licensing requirements as mandated by the state or city.
9 – Focus on Training
Even after vetting subcontractors and employees based on their licensing status, general contractors also need to ensure training and education are a priority. Several online and in-person courses focus on construction safety training which workers should be encouraged to attend. Safety
education programs from OSHA and other reputable sources are crucial to decreasing accidents on the job.
10 – Be Present
Finally, general contractors can only have an impact on the safety of the job site when they are purposefully present. It is common for some GCs to stop by a project when they are needed or to check on progress periodically. However, new safety hazards, lacking worker training, and other risks are not easily fixed when the general contractor is not consistently on site. Reducing the potential for falls, slips, trips, and fatalities on the job requires communication with workers, and that takes place most effectively when general contractors are in person.
Eric Weisbrot is the Chief Marketing Officer of JW Surety Bonds. With years of experience in the surety industry under several different roles within the company, he is also a contributing author to the surety bond blog.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Domtar Update
June 11, 2014 —
Robert M. Caplan – White and Williams LLPOn May 29, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur—i.e., the permission to appeal—in the controversial subrogation case, Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Domtar Paper Co., 77 A.3d 1282 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013). In its order granting the relief to Liberty Mutual, a workers’ compensation insurer, the Supreme Court set forth the narrow issue to be decided on appeal: “Does Section 319 of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 671, allow the employer/insurer to step into the shoes of the insured employee to subrogate against the tortfeasor?”
In Domtar, Liberty Mutual was caused to incur approximately $35,000 in compensation benefits which it paid on behalf of George Lawrence, an employee of Liberty Mutual’s insured, for injuries he sustained in a work-related accident. Mr. Lawrence chose not to file an independent personal injury lawsuit. As a result, in order to recover its lien interests, Liberty Mutual sued the third parties responsible for causing Mr. Lawrence’s work-related injuries directly, having become subrogated to the rights of Mr. Lawrence by virtue of Liberty Mutual’s workers’ compensation expenditure on his behalf.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Robert M. Caplan, White and Williams LLPMr. Caplan may be contacted at
caplanr@whiteandwilliams.com
UCF Sues Architects and Contractors Over Stadium Construction Defects
October 19, 2017 —
David Suggs – Bert L. Howe & Associates, Inc.The University of Central Florida (UCF) filed suit over alleged construction defects of their 45,000-seat arena including the claim of “premature wear of the steel,” spokesman Chad Binette stated, according to the Orlando Sentinel.
Bid documents suggest that rust may be an issue. UCF recently sought contractors for “Stadium Emergency Rust Repairs.” The Orlando Sentinel reported that the university stated “the word ‘emergency’ reflects deadlines for the football season instead of safety concerns.” Other documents also claimed ongoing rust remediation.
The UCF stadium had earned the nickname “Bounce House” from the arena “subtly swaying as fans jumped together to the song ‘Kernkraft 400’ by Zombie Nation. UCF spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2008 stiffening the underpinnings of the stadium by bolting additional steel to about 160 beams,” according to the Orlando Sentinel. Officials claim that the stadium was never unsafe.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Design Immunity Does Not Shield Public Entity From Claim That it Failed to Warn of a Dangerous Condition
May 17, 2021 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogReaders of this blog are familiar with the concept of the design immunity defense.
Codified at Government Code section 830.6, it provides in pertinent that a public entity is not liable for an injury caused by a plan or design of a public improvement where the plan or design has been “approved in advance . . . by the legislative body of the public entity or by some other body or employee exercising discretionary authority to give such approval or where such plan or design is prepared in conformity with standards previously so approved” if the trial or appellate court finds that there “is any substantial evidence upon the basis of which (a) a reasonable public employee could have adopted the plan or design or the standards therefor or (b) a reasonable legislative body or other body or employee could have approved the plan or design or the standards therefor.”
In the next case, Tansavatdi v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Case No. B293670 (January 29, 2021), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether the design immunity defense also serves as a defense to a claim that a public entity has a duty to warn of a dangerous condition on public property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
California Supreme Court Finds that the Notice-Prejudice Rule Applicable to Insurance is a Fundamental Public Policy of the State
October 14, 2019 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co. (No. S239510, filed 8/29/19), the California Supreme Court held that California’s notice-prejudice rule is a fundamental public policy in the insurance context, supporting the application of California law under a choice of laws analysis. In addition, the Court held that the rule generally applies to consent (aka “no voluntary payments”) provisions in first party insurance policies but not to consent provisions in third party liability policies.
Pitzer College discovered soils contamination while building a new dormitory. Under pressure to complete construction before the start of the school year, Pitzer proceeded to remediate the soils, incurring $2 million in expense. Pitzer submitted a claim to Indian Harbor, which provided Pitzer insurance covering legal and remediation expenses resulting from pollution conditions discovered during the policy period.
The policy contained a notice provision requiring Pitzer to provide oral or written notice of any pollution condition to Indian Harbor and, in the event of oral notice, to “furnish … a written report as soon as practicable.” In addition, a consent provision required Pitzer to obtain Indian Harbor’s written consent before incurring expenses, making payments, assuming obligations, and/or commencing remediation due to a pollution condition. The consent provision had an emergency exception for costs incurred “on an emergency basis where any delay … would cause injury to persons or damage to property or increase significantly the cost of responding to any [pollution condition],” in which case Pitzer was required to notify Indian Harbor “immediately thereafter.” Lastly, a choice of law provision stated that New York law governed all matters arising under the policy.
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 decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
