Industrialized Construction News 7/2022
August 15, 2022 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe
AEC Business newsletter’s Industrialized Construction edition in July featured the following news stories:
The Pros and Cons of Offsite Construction – A French Research Study
The study is titled The current use of industrialized construction techniques in France: Benefits, limits and future expectations. The authors are Emna Attouri, Zoubeir Lafhaj, Laure Ducoulombierb and Bruno Linéatte.
Read more
Rise of the machines? For Construction, Not Yet
Matthew Thibault’s article examines the opportunities and challenges of construction robotics. Robots can improve safety and productivity, but the ROI is still unclear to many contractors.
Read more Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Prospective Additional Insureds May Be Obligated to Arbitrate Coverage Disputes
September 07, 2020 —
Danielle S. Ward - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesThe Court of Appeal closed out 2019 by ruling that an additional insured can be bound to the arbitration clause in a policy when a coverage dispute arises between that additional insured and the carrier. (Philadelphia Indemnity Ins. Co. v. SMG Holdings, Inc. (2019) 44 Cal. App. 5th 834, 837.)
In 2009, Future Farmers of America (“Future Farmers”) entered into a license agreement with SMG Holdings Incorporated (“SMG”) to use the Fresno Convention Center. As part of the agreement, Future Farmers was required to secure comprehensive general liability (“CGL”) coverage and name SMG and the City of Fresno as additional insureds (“AI”) on its policies.
Future Farmers purchased a general liability policy from Plaintiff Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company (“Philadelphia”). Neither SMG nor the City of Fresno were added as AIs, but the policy contained a “deluxe endorsement” which extended coverage to lessors of premises for “liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the premises leased or rented” to the named insured. The policy also contained an endorsement that extended coverage where required by a written contract for liability due to the negligence of the named insured. Philadelphia’s policy also stated that if the insurance company and insured “do not agree whether coverage is provided . . . for a claim made against the insured, then either party may make a written demand for arbitration.”
A patron to Future Farmer’s event at the Fresno Convention Center was seriously injured after he tripped over a pothole in the parking lot and hit his head. He sued both Fresno and SMG. In turn, Fresno and SMG tendered their defense to Philadelphia. Philadelphia denied coverage finding that the incident did not arise out of Future Farmer’s negligence, and that SMG had the sole responsibility for maintaining the parking lot. Consequently, Philadelphia concluded that neither Fresno nor SMG qualified “as an additional insured under the policy” for the injury in the parking lot.
The coverage dispute continued, and in 2016, Philadelphia issued a demand for arbitration which was rejected by SMG. Philadelphia then petitioned the state court to compel arbitration arguing that SMG could not avoid the burdens of the policy while seeking to obtain policy benefits. SMG used Philadelphia’s conclusion that it did not qualify as an AI under the policy to argue that Philadelphia was “estopped from demanding arbitration”. In other words, SMG argued that it could not be held to the burdens of the policy without being provided with the benefits of the policy.
The trial court sided with SMG finding that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties. The court noted that while third party beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitration there was no evidence that applied here, and Philadelphia could not maintain its inconsistent positions on the policy as its respects SMG.
Disagreeing with the trial court, the Court of Appeal concluded that SMG was a third-party beneficiary of the policy. The AI obligations in the license agreement and the deluxe endorsement in the Philadelphia policy collectively establish an intended beneficiary status. The Court saw SMG’s tender to Philadelphia as an acknowledgement of that status.
Relatedly, the Court found that SMG’s tender to Philadelphia – its demand for policy benefits – equitably estopped them from avoiding the burdens of the policy. The Court stated it defied logic to require a named insured to arbitrate coverage disputes but free an unnamed insured demanding policy coverage from the same requirement. Conversely, the Court found no inconsistency in Philadelphia’s denial of coverage to SMG and its subsequent demand for arbitration. Philadelphia did not outright reject SMG’s status as a potential insured, but rather concluded that there was no coverage because the injury occurred in the parking lot. In other words, the coverage determination turned on the circumstances of the injury not SMG’s status under the policy.
In short, the Court concluded that the potential insured takes the good with the bad. If one seeks to claim coverage as an additional insured, they can be subject to the restrictions of the policy including arbitration clauses even if they did not purchase the policy.
Securing additional insurance has become increasingly more difficult and limited over the years, and this holding presents yet another hurdle to attaining AI coverage. For those seeking coverage, it is important to note that the Court’s ruling may have turned out differently had the carrier outright denied SMG’s AI status, rather than concluding that the injury was not covered.
Your insurance scenario may vary from the case discussed above. Please contact legal counsel before making any decisions. BPH’s attorneys can be reached via email to answer your questions.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Danielle S. Ward, Balestreri Potocki & HolmesMs. Ward may be contacted at
dward@bph-law.com
Third Circuit Follows Pennsylvania Law - Damage Caused by Faulty Workmanship Does Not Arise from an Occurrence
May 10, 2013 —
Tred EyerlyThe Third Circuit followed Pennsylvania law in determining that damage caused by faulty workmanship did not arise from an occurrence. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. R. M. Shoemaker Co., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6093 (3d Cir. March 27, 2013).
The County sued R. M. Shoemaker, alleging faulty construction of an addition to a correctional institution. The County alleged Shoemaker negligently supervised its subcontractor, thereby permitting the subcontractor to engage in willful misconduct, resulting in damage to structural elements of the correctional institution. The County alleged that Shoemaker's negligence permitted water to intrude, damaging the electrical systems, acoustic ceilings and miscellaneous equipment.
Zurich sought a declaratory judgment that it was not required to defend or indemnify Shoemaker. The district court granted Zurich summary judgment. Relying on Pennsylvania law, the district court found that the allegations in the underlying action did not arise from an occurrence.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred EyerlyMr. Eyerly can be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
EPA Expands Energy Star, Adds Indoor airPLUS
February 05, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFBuilder Magazine reported that the EPA has added a new energy certification program, Indoor airPLUS. Builder Beazer Homes has “embraced the initiative,” according to Builder, and all of its homes in the Phoenix division is Indoor airPLUS certified. Brian Shanks, purchasing manager for Beazer, explained to builder about some of the additional requirements: “It requires some additional air-sealing techniques and other HVAC and ventilation things.” According to Builder, the indoor air quality program is designed to especially help those who suffer from respiratory issues.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick are JD Supra’s 2020 Readers’ Choice Award Recipients
July 13, 2020 —
Christopher Kendrick & Valerie A. Moore – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPHaight is thrilled to announce that Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick are receiving JD Supra’s 2020 Readers’ Choice Awards. The award acknowledges top authors and firms for their thought leadership in key topics during 2019. This is Valerie’s third JD Supra Readers’ Choice Award and Christopher’s second.
Specifically, Valerie and Chris receive the following recognition for the level of visibility and engagement our firm and authors attained in 2019, from among thousands of others, with readers of these topics:
Valerie Moore – a top author in Insurance
Christopher Kendrick – a top author in Insurance
JD Supra’s Readers Choice Awards
The Readers’ Choice Awards recognize top authors and firms who were read by C-suite executives, in-house counsel, media and other professionals across the JD Supra platform during 2019.
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
Mold Due to Construction Defects May Temporarily Close Fire Station
October 25, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFFire Station 5 in Chino, California is about to undergo mold remediation. Ruben Martinez, the city’s Public Works Director, expects the station to be closed during remediation. “We’d like to get the firemen out of there so there isn’t any potential infection or worker’s compensation issues,” he said. However, Fire Department Captain Steve Harrison did not think the station needed to be closed. “We are adamant the station stays staffed while the remediation work is completed.”
The mold came about due to problems the station has had with roof leaks since its opening in 1999. The current set of repairs will cost between $12,000 and $25,000, and the city is discussing matters with its insurer to determine who will pay for the repairs. It’ won’t be the original contractor, as the building is past the 10-year limit for construction defect claims. Even if a claim were possible, the contractor who built the building is bankrupt.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Killer Subcontract Provisions
January 20, 2020 —
Patrick McNamara - Porter Law GroupWe are frequently requested by subcontractor clients to review the subcontract that has been prepared by the prime contractor, before our client signs it. While no two agreements are identical, there are a number of problematic contract provisions that appear in many agreements. Here is a list of ten such provisions (and their variations) that are potential “deal breakers”:
- PAY IF/WHEN PAID (e.g. “Contractor shall have the right to exhaust all legal remedies, including appeals, prior to having an obligation to pay Subcontractor.”) “Pay-if-paid” provisions (“Receipt of payment from Owner shall be a condition precedent to Contractor’s duty to pay Subcontractor”) are illegal in California. However, the only legal limit on “Pay-When-Paid” provisions is that payment must be made “within a reasonable time.” The example above, as written, essentially affords the prime contractor a period of several years following completion of the project before that contractor has an independent duty to pay its subcontractors – not a “reasonable” amount of time, to those waiting to be paid. A compromise is to provide a time limit, such as 6 months or one year following substantial completion of the project.
- CROSS-PROJECT SET-OFF (e.g. “In the event of disputes or default by Subcontractor, Contractor shall have the right to withhold sums due Subcontractor on this Project and on any other project on which Subcontractor is performing work for Contractor.”) Such provisions are problematic and likely unenforceable, as they potentially bar subcontractors’ lien rights. Such provisions should be deleted.
- CONTRACTOR/SUBCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESIGN QUALITY (e.g. “Subcontractor warrants that the Work shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”) Unless a subcontractor’s scope of work expressly includes design work, this provision should either be deleted or modified, with the addition of the following phrase: “Subcontractor shall not be responsible for conformance of the design of its work to applicable laws, codes, statutes, standards, and ordinances.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick McNamara, Porter Law GroupMr. McNamara may be contacted at
pmcnamara@porterlaw.com
Even with LEED, Clear Specifications and Proper Documentation are Necessary
December 31, 2014 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsA recent lawsuit filed in California over the proper documentation necessary for LEED certification (discussed in detail at the Green Building Law Update) emphasizes the fact that, no matter how detailed the LEED certification process seems to be, a mere reference to that process or a certain level of LEED certification is far from sufficient to assure a smooth project.
While I don’t practice in California and don’t have any idea how the lawsuit will turn out, the fact that there is litigation over even the basics of LEED like documentation shows the clear necessity to make sure that your specifications and contract documents are specific and clear from the beginning. Owners, General Contractors and Subcontractors need to remember this fact at all times and particularly in situations where, like in the instance of LEED, the “specification” seems to be set out by others.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PCMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
