Coverage for Injury to Insured’s Employee Not Covered
June 10, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe employee exclusions in the employer's CGL and Umbrella policies barred coverage. Piatt v. Indiana Lumbermen's Mut. Ins. Co., 2015 Mo. LEXIS 32 (Mo. April 28, 2015).
Linda Nunley was killed while working for Missouri Hardwood Charcoal, Inc. The kiln's large steel door had been removed and was leaning upright against another kiln when it blew over and crushed Ms. Nunley. Her family filed a wrongful death suit against Junior Flowers, the company's sole owner, director, and executive officer. The complaint alleged that Flowers was negligent in ordering employees to lean the kiln doors upright, even though he knew it was unsafe. The complaint further alleged that Flowers breached a personal duty of care owed to Ms. Nunley and that his actions were "something more" that a breach of the company's duty to provide a safe workplace.
Flowers requested a defense under CGL and Umbrella policies issued by Lumbermen's. The policies insured Missouri Hardwood and its executive officers, but excluded liability for a work-related injury to an "employee of the insured." The policies also had a "separation of insureds" provision, stating that the insurance applied "separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought." Lumbermen's denied coverage.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Miller Act Payment Bond Surety Bound to Arbitration Award
December 29, 2020 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesHere is an interesting case binding a Miller Act payment bond surety to an arbitration award against its prime contractor (bond principal) that it received sufficient notice of. Notice is the operative word. The surety could have participated in the arbitration, elected not to, and when its prime contractor (bond principal) lost the arbitration, it was NOT given another bite out of the apple to litigate facts already been decided.
In BRC Uluslararasi Taahut VE Ticaret A.S. v. Lexon Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6801933 (D. Maryland 2020), a prime contractor was hired by the federal government to make security upgrades and interior renovations to a United States embassy in the Czech Republic. The prime contractor hired a subcontractor to perform all of the installed contract work. The prime contractor terminated the subcontractor for default during the course of construction.
The subcontractor demanded arbitration in accordance with the subcontract claiming it was wrongfully terminated. The subcontractor also filed a lawsuit asserting a Miller Act payment bond claim against the prime contractor’s surety (as well as a breach of contract action against the prime contractor). The subcontractor made clear it intended to pursue its claims in arbitration and hold the payment bond surety jointly and severally liable. The parties agreed to stay the lawsuit since the facts were identical to those being arbitrated. The arbitration went forward and an award was entered in favor of the subcontractor and against the prime contractor for approximately $2.3 Million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
New York Climate Mobilization Act Update: Reducing Carbon Emissions and Funding Solutions
August 30, 2021 —
Caroline A. Harcourt - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate BlogIn our June 16 CMA Update, we discussed how the New York City Climate Mobilization Act (CMA) will affect building owners and the market for CMBS mortgage loans (loans pooled and resold as commercial mortgage-backed securities). (For more information on C-PACE financing, see Sustainable Buildings and Development: Carbon Emissions and the Recent Climate Mobilization Act of New York City.) In this update, we will outline some of the funding solutions that are available to New York City building owners looking to retrofit their buildings in order to comply with the CMA’s requirements.
Funding Solutions for Covered Building Owners
The cost of retrofitting buildings to incorporate energy efficient features and to achieve compliance with the CMA can be daunting.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Caroline A. Harcourt, PillsburyMs. Harcourt may be contacted at
caroline.harcourt@pillsburylaw.com
Anti-Fracking Win in N.Y. Court May Deal Blow to Industry
July 01, 2014 —
Chris Dolmetsch, Freeman Klopott and Jim Efstathiou Jr. – BloombergNew York’s cities and towns can block hydraulic fracturing within their borders, the state’s highest court ruled, dealing a blow to an industry awaiting Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision on whether to lift a six-year-old statewide moratorium.
The case, closely watched by the energy industry, may invigorate local challenges to fracking in other states and convince the industry to stay out of New York even if Cuomo allows drilling. Pennsylvania’s highest court issued a similar ruling last year, striking down portions of a state law limiting localities’ ability to regulate drillers.
“This sends a really strong and clear message to the gas companies who have tried to buy their way into the state that these community concerns have to be addressed,” Katherine Nadeau, policy director for Environmental Advocates of New York, an anti-fracking group, said in a phone interview. “This will empower more communities nationwide.”
Mr. Dolmetsch may be contacted at cdolmetsch@bloomberg.net; Mr. Klopott may be contacted at fklopott@bloomberg.net; and Mr. Efstathiou Jr. may be contacted at jefstathiou@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Chris Dolmetsch, Freeman Klopott and Jim Efstathiou Jr., Bloomberg
Columbus, Ohio’s Tallest Building to be Inspected for Construction Defects
July 16, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFFox 28 news reported that “[t]he state of Ohio is going to spend more than $166,000 to inspect…the 40-year-old Rhodes Tower” in Columbus.
"They're going to look at the exterior of the building - [at] sealants between the joints, the condition of the panels, the window systems, how they're draining, how they're operating, and how they're sealed," Ned Thiell, of Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, told ABC 6/FOX 28 news.
A study completed last year declared there were “’deficiencies’ on the building’s stone covering” and there were “panels with severe fracture defects” that “will need to be replaced with new stone panels.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
An Overview of the New EPA HVAC Refrigerant Regulations and Its Implications for the Construction Industry
September 30, 2024 —
Stefanie A. Salomon, Nadia Ennaji & Ali Heyat - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently announced a series of significant changes to the rules governing the use of refrigerants in heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. These changes, which were promulgated under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act, are designed to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a class of potent greenhouse gases.
The AIM Act: A Game-Changer for HVAC Industry
The recent changes to refrigerant regulations by the EPA signify a substantial shift in environmental policy that will have profound implications for the construction industry. For the construction industry, this means a transition to next-generation technologies that do not rely on HFCs. The AIM Act’s sector-based restrictions will affect a wide range of equipment, including refrigeration and air conditioning systems integral to building design and function.
Starting January 1, 2025, the manufacturing or importing of any product in specified sectors that uses a regulated substance with a global warming potential of 700 or greater is prohibited (40 C.F.R. § 84.54(a)). The specified sectors listed include R-410A, the most common refrigerant used in the HVAC industry. The installation of systems using a regulated substance with a global warming potential of 700 or greater in specified sectors is allowed until January 1, 2026, provided that all system components are manufactured or imported before January 1, 2025. See 40 C.F.R. § 84.54 (c). “Installation” of an HVAC system is defined as the completion of assembling the system’s circuit, including charging it with a full charge, such that the system can function and is ready for its intended purpose. See 40 C.F.R. § 84.52.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stefanie A. Salomon, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Nadia Ennaji, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Ms. Salomon may be contacted at ssalomon@pecklaw.com
Ms. Ennaji may be contacted at nennaji@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Washington State Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision on Spearin Doctrine
September 29, 2021 —
Cameron Sheldon - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCThe Washington State Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lake Hills Invs., LLC v. Rushforth Constr. Co. No. 99119-7, slip op. at 1 (Wash. Sept. 2, 2021) marks the first time in over 50 years that it has ruled on the Spearin doctrine. The Court’s opinion clarified the contractor’s burden when asserting a Spearin defense and affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of contractor AP Rushforth Construction Company (AP). The decision is a major win for Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC attorneys Scott Sleight, Brett Hill, and Nick Korst, who represented AP throughout its long-running dispute with Lake Hills Investments, LLC (LH), including the two-month jury trial and the appeal. Leonard Feldman of Peterson | Wampold | Rosato | Feldman | Luna and Stephanie Messplay of Van Siclen Stocks & Firkins also represented AP on appeal.
At trial, the owner—Lake Hills Investments, LLC (LH)—asserted it was entitled to $3 million in liquidated damages and $12.3 million for defects it alleged were caused by AP’s deficient workmanship. AP denied responsibility for the delays and most of the defects and requested payment of $5 million. Regarding LH’s defect claims, AP argued as an affirmative defense that the defects were caused by deficiencies in the plans and specifications provided by LH. This affirmative defense was rooted in the Spearin doctrine, which states that when the contractor follows plans and specifications provided by the owner, the contractor is not responsible for defects caused by the plans and specifications.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron Sheldon, Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCMs. Sheldon may be contacted at
cameron.sheldon@acslawyers.com
Liability Insurer Precluded from Intervening in Insured’s Lawsuit
September 17, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere are cases where I honestly do no fully understand the insurer’s position because it cannot have its cake and eat it too. The recent opinion in Houston Specialty Insurance Company v. Vaughn, 43 Fla. L. Weekly D1828a (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) is one of those cases because on one hand it tried hard to disclaim coverage and on the other hand tried to intervene in the underlying suit where it was not a named party.
This case dealt with a personal injury dispute where a laborer for a pressure washing company fell off of a roof and became a paraplegic. The injured person sued the pressure washing company and its representatives. The company and representatives tendered the case to its general liability insurer and the insurer–although it provided a defense under a reservation of rights—filed a separate action for declaratory relief based on an exclusion in the general liability policy that excluded coverage for the pressure washing company’s employees (because the general liability policy is not a workers compensation policy). This is known as the employer’s liability exclusion that excludes coverage for bodily injury to an employee. The insurer’s declaratory relief action sought a declaration that there was no coverage because the injured laborer was an employee of the pressure washing company. The pressure washing company claimed he was an independent contractor, in which the policy did provide limited coverage pursuant to an endorsement.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
