Dealing with Hazardous Substances on the Construction Site
July 10, 2018 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsFor this week’s Guest Post Friday here at Construction Law Musings, we welcome Vickie Lane. Vickie is the primary point of contact for Business Development with HAZMAT Plans & Programs, a consulting and training firm that also works under the name of HP&P Safety. Vickie’s functions with HP&P include extensive pre-project research and support though estimating, planning and cost administration. Vickie attended Ohio State University and now enjoys her role as a first time grandmother and spending free time up in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Vickie can be reached at vlane@hppsafety.com or on Twitter @HAZMATPlans and @hpandpsafety.
Most of us perceive hazards on a construction site to be those that can be readily visualized or perhaps easily imagined, like trench cave-ins or falls from heights. These are the obvious, but what about the nocuous, microscopic hazards that can’t be seen by the human eye, but can destroy the health of your workers? Welcome to the world of hazardous materials.
The inherent danger associated with hazardous substances is workers might not be not aware of exposure. Think of a snake in the dark scenario. If it is a rattlesnake, you have warning before the bite. A cobra on the other hand gives no such warning and the bite can be fatal. So it can be with hazardous and toxic substances.
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
Quick Note: Subcontractor Payment Bond = Common Law Payment Bond
February 16, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhat is a common law payment bond? A common law payment bond is a bond not required or governed by a statute. For example, if a prime contractor provides the owner a payment bond, that bond will be a statutory payment bond. On the other hand, if a subcontractor provides the general contractor with a payment bond, that bond will be a common law payment bond. Why? Because there is not a statute that specifically governs the requirements of a subcontractor’s payment bond given to a general contractor. The subcontractor’s payment bond is aimed at protecting the general contractor (and the general contractor’s payment bond) in the event the subcontractor fails to pay its own subcontractors and suppliers. The subcontractor’s payment bond will generally identify that claimants, as defined by the bond, are those subcontractors and suppliers the subcontractor has failed to pay. This common law payment bond is not recorded in the public records so sometimes it can be challenging for a claimant (anyone unpaid working under the subcontractor that furnished the bond) to obtain a copy of the bond. With that said, an unpaid claimant should consider pursuing a copy of this bond in certain situations, particularly if it may not have preserved a claim against the general contractor’s statutory payment bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Out of Eastern Europe, a Window Into the Post-Pandemic Office
September 28, 2020 —
Andra Timu & Irina Vilcu - BloombergSpecial quarantine rooms. Floor-to-ceiling walls in bathroom stalls. Touchless entrances that take your temperature. This is what telecommunications company Ericsson’s office building in Bucharest looks like after coronavirus. The space has become the pilot for a 100-prong coronavirus standard that a real estate investor in Eastern Europe is pitching as a new global “immune” building standard.
Liviu Tudor, president of the Brussels-based European Property Federation, hopes the standard will convince more employees to go back to work. He’s gathered a team of experts in construction, health care and engineering, such as such as Adrian Streinu-Cercel, the head of Bucharest's biggest infectious diseases hospital, to develop three tiers of “immune” building certifications that he says are intended to make indoor spaces “pandemic proof.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Andra Timu & Irina Vilcu, Bloomberg
NLRB Broadens the Joint Employer Standard
September 17, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorPerhaps in anticipation of Labor Day, the National Labor Relations Board issued its ruling in Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. d/b/a BFI Newby Island Recyclery, establishing an easier standard for unions to prove that a joint employer relationship exists. This will make it easier for unions to make the upstream company, like a parent company, liable for unfair labor practices, even if the upstream company had no direct involvement.
Some Background
BFI runs a recycling plant and contracts with Leadpoint to provide workers to sort garbage in the recycling plant. The staffing agreement specifically stated that Leadpoint was the sole employer of the personnel it supplied and Leadpoint handled supervision of the employees, not BFI.
Leadpoint’s employees sought to unionize and an election was held. The union filed a petition seeking a determination that Leadpoint and BFI were a joint employers.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Citigroup Reaches $1.13 Billion Pact Over Mortgage Bonds
April 09, 2014 —
Dakin Campbell – BloombergCitigroup Inc. (C) agreed to pay $1.13 billion to settle claims from mortgage-bond investors as it seeks to curb liabilities tied to the financial crisis. It took a $100 million first-quarter charge.
The 68 securitization trusts covered by the settlement issued a combined $59.4 billion in mortgage-backed securities from 2005 to 2008, the New York-based bank said yesterday in a statement. The agreement covers 18 investors represented by Gibbs & Bruns LLP and trustees have until June 30 to accept the deal, the law firm said in a separate statement. The accord must be approved by the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Citigroup, the third-biggest U.S. bank, is resolving a portion of liabilities tied to mortgages it packaged and sold to investors in the run-up to the 2008 crisis. JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Bank of America Corp. (BAC), the two largest U.S. lenders, previously agreed to multibillion-dollar settlements with Gibbs & Bruns clients.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dakin Campbell, BloombergMr. Campbell may be contacted at
dcampbell27@bloomberg.net
California Appellate Court Holds “Minimal Causal Connection” Satisfies Causation Requirement in All Risk Policies
July 20, 2020 —
Scott P. DeVries & Michael S. Levine - Hunton Andrews KurthOn May 26, 2020, a California Court of Appeals (4th District) issued its decision in Mosley et al. v. Pacific Specialty Ins. Co. The case arose in the context of a marijuana-growing tenant who rerouted a home’s electrical system and caused an electrical fire. The issue was whether the homeowner’s policy covered the loss. The trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and, in a divided decision, the Court of Appeals reversed in part.
The policy excluded losses “resulting from any manufacturing, production or operation, engaged in … the growing of plants.” The parties agreed that the fire resulted from the rewiring of the electrical system, but disagreed on “whether that means the damage” “result[ed] from” “the growing of plants.” The Court held that “resulting from” “broadly links a factual situation with the event creating liability, and connotes only a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship.” In doing so, it equated the terms “results from” and “arising from.” Concluding that a “common sense” approach was to be used, it found a “minimal causal connection” to be present. This expansive standard could be beneficial to policyholders in arguing the causal connection between COVID-19 and ensuing business interruption losses; specifically, that the pandemic, a covered event, is the underlying and proximate cause of the insureds’ physical loss and/or damage and the insured’s resulting business interruption loss, and that intervening events, whether they be orders of civil authority, prevention of ingress/egress or otherwise, would not sever the chain of causation.
Reprinted courtesy of
Scott P. DeVries, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. DeVries may be contacted at sdevries@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pollution Exclusion Bars Coverage for Inverse Condemnation Action
June 02, 2016 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe South Carolina Court of Appeals found there was no coverage for an inverse condemnation action based upon the policy's pollution exclusion. South Carolina Ins. Reserve Fund v. E. Richland County Public Service District, 2016 S. C. App. LEXIS 32 (S.C. Ct. App. March 23, 2016).
In 2010, Coley Brown filed a complaint against the East Richland County Public Service District ("District") for inverse condemnation, trespass, and negligence. The complaint alleged that the District had installed a sewage force main line and an air relief valve on Brown's street, and the valve released offensive odors on his property many times a day. The stench caused Brown to buy a new piece of property and move, but he was unable to sell the old property. The district tendered the complaint to the South Carolina Insurance Reserve Fund ("Fund"), but coverage was denied.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Be Strategic When Suing a Manufacturer Under a Warranty with an Arbitration Provision
October 02, 2023 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesI’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: arbitration is a creature of contract. If you don’t want to arbitrate, don’t agree to an arbitration provision as the means to resolve your dispute. Now, with that said, there are times you may not have a choice. An arbitration provision in a warranty from a manufacturer of a product is an example. If you are procuring the product, you are agreeing to the terms of the express warranty. Manufacturers are not negotiating their product warranty on a case-by-case basis considering they are not typically the ones selling the product directly to the end user. This does not mean that is a bad thing. It just means if you elect to sue the manufacturer directly for an alleged product defect or under the terms of the warranty, you should read the warranty and consider the strategic aspect that suing the manufacturer will have on your case.
In SICIS North America, Inc. v Sadie’s Hideaway, LLC, 48 Fla.L.Weekly D1581c (Fla. 1st DCA 2023), an owner elected to sue a tile manufacturer, a general contractor, the architect, and a window and door company. One of the arguments the owner raised was that exterior tiles installed were defective. The tiles were procured by the general contractor. The owner sued the general contractor under various theories and sued the tile manufacturer for breaches of warranty and negligence. The general contractor asserted a crossclaim for indemnification against the tile manufacturer. The tile manufacturer moved to compel the owner’s claim and the general contractor’s crossclaim to arbitration since there was an arbitration provision in the warranty documents and the general contractor’s indemnification claim arose from that transaction. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the appellate court reversed:
First, because [the owner] was suing [the tile manufacturer] based upon the written warranty, it was bound by the arbitration provision contained in [the general contractor’s] agreement with [the tile manufacturer]. As the Florida Supreme Court has explained, “[W]hen a plaintiff sues under a contract to which the plaintiff is not a party . . . we will ordinarily enforce an arbitration clause contained in that contract, absent some other valid defense. . . .” . [The owner] had no valid defense against arbitration, a fact which it apparently realized when it voluntarily dismissed its express warranty claim after the notice of appeal and initial brief were filed.
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
