Using Lien and Bond Claims to Secure Project Payments
March 01, 2021 —
Jonathan Cheatham - Construction ExecutiveWhile suing in court for payment on a construction project is nothing new, the very notion of non-payment tends evokes images of hard-working contractors and subcontractors, working with tight margins, owed payment for services rendered and materials. Fortunately, for general contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry, there are better remedies for securing payment on a project before it becomes a bigger issue.
Construction projects, especially large public ones, usually include a dizzying array of general contractors, subcontractors and independent contractors, sometimes numbering more than a hundred entities. The inter-connected groups of companies working toward the goal of project completion require competent construction management in order to stay on time and on budget for completion. One of the project owner’s key tools used to ensure the process runs smoothly is the use of payment bonds and surety bonds.
Payment Bonds
Payment bonds ensure that contractors and subcontractors get paid for work performed in accordance with contract conditions. Disputes can occur before, during and even after the completion of work. Injunctive lawsuits, which contemplate the stoppage of work, would be detrimental to completing a public or private construction project of substantial size. Rather than having such minor disputes derail the entire project, the aggrieved party’s remedy is to file a claim against the payment bond, which offers a solution designed to keep the issue separate from the project’s completion. The payment bond also allows the project owner to transfer risk.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jonathan Cheatham, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Allegations That COVID-19 Was Physically Present and Altered Property are Sufficient to Sustain COVID-19 Business Interruption Suit
May 24, 2021 —
Michael S. Levine & Joseph T. Niczky - Hunton Insurance Recovery BlogOn Wednesday, a federal judge in Texas denied Factory Mutual’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that the plaintiffs adequately alleged that the presence of COVID-19 on their property caused covered physical loss or damage in the case of Cinemark Holdings, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance Co., No. 4:21-CV-00011 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2021). This is the third COVID-19-related business interruption decision from Judge Amos Mazzant since March, but the first in favor of a policyholder. Taken together, the three decisions have two key takeaways and provide a roadmap for policyholders in all jurisdictions.
First, the Cinemark decision recognizes that the alleged presence of COVID-19 viral particles that physically altered the policyholder’s property is sufficient under federal pleading standards and controlling state law. In its motion, FM relied on Judge Mazzant’s recent decision in Selery Fulfillment, Inc. v. Colony Insurance Co., No. 4:20-CV-853, 2021 WL 963742 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2021), which dismissed a lawsuit alleging that the policyholder’s losses were caused by government orders that closed its business, rather than from the actual presence of the virus on its property. The Court held that government orders alone do not constitute physical loss or damage, and declined to rule on whether the physical presence of the virus does. Judge Mazzant reached the same conclusion weeks later in Aggie Investments, L.L.C. v. Continental Casualty Co., No. 4:21-CV-0013, 2021 WL 1550479 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2021).
Reprinted courtesy of
Michael S. Levine, Hunton Andrews Kurth and
Joseph T. Niczky, Hunton Andrews Kurth
Mr. Levine may be contacted at mlevine@HuntonAK.com
Mr. Niczky may be contacted at jniczky@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nancy Conrad Recognized in Lehigh Valley Business 2024 Power in Law List
July 31, 2024 —
White and Williams LLPNancy Conrad, Chair of the Higher Education Group, Managing Partner of the Lehigh Valley Office and the President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association (PBA), has been named to the Lehigh Valley Business 2024 Power in Law List, for her work as a leader in the legal field.
This year’s honorees were asked to relate inspiration that pushed the pursuit of their career. One of her inspirations, as explained by Nancy in the article, was the opportunity to instruct and impact students while teaching during the day and pursuing a legal career in the evening at Temple Law which cemented a “commitment to excellence in the practice of law and service to the community.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
White and Williams LLP
The Washington Supreme Court Rules that a Holder of a Certificate of Insurance Is Entitled to Coverage
March 09, 2020 —
Sally Kim & Kyle Silk-Eglit - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Washington courts have historically found that the purpose of a certificate of insurance is to advise others as to the existence of insurance, but that a certificate is not the equivalent of an insurance policy. However, the Washington State Supreme Court recently held that, under certain circumstances, an insurer may be bound by the representations that its insurance agent makes in a certificate of insurance as to the additional insured (“AI”) status of a third party. Specifically, in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, the Supreme Court found that where an insurance agent had erroneously indicated in a certificate of insurance that an entity was an AI under a liability policy, that entity would be considered as an AI based upon the agent’s apparent authority, despite boilerplate disclaimer language contained in the certificate. T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Selective Ins. Co. of America, Slip. Op. No. 96500-5, 2019 WL 5076647 (Wash. Oct. 10, 2019).
In this case, Selective Insurance Company of America (“Selective”) issued a liability policy to a contractor who had been retained by T-Mobile Northeast (“T-Mobile NE”) to construct a cell tower. The policy conferred AI status to a third party if the insured-contractor had agreed in a written contract to add the third party as an AI to the policy. Under the terms of the subject construction contract, the contractor was required to name T-Mobile NE as an AI under the policy. T-Mobile NE was therefore properly considered as an AI because the contractor was required to provide AI coverage to T-Mobile NE under the terms of their contract.
However, over the course of approximately seven years, Selective’s own insurance agent issued a series of certificates of insurance that erroneously identified a different company, “T-Mobile USA”, as an AI under the policy. This was in error because there was no contractual requirement that T-Mobile USA be added as an AI. Nonetheless, the certificates stated that T-Mobile USA was an AI, and they were signed by the agent as Selective’s “authorized representative.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Sally S. Kim, Gordon & Rees and
Kyle J. Silk-Eglit, Gordon & Rees
Ms. Kim may be contacted at sallykim@grsm.com
Mr. Silk-Eglit may be contacted at ksilkeglit@grsm.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
President Trump Nullifies “Volks Rule” Regarding Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Recordkeeping Requirements
April 13, 2017 —
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPOSHA requires employers to maintain safety records for a period of five years. The Occupational Safety and Health Act contains a six month statute of limitations for OSHA to issue citations to employers for violations. In an effort to close the gap between the five years employers are required to keep records and the six month citation window, the Obama Administration implemented the “Volks Rule,” making recordkeeping requirements a “continuing obligation” for employers and effectively extending the statute of limitations for violations of recordkeeping requirements from six months to five years.
On March 22, 2017, the Senate approved a House Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 83) nullifying the “Volks Rule” and limiting the statute of limitations to six months for recordkeeping violations. President Trump signed the resolution nullifying the “Volks Rule” on April 3, 2017. The nullification appears to be in line with President Trump’s stated goal of generally eliminating governmental regulations.
What Does This Mean for California Employers?
California manages its own OSHA program, which generally follows the federal program, but is not always in lock-step with Federal OSHA. Cal/OSHA, under its current rules, may only cite employers for recordkeeping violations that occurred during the six months preceding an inspection or review of those records. To date, there has been no indication that California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) has plans to adopt the “Volks Rule.” Barring a change, California employers will continue to operate under the status quo and be required to maintain safety records for five years, but will only be exposed to citations for recordkeeping violations occurring within the last six months.
Current Cal/OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements
Cal/OSHA form 300 (also known as the “OSHA Log 300”) is used to record information about every work-related death and most work-related injuries that cannot be treated with onsite first aid (specific requirements can be found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sections 14300 through 14300.48). Currently, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 14300.33 requires employers to retain OSHA Log 300 for a period of five years following the end of the calendar year during which the record was created, despite the fact that Cal/OSHA can only cite employers for failing to maintain such records for up to six months preceding an inspection.
Looking to the Future
Cal/OSHA is working on regulations that would require electronic submission of OSHA Log 300 records in California. This would bring Cal/OSHA more in line with Federal OSHA, which already requires electronic submission.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Louis "Dutch" Schotemeyer, Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMr. Schotemeyer may be contacted at
dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Is It Time to Digitize Safety?
October 24, 2022 —
Peter Grant - Construction ExecutiveIt’s valid to ask whether digitizing a safety program actually makes companies safer. Here is what the data says.
All contractors face unique risks that call for custom safety measures. But they also face a handful of similar challenges in this area—including time-consuming paperwork, scattered documentation, as well as a lack of visibility into safety performance.
A new report from Foresight Commercial Insurance, “The State of Safety in High Hazard Work Environments,” offers insights into companies’ safety struggles and points to possible solutions. Based on a survey of workers from high-risk industries like construction, the report outlines challenges that are painfully familiar. For example, four out of 10 respondents reported that they have felt pressured to work unsafely in order to complete tasks more quickly or to meet upcoming deadlines.
Reprinted courtesy of
Peter Grant, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Professional Liability Client Alert: Law Firms Should Consider Hiring Outside Counsel Before Suing Clients For Unpaid Fees
March 31, 2014 —
David W. Evans and Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPLaw firms seeking to recover attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in fee dispute litigation with their former client should hire outside counsel in order to avoid waiving any entitlement to such fees. Evaluating any potential exposure for a professional negligence claim or cross-claim before filing suit should also be considered. In Soni v. Wellmike Enterprise Company, Ltd., et al., No. B242288 (filed March 26, 2014) the California Court of Appeal for the Second District held that a law firm, represented by its own employees and associates, was not entitled to recover attorney fees as the prevailing party, pursuant to the attorney’s fee provision in the retainer agreement. The Soni decision is the latest addition to the general prohibition enunciated by Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274 (“Trope”) and its progeny that law firms are precluded from recovering attorney’s fees for self-representation.
In Soni, the law firm obtained a $28,384 judgment for delinquent legal fees against a former client. The firm then filed a motion for attorney’s fees, seeking $120,912 as the fees it incurred as the prevailing party under the retainer agreement. The trial court denied the motion based on the general rule set forth in the Trope line of cases that fees are not recoverable where the firm is represented by attorneys employed by the firm, despite the presence in the applicable retainer agreement of a clause notifying the client that fees the law firm would seek if it prevailed would include those for its in-house personnel.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Blythe Golay, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com; Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Penn Station’s Revival Gets a $1.6 Billion Down Payment
February 08, 2021 —
James S. Russell - BloombergThe newly opened Moynihan Train Hall at New York Penn Station, America’s busiest rail hub, is the culmination of a vision that New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan first promoted in the early 1990s. Moynihan, a champion of civic-minded federal architecture, proposed converting a portion of the Farley Post Office building to expand the crowded and much-unloved Penn Station facilities underneath Madison Square Garden. That scheme was repeatedly delayed, but on January 1, 2021, the result of those efforts – a $1.6 billion train hall designed by architectural firm Skidmore, Owings & Merrill (SOM) – welcomed its first passengers.
It’s a beautiful new space. Roofed by elegant bubbles of glass tensioned by almost-invisible cables, the shafts of daylight in contrast to the gloom of the long-neglected Penn Station are heartening. The hall is lined by glass-walled ticket offices for the Long Island Railroad and Amtrak. Sleek new escalators descend to the platforms. Airy new entrances draw passengers from the west. Above one entrance, breakdancers ebulliently leap from cloud to cloud in a stained-glass sky — an artwork by Kehinde Wiley. Above the other, an abstract skyline by Elmgreen & Dragset hangs overhead like urban stalactites. A waiting room evokes a suavely Art Deco diner. Moynihan Hall is a bracing restorative vision, at a time when rail travel needs all the help it can get.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James S. Russell, Bloomberg
